Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "862", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I often hear Japanese using a different method for saying a number like \"248\"\nas によんぱ — especially for highways and license plates.\n\nWhile this one is easy to understand, there are others that I don't quite\nunderstand. Could someone provide a list of the different pronunciations of\neach number?\n\n\"2525\" being ニコニコ is probably a good example of what I'm talking about.\n\n> 1:い \n> 2:に \n> 3: \n> 4:よん \n> 5:こ \n> 6: \n> 7: \n> 8:は、ぱ \n> 9:", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T03:34:58.777", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "853", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-24T17:49:09.913", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-24T17:49:09.913", "last_editor_user_id": "85", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "slang", "numbers", "puns" ], "title": "Rules for slang of Japanese numbers", "view_count": 3384 }

[ { "body": "There is no rule per se and an exhaustive list will need to be in a form of\ncommunity wiki to be editable by everyone.\n\nA mix of \"on-\" and \"kun-\" readings (without the last consonant) + some English\npronunciation + some kana modification will work.\n\nI'll list what I've heard with some example if possible: (I'm sure there are\nsome commercial playing on these to advertise their phone numbers as well as a\nlot of other puns with numbers)\n\n> 0: オ (0840 = おはよう), レイ, マル \n> 1: ィ (0141 = おいしい) \n> 2: ツ, 二 \n> 3: サン （～さん）, サ, ミ \n> 4: シ, ヨ (4649 = よろしく) \n> 5: ゴ, ィ \n> 6: ロ (168 = いろは), ム (361 = さむい) \n> 7: ナ (723 = なつみ) \n> 8: パ (883 = パパさん), ハ \n> 9: ク (931 = くさい) \n> 10: ト, トウ, テン", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:13:03.733", "id": "856", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T09:04:40.547", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T09:04:40.547", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "853", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As with @repecmps's answer, there's no real set rule, but often businesses\nwill make up catchy words so that you can easily remember them. For example,\nthe phone number 0840-0141 could be おはよう、おいしい to remind you of a breakfast\ndiner. Also, people with the last name Saito (さいとう) often attach 3110 (3-さ,\n1-い, 10-とう) to their email address, screen names, etc. You just have to be\nclever.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:24:01.277", "id": "857", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:24:01.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "853", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "That's called 語呂合わせ and you could find full article at\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AA%9E%E5%91%82%E5%90%88%E3%82%8F%E3%81%9B).\n\nQuoted from\n[Wikepedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AA%9E%E5%91%82%E5%90%88%E3%82%8F%E3%81%9B#.E6.95.B0.E5.AD.97.E3.81.AE.E6.9A.97.E8.A8.98)\n\n> 1 : いち、い、ひとつ、ひと\n>\n> 2 : に、ふたつ、ふた、ふ、つ（英語から）、じ\n>\n> 3 : さん、さ、みっつ、みつ、み\n>\n> 4 : よん、よ、よっつ、し、ふぉ（英語から）、ほ\n>\n> 5 : ご、こ、い、いつつ、いつ\n>\n> 6 : ろく、ろ、むっつ、むつ、む\n>\n> 7 : しち、ななつ、なな、な\n>\n> 8 : はち、は、ぱあ、やっつ、やつ、や、やあ\n>\n> 9 : きゅう、きゅ、く、ここのつ、ここの、こ\n>\n> 0 : れい、れ、ぜろ、ない、わ（字形から）、まる（字形から）、おー（アルファベットのOから。）", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:59:52.430", "id": "862", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:59:52.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "853", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "855", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm a big fan of the Japanese fast food gyudon (cooked thinly sliced beef\nstrips on top of a bowl of boiled white rice) and its variants such as butadon\n(the same but with pork).\n\nBut why do some chain restaurants call it \"gyudon\" and others \"gyumeshi\"? Are\nboth spelled the same?\n\nAlso at my local Japanese restaurant at home in Australia they seem to sell\nthis dish but never understand me when I ask for gyudon. Does it have other\nnames or are there simply dishes which seem alike to ignorant foreigners like\nme?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T03:41:09.003", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "854", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:08:22.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "synonyms", "food" ], "title": "What is the difference between \"meshi\" and \"don\" for the food sometimes translated as \"rice bowl\" in English?", "view_count": 3999 }

[ { "body": "The 丼 _donburi_ in 牛丼 _gyūdon_ specifically denotes a _bowl of rice_. \nThe 飯 _meshi_ in 牛飯 _gyūmeshi_ just means _rice_ or even more generically\n_meal_.\n\nBoth describe the same thing:\n\n> ぎゅう‐どん【牛丼】 \n> 「牛飯（ぎゅうめし）」に同じ。\n\n\"See _gyūmeshi_.\"\n\n> ぎゅう‐めし【牛飯】 \n> ネギなどと煮た牛肉を、汁とともにかけたどんぶり飯。牛丼（ぎゅうどん）。\n\n\"A rice meal with onions and fried beef [...]. _Gyūdon._ \"\n\nI'm not sure which one is preferred in which situation, but personally I see\nmore _gyūdon_ in daily life (caveat: I don't eat it too often though). There\nare many specialized kinds of [丼\n_donburi_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%BC), while 飯 _meshi_ can be\nused for almost anything edible and is usually just used in the sense of\n\"meal\". It can also specifically denote _rice_ though, as in 焼飯 _yakimeshi_ \\-\n\"fried rice\", which is more often called チャーハン _chāhan_ though.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:08:22.737", "id": "855", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:08:22.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "854", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "867", "answer_count": 6, "body": "In answer to my question on [the difference between \"gyūdon\" and\n\"gyūmeshi\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/854/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-meshi-and-don-for-the-food-sometimes-translate) I learned\nthat \"meshi\" just means cooked rice. But I thought \"gohan\" meant cooked rice,\nso please, what is the difference?\n\nI do already know that \"go-\" is an honorific prefix and I think I've been told\nthat \"gohan\" can sometimes be used as a general word for food. But is that all\nthere is to it?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:33:55.053", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "858", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-02T07:35:56.653", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "word-choice", "synonyms", "food", "bikago" ], "title": "What's the difference between \"gohan\" and \"meshi\"?", "view_count": 67845 }

[ { "body": "gohan can mean cooked rice as well as a meal, since traditional\njapanese/chinese meals consisted mainly of rice.\n\nMeshi can also mean food in addtion to rice. ひるめし I've heard used for lunch.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:52:34.027", "id": "859", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:52:34.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "One difference other than politeness is when you use with 食 (eat)\n\n> ご飯を食べる (gohan wo **taberu** )\n>\n> めしを食う (meshi wo **kuu** )\n\nand めし is written with hiragana most of the time as far as I noticed.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:53:39.723", "id": "860", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T04:53:39.723", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Observe:\n\n> 飯 _meshi_ \n> ご飯 _gohan_\n\nThey both mean the same thing, which is _(cooked) rice_ and/or _meal_. Since\nrice is an essential part of Japanese cuisine, the two meanings very much\noverlap. As you said, ご〜 _go-_ is an honorific prefix, which makes ご飯 _gohan_\nthe politer alternative used in more polite speech.\n\n> 昼飯 _hirumeshi_ \n> 昼ご飯 _hirugohan_\n\nBoth mean \"lunch\" (lit. \"midday meal/rice\"), but their usage differs based on\npoliteness:\n\n> 昼飯を食ってくる _hirumeshi o kuttekuru_ \\- \"I'll go grab a bite\" (colloquial) \n> 昼ご飯を食べてきます _hirugohan o tabetekimasu_ \\- \"I will go out for lunch\" (polite)\n\n_(translations roughly equated to English usage)_\n\nNote that both 飯 and 食 are the same, yet the pronunciations differ widely for\ndifferent politeness levels. Most words that can be formed with _meshi_ can\nalso be expressed using _gohan_.\n\nSometimes as part of compound words the politeness plays less of a role though\nand it's just the origin of the word that decides the reading:\n\n> 焼き飯 _yakimeshi_ \\- fried rice, Japanese word \n> 炒飯 or チャーハン _chāhan_ \\- fried rice, Chinese word", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T06:43:07.377", "id": "867", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T06:43:07.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "There's really no difference other than politeness. But politeness is a\n**huge** difference in Japanese. For instance, if we take it to the extreme,\nsaying that there's no difference between あなた and 貴様 in Japanese is like\nsaying there's no difference between \"Thank you\" and \"Go to hell.\" in English.\n:)\n\n飯 is not as outrageously impolite as 貴様, but in some situations it would feel\nquite rough. The verb 食う, on the other hand, is probably more impolite than 飯\nand I would avoid using it until you feel comfortable enough with the\nlanguage. 食べる is neutral enough to be used in all informal situations.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T06:52:55.920", "id": "868", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T06:52:55.920", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "ご飯{はん} is the 美化語{びかご} version of 飯{めし}, i.e. a beautified version. Usually\n美化語 has the form of お／ご+the unbeautified version, but ご飯 is an exception.\nAnother exception is 腹{はら}→おなか, belly. はん and なか do not exist by themselves\n(with those meanings).\n\nPlease remember that not all お／ご+noun are 美化語, some are 尊敬語{そんけいご}, respectful\nlanguage. E.g. お車{くるま}, car. Thus you can say おなか about your own belly, but\nnot お車 about your own car.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-28T15:49:22.133", "id": "4470", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-28T15:49:22.133", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "One difference is that gohan is kango (Chinese word), whereas meshi is wago\n(Japanese word).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-09T09:52:44.680", "id": "5787", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-09T12:06:55.663", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-09T12:06:55.663", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "91", "parent_id": "858", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "863", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This is a word I learned by reading and not by studying or in conversation\nwith Japanese.\n\nAfter learning the kana years ago I had occasion to fly with JAL and the pre-\nmeal snack was a little packet of various savoury crunch things like nuts and\nwhat I assume were a kind of rice cracker. Perhaps some included nori. On the\npack in hiragana as I recall was written \"おつまみ\". To what specifically does\nthis refer? I'm often surprised that my Japanophile friends don't know what\nI'm talking about when I use this word.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T04:57:46.507", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "861", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-15T19:20:34.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "definitions", "food" ], "title": "Does \"おつまみ\" (otsumami) mean \"snack\" or \"rice crackers\" or \"crunchy snack\" like chips and peanuts, or something else entirely?", "view_count": 5902 }

[ { "body": "In my understanding, everything you could eat when you drink beer/osake is\notsumami.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T05:04:37.293", "id": "863", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T05:04:37.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "861", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "つまむ can mean \"to grab,\" so anything you can just grab casually and eat\n(usually with some sort of alcohol), or anything you can つまむ, is therefore\nおつまみ. There's lots of words that are just the noun conjugation of verbs,\nespecially in food! (おにぎり、煮物、おひや... okay, not all of those follow the pattern,\nbut you get the idea!) There's also another word つまみ食い, which is essentially\njust eating without or before formally sitting down and saying いただきます.\n\nDried squid legs are one of my favorite おつまみ. Definitely not crunchy.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:38:38.417", "id": "893", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T15:38:38.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45", "parent_id": "861", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Otsumami means everything you pick and eat besides alcohol. In spain, TAPAS.\nIt can be proper cooked food, or snuck.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-10-15T19:20:34.550", "id": "8108", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-15T19:20:34.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1801", "parent_id": "861", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "881", "answer_count": 4, "body": "When do we use たくさん and when do we use 多い? I found both modifiers are used\nwithin similar sentences, for example:\n\n> 人が多かったです \n> 人がたくさんいました\n\nI had this impression that 多い is used with countable nouns (i.e. similar to\n\"many\") while たくさん can be used with both countable and uncountable, but seems\nlike it is used with \"お金\":\n\n> [ふだんの生活で使う **お金が多い**\n> からか――ということです](http://doraku.asahi.com/money/moneygaku/091023_02.html)\n\nAt first, I thought maybe in Japanese language \"お金\" is considered as\ncountable, unlike the word \"money\" in English, but again I realized I was\nwrong when I found:\n\n> [きょうは **水が多い**\n> ですね](http://mytown.asahi.com/shizuoka/news.php?k_id=23000381104180001)\n\nNow I'm thinking that maybe the concepts of countable vs uncountable in\nJapanese are not as significant as in English. It seems to me that both たくさん\nand 多い may be used interchangeably.\n\nAm I right? Or are there actually places where only one of them can be used\nbut not the other?\n\nEDIT:\n\nAdditional question: how are they related to potentially antonyms 少し and 少ない?\nIs 少し antonym of たくさん while 少ない is antonym of 多い, or vice versa, or it does\nnot matter either way?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T05:12:43.197", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "864", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-28T09:48:25.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-09T07:53:14.217", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 44, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage" ], "title": "Usage of たくさん vs. 多い", "view_count": 27002 }

[ { "body": "In response to the found statement:\n\n```\n\n \"今日は水が多いですね\"\n \n```\n\nThis does not make sense. Literally, \"There is a lot of water today.\" So since\nit is not sensible, i would not use it to debunk your thoughts.\n\nLet's consider rain and the two following statements to try and express \"It\nrained a lot today, didn't it?\"\n\n```\n\n 今日は雨がたくさん降りましたね。\n 今日は雨が多く降りましたね。\n \n```\n\nSimply, the second is nonsensical. Here you can see the clear difference\nbetween 多い being countable and たくさん as either countable (as shown in your\nquestion) or uncountable. Instead, what you could say to use 多い and rain would\nbe: (possibly what the initial 水が多い statement was meaning.\n\n`最近雨が多いです`。The frequency was high.\n\nAlso, another thing to take note of for those who are newish to this kind of\ngrammar is that たくさん is an adverb and 多い is an adjective and so the normal\nrules apply. adverb + verb, adjective + be-verb (です) or noun.\n\nNow, to clarify, I am quoting from the Japan Times \"A Dictionary of Basic\nJapanese Grammar\", pg 354. This also slightly contradicts my answer above.\n\n多い means (of quantity or number) a lot, many, a lot of, much. Similar to\n大勢、たくさん. (大勢, it is noted, is only used for people.)\n\nGoing of this and other articles, like the one from Asahi, 多い is used\ncorrectly when referring to the quantity of an uncountable material or thing\n(like snow, water, rain) but is not as flexible as たくさん. I will illustrate\nwith a few samples from the text.\n\n```\n\n 1. 京都（に）はお寺が多いです。\n 2. ロスさんの作文（に）は間違いが多いです。\n 3. 一月（に）は雪が多い。\n \n```\n\n\"Unlike the English 'many', the Japanese 多い cannot be used before a noun,\nexcept in a relative clause where 多い is the predicate of the clause, not the\nmodifier of the head noun.\" This is an example where 多い is not as flexible as\nたくさん.\n\n```\n\n 4. 京都（に）は多いお寺があります。　Incorrect. Corrected is 京都には多くのお寺があります。 \n 5. お寺が多い町は京都です。 Correct. (the predicate of a clause thingy)\n \n```\n\nThere are also examples of where たくさん can and cannot be used in place of 多い.\n\n```\n\n 6. この部屋（に）は つくえが多い。/たくさんある。 \n 7. この部屋（に）は学生が多い。/たくさんいる。 \n 8. 今年はたくさん/*多く/*大勢雪が降った。 \n \n```\n\n多く can be used as a noun, but the other two cannot.\n\n```\n\n 9. 学生の多く/*大勢/*たくさんは男性です。\n \n```\n\n(* denotes incorrect usage)\n\nSo in a nice long winded half incorrect answer, we can see that 多い is not\nstrictly used for countable objects, nor can たくさん simply be swapped with 多い・多く\nin any situation. Just follow the simple grammar rules, now knowing these\nextra couple of things, and you should have no problem with using them, I\nthink.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T06:08:22.643", "id": "866", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-28T09:48:25.560", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-28T09:48:25.560", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "276", "parent_id": "864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Here's a quick translation of the [page that\nrepecmps](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1325928873)\nlinked to\n\n多い is an adjective, while たくさん is a noun which is also used as an adverb, but\nthere are differences in their uses. There are also some differences in their\nmeaning. 多い and たくさん both count things, number of times, quantities, etc but\nfor strictly measuring things, 多い is used.\n\n今年の交通事故者数は昨年より１００名多い。 - Compared to last year there were 100 more traffic\naccidents. \n今年の交通事故者数は昨年より１００名たくさんいる - This sentence is incorrect.\n\n今日の練習はいつもより３回多い We did 3 times more practice than usual today. \n今日の練習はいつもより３回たくさんやった - This sentence is incorrect\n\nWhile you can understand the meaning of the incorrect sentences, they sound\nlike a child said them.\n\nIn the following examples, you can use either:\n\nその牧場には虫が多い \nその牧場には虫がたくさんいる \nThere are many insects in that farm\n\n夏はかく汗の量が多い \n夏は汗をたくさんかく \nIn summer, you sweat a lot.\n\nThe following are special cases where you can only use one or the other.\n\n300ｃｃは多いよ - 300cc is too much \nカレーライスはもうたくさんだ - I've eaten enough curry (I can't eat any more).\n\nYou can see here that 多い is used with measurements while たくさん is used with\nemotions.\n\n[If you spot any mistakes in this translation, feel free to edit this answer]", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T09:27:38.943", "id": "877", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T09:27:38.943", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "36", "parent_id": "864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I don't think the existing answers are hitting this question from quite the\nright angle, so here is my take:\n\nFirst, in sentences where you only wish to mention the presence of \"a large\nnumber\" or \"a large quantity\", 多い and たくさん can often be interchanged, provided\nyou do some grammatical fiddling to get the rest of the sentence to work:\n\n> 人が **多い** ですね。 There are **a lot of** people here, huh?\n>\n> 人が **たくさん** いますね。 There are **a lot of** people here, huh?\n>\n> **多くの** 人が参加しました。 **Many** people participated.\n>\n> **たくさんの** 人が参加しました。 **Many** people participated.\n\nBut there's an alternate interpretation for the third sentence: 多くの could\nsimply mean \"a lot\", but it could also mean \"a large proportion\". It's this\nidea of largeness in proportion or ratio that たくさん does not have. This shows\nup in sentences comparing one quantity to another:\n\n> 今日は水が **多い** ですね。 There's **more** water **[than before]** today.\n>\n> これからは機会が **多く** なりそうです。 It looks like we'll have **more** opportunities\n> **[than before]** from now on.\n>\n> 今年の春は去年の同じ時期より雨が **多く** 降りました。 This spring, **more** rain fell than during\n> the same time last year.\n\nNote that 雨が多く降った is a legal sentence, but only within the proper context of\ncomparing proportions, as demonstrated by the third sentence above.\n\nBy extension, 多い comes with a meaning similar to \"more than necessary\". This\nis another meaning たくさん does not have:\n\n> 10人ならいいけど、20人はちょっと多いですね。 10 people would be good, but 20 is a bit much.\n>\n> あのさ、これ、多くない？ Hey, isn't this too much?\n\nYou cannot replace 多い with たくさん in the above examples, because たくさん lacks the\nability to compare a quantity to a certain level.\n\nIn response to your additional question about 少し and 少ない: Yes, you can think\nof these two as corresponding with たくさん and 多い, respectively. 少し only refers\nto quantity, but 少ない has the additional meanings of \"small in proportion\" and\n\"less than necessary\".", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T13:27:55.777", "id": "881", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T12:44:19.290", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 34 }, { "body": "As you suspected, countability is not significant in Japanese. The difference\nhas nothing to do with it. The difference is that `多い` is an adjective while\n`たくさん` is used adverbially. `多い` can be translated to English as `many`,\n`vast`, etc. The English counterpart to `たくさん` may be `massively`, `to a large\nextent`, etc. So, literal translation of your examples will be:\n\n```\n\n 人が多かったです\n `The (amount of) people was/were vast'\n \n 人がたくさんいました\n `There were people to a large extent'\n \n```\n\nInterchanging them will be ungrammatical or unnatural just as the\ncorresponding Engligh sentences are:\n\n```\n\n 人がたくさんです\n `The (amount of) people was/were to a large extent'\n \n 人が多くいました\n `There were vast people'\n \n```", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-02T16:28:38.663", "id": "1697", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-02T16:28:38.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "880", "answer_count": 3, "body": "While reading, I came across this sentence:\n\n> 「上官が上官なら部下も部下だな」\n\nWhat does this 「XがXなら、YもYだ」 pattern mean? \"Like X, like Y\"? \"X will be X, and\nY will be Y\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T07:50:56.063", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "870", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T12:43:18.547", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-09T08:56:07.950", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Meaning of pattern 「XがXなら、YもYだ」", "view_count": 988 }

[ { "body": "In my understanding, that mean\n\n> They all are the same\n\nI would translate 上官が上官なら部下も部下だな as\n\nOfficer do (whatever they like), and also subordinates do the same thing, they\nall are the same finally.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T08:09:45.600", "id": "872", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T08:09:45.600", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "870", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think that sentence has the same nuance as 「この親にしてこの子あり」. 「上官が上官なら部下も部下だな」is\na more offensive tone. I have seen \"Like father, like son\" in my homework\nbook.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T09:25:47.523", "id": "876", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T09:25:47.523", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "90", "parent_id": "870", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "“XがXならYもYだ” means that X is bad in some sense and it explains that Y is bad in\nthe same way. Therefore 上官が上官なら部下も部下だ can be translated as “like officer, like\nhis subordinate,” but it is only used to mean the similarity in something bad.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T12:43:18.547", "id": "880", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T12:43:18.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "870", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "878", "answer_count": 8, "body": "Is there an authoritative source that explains where the different kanji come\nfrom and what the radicals mean? I think it's hard to tell from most of the\ntextbooks/other sources whether a shown kanji's origin is correct or if it's\nmade up. Does it even make sense to talk about the origins of some kanji in\nterms of its constituent radicals if that kanji is a simplified version of a\ntraditional kanji?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T07:56:01.483", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "871", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-14T13:32:05.740", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-09T08:11:13.557", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "258", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "kanji", "history", "etymology", "resources" ], "title": "Is there an objective source of the origins of kanji?", "view_count": 3836 }

[ { "body": "Probably get this book called 新漢和大辞典(shin kanwa daijiten), **20k** kanjis\nthere.\n\nWhich also include 漢字の成り立ち(How kanji formed)\n\n\n\nref:\n\n * <http://www.gakken.jp/jiten/data/kanwa.html#kanwadaijiten>\n * <http://www.gakken.jp/jiten/data/detail/161346/index.html>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T08:36:37.097", "id": "873", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T08:36:37.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Not sure if it's useful to you (because it's a chinese dictionary) but since\nthe origin of Kanji in in China...\n\n<http://www.chazidian.com/r_zi_zd5c71> (first tab is basic info)\n\n<http://www.chazidian.com/zizy5C71> (last tab is character origin)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T08:36:39.957", "id": "874", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T08:36:39.957", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "<http://www.kanjinetworks.com/> is probably the most reliable and thorough\nonline kanji etymology resource.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T09:19:22.140", "id": "875", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T09:19:22.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "193", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The short answer is: **No**. There isn't a single authoritative source that\ncan tell you where each and every Kanji comes from, since the complete\netymology of some Kanji remains in controversy. This is actually not at all\ndifferent than the state of the etymology (= study of origin) of English\nwords.\n\nThe longer answer is more hopeful, though: there are some sources that are\nmore reliable than others. Just like the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary is\nconsidered quite authoritative when it comes to English etymology, there are\nJapanese Etymological dictionaries that are considered better and worse.\n\nI know [Daikanwajiten](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikanwajiten) used to be\nthe most highly regarded Kanji Dictionary, but it's quite old, so it probably\ndoesn't contain a lot of recent research.\n\n## Edit\n\nAfter reading your comments, I think I understand better what you're trying to\ndo, but unless you really want to learn the etymology for its own sake, you\nbetter refrain from wasting your time on it. Why? Consider the following case:\n\n> The mnemonic most often offered for 東 is that the you view the sun behind a\n> tree as it rises from the east. It's a very cool and useful mnemonic (though\n> the sun could just as well be viewed behind a tree when setting in the west,\n> but that's besides the point :)).\n>\n> Now you want to check whether this mnemonic is reliable so you open your\n> etymological kanji dictionary and this is what you get:\n>\n> \n>\n> (For reference: I got this particular one from a dictionary called Kanjigen)\n>\n> So now it turns out that the kanji for East has absolutely nothing to do\n> with trees and suns. From looking at its form on old tortoise shells\n> scholars realized that it's some sort of bag wrapped around a stick (I admit\n> I'm not quite sure what it was used for) which probably came to represent\n> the meaning \"east\" because the word for it had a similar sound.\n\nNow, I hope you agree with that's an awful lot harder to remember than the\nsimple explanation of \"Tree + Sun\". Plus, knowing that 東 used to look like a\ncandy, doesn't really help you to know how it's written _today_.\n\nPlease note that the example I gave here is not an exceptional case or\nanything - in fact, most of the time you'll either encounter an explanation\nlike that (in which the modern radical components of the characters are an\nafterthought) or the character would just be a Sound+Meaning composition where\nthe main radical (the one which is used for dictionary look-up) represents the\ngeneral field of meaning the kanji relates to (body parts, plants, birds,\netc.) and the rest of it is based off another kanji with a similar reading.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T10:17:43.873", "id": "878", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T11:19:27.570", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "If you forgive the shameless self-promotion, I’ve put together this simple\ntool to compare a few different kanji etymology websites. You quickly find out\nthat there are lots of disagreement. <http://namakajiri.net/kanjigen>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T18:03:21.567", "id": "2675", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T18:03:21.567", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "622", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I suggest A Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters, by Kenneth Henshall. It\ngives both the true etymology (if known) and a mnemonic explanation that is\nmore useful to memory. It seems to be exactly what you were looking for.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-07-04T14:15:24.860", "id": "25506", "last_activity_date": "2015-07-04T14:15:24.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "10532", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "My friend showed me a pretty satisfying one. It has all the 常用漢字 and also the\nKanji are divided into groups 小学1-6 to 中学. It shows what original pictographs\ntoday's Kanji had, and each radical is described. Give it a shot.\n\n> <http://okjiten.jp>\n\nIt's completely in Japanese though.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-12-04T21:13:04.413", "id": "29664", "last_activity_date": "2015-12-04T23:42:14.950", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "11253", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "There is an ongoing Kickstarter campaign of a book that shows you how to learn\nthe joyo kanji through real etymologies.\n\nYou can check it out here: <http://bitly.com/realkanjiworld>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-03-14T13:32:05.740", "id": "44424", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-14T13:32:05.740", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "19543", "parent_id": "871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "What is the difference between the Japanese term \"敬語\" (keigo) and the English\nterm \"politeness\" (Specifically regarding language)?\n\nI assumed politeness is more general covering things like \"please\" and \"thank\nyou\" and that \"敬語\" (keigo) specifically referred to those aspects of Japanese\ngrammar that deal with politeness in a technical way that has no equivalent in\nEnglish.\n\nBut upon reading a bit and using this site a bit I'm not sure anymore. What\nare the overlaps and differences in meanings?\n\n(I considered asking this as a meta question concerning the\n[keigo](/questions/tagged/keigo \"show questions tagged 'keigo'\") and\n[politeness](/questions/tagged/politeness \"show questions tagged\n'politeness'\") tags but I decided it's of much broader interest.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T14:05:25.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "882", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-22T22:09:11.280", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "politeness", "definitions", "keigo" ], "title": "Does \"敬語\" (keigo) just mean \"politeness\" or is it a technical term specifically relating to Japanese grammar?", "view_count": 5819 }

[ { "body": "Keigo (敬語) is the general term for honorifics in the Japanese language, which\ncan be further classified into three main categories: sonkeigo (尊敬語),\nrespectful language; kenjōgo (謙譲語), humble language; and teineigo (丁寧語),\npolite language. The former are the so called ‘referent honorifics’ and are\nused to show respect for the person being talked about. The last is an\n‘addressee honorifics’, used to show respect for the listener.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T14:24:18.073", "id": "885", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T14:24:18.073", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "193", "parent_id": "882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "敬語 comes from the union of the Kanji 敬 which means \" _awe, respect, honor,\nrevere_ \" and 語 which means \" _word, speech, language_ \"; it means \"respectful\nlanguage\", it's a form of honorific speech, so here you can start to see the\ndifference.\n\nPoliteness, in English, apart from being \" _the practical application of good\nmanners or etiquette_ \", it also refers to some ways people choose to interact\nin order to avoid social problems. English doesn't have the difference \"masu\",\nso there are some differences.\n\nYou can read [\"Politeness\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness) and\n[\"Honorific speech in\nJapanese\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese) for more\ninfo on English/Japanese differences, there are sections in those links.\n\nOn that first link there is a specific comparison with Japanese way of\nexpressing that kind of politeness. I'll paste it:\n\n> **Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness has been criticised as not being\n> universally valid, by linguists working with East-Asian languages, including\n> Japanese.** [...]\n>\n> **Japanese is perhaps the most widely known example of a language that\n> encodes politeness at its very core.** Japanese has two main levels of\n> politeness, one for intimate acquaintances, family and friends, and one for\n> other groups, and verb morphology reflects these levels. Besides that, some\n> verbs have special hyper-polite suppletive forms. This happens also with\n> some nouns and interrogative pronouns. Japanese also employs different\n> personal pronouns for each person according to gender, age, rank, degree of\n> acquaintance, and other cultural factors.\n\nAnd on the second link:\n\n> **While English has different registers, its levels of formality and\n> politeness are not as formalised as in Japanese.** However, they can be\n> instructive in gaining a feel for Japanese speech. English imperatives range\n> from very blunt (\"Give me the book,\") to very indirect and elaborate (\"If\n> it's not too much trouble, could you please be so kind as to pass me the\n> book?\" – note the use of potential form, as in Japanese). [...]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T14:37:52.303", "id": "888", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T16:54:13.267", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "37", "parent_id": "882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Politeness and Keigo are strongly related, but they are not necessarily the\nsame, neither does one contains all cases of the other.\n\n**Politeness** (丁寧語 _teineigo_ ) is a general term that is used for gauging\nthe acceptability of different forms in different situations. Polite forms are\nexpected to be used in formal situations, with most strangers, with peers you\nare not intimate enough with and with superiors. Polite forms don't form as\ncoherent system as Sonkeigo and Kenjōgo do, but it's also quite simpler, since\nyou just have to remember that some grammatical forms or expressions are\npolite, some are intimate and some are downright rude. We actually have the\nsame thing in English: \"Could you hand me the salt, please?\" is quite more\npolite than \"Hey, give me the salt!\"\n\n**Keigo** (敬語) itself, refers to the proper usage of two distinct forms of\nlanguage: _sonkeigo_ (尊敬語) and _kenjōgo_ 謙譲語.\n\n**Sonkeigo** (尊敬語) means _honorific language_. This category encompasses all\nwords (mostly verbs) prefixes, suffixes, expressions and grammatical forms\nthat are considered to convey honor to the person or group they refer to.\nThese words are often used when referring to superiors, clients, and in some\nsituations to anyone that is part of the recipient's inside group. Knowing in\nwhich situations one should use sonkeigo (and kenjōgo) is an entirely\ndifferent question, and it's highly related to Japanese social and cultural\nnorms, so it's natural that it seems very baffling to us foreigners in the\nbeginning. :)\n\n**Kenjōgo** (謙譲語) means _humble_ or _deferential language_. This category\nencompasses all words (mostly verbs) prefixes, suffixes, expressions and\ngrammatical forms that are considered to convey humility about the person or\ngroup they refer to. These words are mostly used when speaking to someone in\nsonkeigo and referring to yourself or to people who are in your inside group.\n\nVery often, certain sonkeigo or kenjōgo bits are used without the entire\nconversation getting to stick to keigo rules. For instance, when two parents\nspeaking about their respective sons, they may call each other's son 息子さん and\ntheir own son just 息子. You may call that sonkeigo and kenjōgo if you like\n(though some people may argue it isn't), but in the end the two parents might\nspeak entirely casually. Another place you'd often find bits of sonkeigo and\nkenjōgo \"out of place\" is set phrases such as ありがとうございます (kenjōgo) or\nおはようございます (sonkeigo).\n\n### Don't politeness and keigo always come together?\n\nNow, when keigo is used consistently, it's most often used with teineigo\n(since when you're using keigo you'd generally want to be polite), but it\ndoesn't necessarily have to. As far as I can see, the main problem with using\nkeigo without teineigo, isn't that it would sound rude, but rather that it\nwould just sound too archaic.\n\nThe reason for that is that keigo was indeed used regularly without modern\nteineigo suffixes (of the ます and です family) during the Edo period, and you can\nstill hear such language when watching historical films or TV dramas (時代劇\nJidaigeki). But since most people now identify these forms with the Edo\nperiod, they'd seem more archaic than they'd seem impolite. It's kinda like\n_thou_ , which originally was just an intimate version of the polite _you_ ,\nwould seem to modern English speakers more archaic than impolite.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:30:05.953", "id": "890", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-22T22:09:11.280", "last_edit_date": "2012-10-22T22:09:11.280", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "897", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I picked up a bad habit of using ～たら (a form of conditional) when I mean ～てから\n(once something happens, something else will happen) from a friend many years\nback while learning Japanese.\n\nIn the years since, I learned the difference and felt bad when I still used たら\nout of habit. But, I was just thinking, since there are spoken short forms of\nvarious ～て forms (～ておく → ～とく、～ている → ～てる) and I can't help but wonder if this\nis another case like that.\n\nIn short, is ～たら one of the spoken contractions of ～てから?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:26:02.297", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "889", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T06:41:55.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-09T16:05:48.380", "last_editor_user_id": "45", "owner_user_id": "45", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "usage", "contractions" ], "title": "Can 【～たら】 be a short form of 【～てから】?", "view_count": 1077 }

[ { "body": "Short answer: No.\n\n～ておく and ～ている can become ～とく and ～てる because they have consecutive vowels,\nwhich are easily slurred/elided, but to get ～てから to become ～たら, you'd have to\ndrop a consonant, which I don't believe ever happens in Japanese (but I would\nwelcome a correction here). In addition, the ～たら and ～てから forms have different\nfunctions grammatically, so you can't simply interchange them without\nconsidering the context and the rest of the sentence.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:33:45.017", "id": "891", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T15:33:45.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I would say No.\n\n> たら has sense of \"if ... then ....\"\n>\n> てから \"... then ...\"\n\nFollowing with たら is ok\n\n> 雨が降っ **たら** 出かけないことにする。If it rains, I won't go outside.\n\nbut following with てから is kinda strange.\n\n> 雨が降っ **てから** 出かけないことにする After it rains, I won't go outside.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:41:41.937", "id": "894", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T16:07:22.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-09T16:07:22.730", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I'm not the first to say \"No\", but I want to actually show where ～たら comes\nfrom, if it's not an abbreviated form of ～てから. Consider it a proof of sorts.\n:)\n\nThe Classical Japanese of early Heian period had a form called ～たり form, which\nwas used for several jobs that today are fulfilled by the ～た, ～て and (the\nmodern) ～たり forms. This form was attached to the _renyōkei_ (連用形), which is\nthe verb stem that ends in I for Godan verbs (this is the stem to which you\nattach the ～ます or ～たい endings).\n\nThe ~たり form was later shortened to ~た in speech and became the past form we\nall known and love today, but before that, it was actually used to build a few\nother forms. Now, the ～たり form was actually creating a new verb (just like\nadding the potential, passive or causative endings to a verb today create a\nnew verb), so it had it's own stem to which other endings could be attached.\nOne of them was the old hypothetical ending ～ば (actually, the famous particle\nは which became ば after the verb). ば was attached to the _mizenkei_ (未然形),\nwhich is the verb stem that ends in A for Godan verbs (this is the stem to\nwhich you attach the ～ない ending used for negation). Since, the mizenkei of ～たり\nwas naturally ～たら, the whole thing together was ～たらば, which at sometime became\na very common complex form for conditionals. e.g. (I invented this up myself,\nso it's probably not quite authentic):\n\n> 書きたらば、死ぬ。 If you write, you die.\n\nIn modern Japanese, the classical ～ば form became the modern conditional ～ば\nwhich is now attached to the E stem (已然形 _izenkei_ ), and is much better known\nas the _-eba_ conditional ending. But what happened to the complex ～たらば～ form?\nIt was shortened to ~たら, but also started using the different base that ～て and\n～た forms (the later also a shortened form of ～たり) were using. In Ichidan verbs\n(such as 見る or 食べる) this is still the same as good old _renyōkei_ , but in\ngodan verb, a few changes occured:\n\n * wakar **i** \\+ tara -> waka **r** \\+ tara -> waka **t** \\+ **t** ara -> waka **tt** ara\n * kak **i** \\+ tara -> ka **i** \\+ tara -> ka **it** ara\n * oyog **i** \\+ tara -> oyo **i** \\+ (voice) + tara -> oyo **i** \\+ **d** ara -> oyo **id** ara\n * mat **i** \\+ tara -> ma **t** \\+ **t** ara -> ma **tt** ara\n\nThere are more, but that's the gist of it.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T16:44:41.437", "id": "897", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T06:41:55.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T06:41:55.363", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "895", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've got two questions. Firstly, what is the difference between 特殊{とくしゅ} and\n特別{とくべつ}?\n\nSecondly, is it true that all these grammar forms are correct:\n\n * 特殊{とくしゅ}な ＋ [noun]\n * 特別{とくべつ}な ＋ [noun]\n * 特殊{とくしゅ}の ＋ [noun]\n * 特別{とくべつ}の ＋ [noun]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T15:36:37.057", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "892", "last_activity_date": "2017-10-13T10:28:29.940", "last_edit_date": "2017-10-13T10:28:29.940", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "words", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the difference between 特殊 and 特別?", "view_count": 3582 }

[ { "body": "I'm a Japanese student studying English at university. Let me try and answer\nyour question.\n\nWe use 特殊 _tokushu_ in academic situations, describing something strange or\ncrazy.\n\nIn contrast, we say 特別 _tokubetsu_ in casual situation, describing something\nprecious or valuable.\n\nFor example, we say 「 **君は特別な人だ** 」( _kimi wa tokubetsu na hito da_ \\- \"You\nare precious to me\"), but we don't say 「 **君は特殊な人だ** 」( _kimi wa tokushu na\nhito da_ ) in that sense.\n\nWhen we say 「 **君は特殊な人だ** 」, this means \"You are strange\" or \"You are not an\nordinary person.\"\n\nThe answer for your next question is clear:\n\n「特別な」and「特殊な」are correct, and they are not noun but adjective that can be\ntranslated as \"special\" or \"peculiar.\"\n\n「特別」are「特殊」nouns. We don't say 「特別の」or 「特殊の」in Japanese. What's more, to be\nprecise, \"special\" is an adjective (形容詞 _keiyōshi_ ) in English, but\n「特別な」「特殊な」is 「形容動詞」( _keiyōdōshi_ ) in Japanese.\n\n「「形容動詞」can be classified as adjective, but we distinguish 「形容詞」", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T16:25:30.670", "id": "895", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T04:24:34.133", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T04:24:34.133", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "286", "parent_id": "892", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Another way to look at it could be the difference between \"special\" and\n\"specialized\". Both words do technically refer to something \"not normal\", but\n特殊 is more often used for something specialized, something that is particular\nto a case. 特別 is usually used to mean \"special\" as in \"outside the norm\" \\- it\ncan be used for good things or for bad, but usually it's used for good\nthings(I believe). 特別 can be used in sort of the same way as 特殊, as well.\n\nLook at these sentences(from alc):\n\n> 特殊なペンでイラストや文字を入力することもできます。 (Using a specialized pen, users can input\n> pictures and characters.)\n>\n> 特殊なハードウェアを作る (to create specialized hardware)\n\nThese indicate that the noun being modified is something otherwise normal that\nhas been tailored to a specific case.\n\n特別, however, can generally be used for both:\n\n> 特別な扱いはしないでほしい。 (I'd like it if you didn't give me special treatment.)\n>\n> 特別な企画に取り組む (to work on a special project)\n\nBoth give sentences give a sense of something \"special\", or something \"outside\nthe norm\".\n\nFrom personal experience, I see 特殊 being used more for concrete objects, such\nas 特殊な道具 or 特殊部隊.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T16:35:18.717", "id": "896", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-09T16:35:18.717", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "263", "parent_id": "892", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "943", "answer_count": 8, "body": "Is the term ハーフ (mixed-race Japanese/other) derogatory? Can you use it in a\nnewspaper article? Can you use it to describe your boss? If it is derogatory,\nwhat word(s) should one use instead?", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T23:11:22.517", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "898", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-15T07:39:24.217", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-15T07:39:24.217", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "nuances", "culture", "offensive-words", "wasei-eigo" ], "title": "Is the word ハーフ derogatory?", "view_count": 3727 }

[ { "body": "From what I've seen it doesn't seem derogatory. Same goes for the 2nd-\ngeneration Japanese from Brazil as well with the word \"Nikei\"\n\nJust make sure you don't say \"New Half\" as that will surely upset your boss.\n\nEdit: Apparently it WAS derogatory back in the day when there weren't many\nforeigners in Japan, but and thus changed and is no longer seen as a\nderogatory word.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T23:42:44.707", "id": "900", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T07:52:46.477", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T07:52:46.477", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "No, this is not derogatory. We put our culture on top of the word and assume,\nwhich is a fair assumption because I don't like using at all, that it is not\ncool. \nBut I have had this conversation a few times now after seeing old Japanese\nladies talk about being half and using the word with the child's parents. \nI even remember reading about the word in a newspaper or some printed article.\nThere are different ways to describe the person/childs heritage too but if you\nare unsure about how to put something in print about a person you know, I'm\nsure its probably best to ask them.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T06:09:59.653", "id": "922", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T11:52:31.300", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T11:52:31.300", "last_editor_user_id": "276", "owner_user_id": "276", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Not at all. I hear Japanese use it normally, so there should be no problem as\nlong as you don't use it in a pejorative sentence or so :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T08:55:34.537", "id": "929", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T08:55:34.537", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As an American, it strikes me as _incredibly_ offensive. After all, half is\n[even less than three-fifths](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-\nfifths_compromise).\n\nThat being said, ハーフ is a perfect example of [wasei-\neigo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasei-eigo); a Japanese word based on\nEnglish which a native English speaker would either find odd or not be able to\nmake sense of at all. The context that a Japanese person is going to have when\nusing the English word \"half\" to describe a person is going to be far\ndifferent than yours or mine. I doubt that most people who use this word are\neven aware that it means something other than \"mixed-race person\" in English\n(and it doesn't even mean that unless you add more words to it).\n\nSo in that context, when spoken by most Japanese people, it is not intended to\nbe derogatory; nor are half Japanese people particularly derided by society.\n[Here's some\ninterviews](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi2r23e7fpA&feature=channel_video_title)\nwhere Japanese are asked about their thoughts on ハーフ, and they are mostly\npositive (though given that one of the interviewees looks clearly non-100%\nYamato, make of that what you will), and I can hardly turn on the TV nowadays\nwithout seeing half-British tarento-du-jour\n[ベッキー](http://www.becky.ne.jp/index.php) playing with bunnies or going \"へぇぇぇぇ\"\nover a video clip. (If you've never been to Japan, note that roughly two-\nthirds of Japanese TV is people going \"へぇぇぇぇ\" over a video clip.)\n\nAll that being said, if I end up marrying a Japanese woman and someone calls\nmy kids ハーフ, I would politely ask them to not do so, then change the topic\nquickly.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T14:42:11.083", "id": "943", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T15:24:40.737", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T15:24:40.737", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "260", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The main thing wrong with the term is that it is so _vapid_. Most Japanese are\nfamiliar with the term \"hybrid\", in the context of cars with two different\ntypes of engine, and will figure out in just a few seconds that \"hybrid\" is an\nentirely polite and reasonable way to refer to someone of mixed ethnicity,\njust as it is in most of the English-speaking world.\n\nTo see that it is in fact derogatory (if only subconciously so), try pointing\nout to a Japanese who owns a hybrid car that they have a \"half car\", and see\nwhat they say.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T10:12:29.783", "id": "1021", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T10:12:29.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "322", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "To most Japanese, it is not seen as derogatory. But then, they do a lot of\nracist things without thinking that it's wrong. If you want a lot of examples,\nread the blog Loco in Yokohama. He's a black ALT in Japan and he chronicles\nthe things that anger him almost on a daily basis, like the empty circle that\nsurrounds gaijin on trains while the whole rest of the train is crowded.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T11:07:46.347", "id": "1650", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T11:07:46.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I am ハーフ, and for what it's worth the term has never caused me to take\noffense, nor did it seem like any was ever intended. When I was in elementary\nschool in Japan, if I got into scuffles, the preferred label was 外人, though\nnot even that is necessarily offensive outside of the context of a schoolyard\nspat.\n\nIn short, if you aren't immediately offended by the term, I wouldn't think\nyour way into being so.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T22:37:20.620", "id": "1662", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T22:37:20.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "I think that derogatory word you're looking for is `在日`, which I think has\nsimilar nuance to Yankees (oh, another derogatory word) calling east Asian\npeople Chinks.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-04T04:43:43.147", "id": "1723", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-04T04:43:43.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "898", "post_type": "answer", "score": -3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "976", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I came across this on Twitter, it seems to be mostly a question but sometimes\nan exclamation. Is it とは, or maybe とか? How do you use it? My dictionary has a\nとな as word that come at the end of a sentence to get confirmation. Is this the\nsame?\n\n[画像も貼らずにスレたてとな？](https://twitter.com/sosei920/status/78955392306122752) \n[今日は次第に雨とな。](https://twitter.com/ookumaneko_mdk/status/78943263511412736) \n[千葉東方沖震度4とな？](https://twitter.com/momijiya/status/78930304471007232) \n[むっちゃんがイケメン店員とな(￣□￣)!?](https://twitter.com/bnnseven/status/78950641476714496)\n\nThe avatars of people using it are [overwhelmingly\ncute](https://twitter.com/#search?q=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AA). Is this a cute word.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T23:12:36.120", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "899", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T13:12:35.557", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T13:12:35.557", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "36", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "colloquial-language", "definitions" ], "title": "What does とな mean (and how do I use it)?", "view_count": 1659 }

[ { "body": "とな is basically formed by combination of と and な.\n\nYou may use ～とな at the end of the sentenses like that, basically use when you\nheard it from somewhere else and also express your agreement when you repeat\nthat. It has similar meaning with ～というのだね.\n\nYou may also use ～とな at the end of the phrase (even in the middle of\nsentence), and it express light emphasis for your agreement.\n\nref:\n\n * [http://www.weblio.jp/content/とな](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AA) 「大辞林」", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T04:35:59.663", "id": "921", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T07:23:38.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T07:23:38.523", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "899", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "As YOU wrote, とな in these examples is a combination of the particle と\nsignifying quotation and the particle な signifies that the speaker wants reply\nor agreement or wants to make sure. I think that とな in this meaning is rare in\nthe modern Japanese except as an Internet slang or possibly in some dialects.\n\n“画像も貼らずにスレ立てとな!?” is a set phrase used in some Internet forums including\n[2channel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2channel). It means something similar\nto “You started a new thread (in the forum) without even including a single\nimage in it? Seriously?” I guess that many of the uses of “とな!?” (or “とな?”)\nare inspired by this set phrase.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T01:24:28.777", "id": "976", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T01:24:28.777", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "899", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "908", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Last night I had dinner in a ramen restaurant in northern Japan and was\nsurprised to read the katakana \"ライス\" (raisu) on the menu. This is obviously\nthe English word \"rice\" borrowed. But what kind of rice or method of\npreparation might it refer to given that Japanese already has \"kome\", \"gohan\",\nand \"meshi\"?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-09T23:43:36.420", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "901", "last_activity_date": "2019-07-23T02:13:02.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 21, "tags": [ "word-choice", "synonyms", "loanwords", "food" ], "title": "Since Japanese already had several words for rice why was \"ライス\" (raisu) borrowed from English?", "view_count": 7358 }

[ { "body": "I think it has to do with the fact that there are certain dishes that are\nwestern in origin. They use rice, but they are served differently. Take a look\nat dishes like 「カレーライス」 or 「ハヤシライス」 or 「タコライス」. All of these are served on\nplate or with western ingredients. ご飯 and 丼 are usually served in their own\ndish or in a bowl with more standard things on top.\n\nThere's also the fact that カタカナ英語 is very common. For some anecdotal evidence,\nthere was a tour book for Tokyo Disneyland that I bought once that literally\nhad combinations like, 「ファンタスティックスな素晴らしさ」. Basically they were just throwing\nin カタカナ英語 to enhance it and make it look special.\n\nYou'll find lots of words where there is カタカナ英語, a \"native\" Japanese word, and\nan imported 漢字 compound all for the exact same thing. Japanese is a language\nthat does this a lot.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T00:00:03.873", "id": "902", "last_activity_date": "2019-07-23T02:13:02.967", "last_edit_date": "2019-07-23T02:13:02.967", "last_editor_user_id": "45", "owner_user_id": "45", "parent_id": "901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "ライス is used for non-Japanese rice dishes, I believe, like curry or rice served\non a plate in Western fashion. カタカナ and borrowed words are also used as\n'fancy' or 'elegant' alternatives in Japan, especially in advertising.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T00:14:43.217", "id": "903", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T02:00:00.130", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T02:00:00.130", "last_editor_user_id": "281", "owner_user_id": "281", "parent_id": "901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "ご飯 (ごはん), 飯 (めし) and ライス all refer to the same thing: steamed rice. ご飯 and 飯\ncan mean meal, too.\n\nAs you said, it is not uncommon to see ライス in a menu at a restaurant, even\nwhen it is not part of a compound word such as カレーライス. I do not know why they\ndo not say ご飯, and I can only make a guess at possible reasons:\n\n * As Jeshii said, they may want to make it sound like something fancy by using a loanword instead of the more common word ご飯. (But I am not sure if calling it ライス really sounds fancy compared to calling it ご飯.)\n * As Uronym said, they may serve steamed rice on a plate, in which case it is understandable to call it differently from the usual steamed rice in Japanese cuisine, which is served in a bowl. (But the question is about a ramen restaurant, and I would be surprised if a ramen restaurant in Japan serves steamed rice on a plate. The use of the word ライス is not uncommon in ramen restaurants.)\n * Depending on context, ご飯 refers to meal, and they may want to avoid possible confusion caused by this usage. (But some restaurants _do_ write ご飯 to mean steamed rice and there is no possibility of confusion. Note that “set meal” at a restaurant has a separate word 定食 (ていしょく).)\n\nAs you can see, I am not satisfied with any of these reasons. If there is a\nbetter explanation, I am happy to learn it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T01:39:46.500", "id": "908", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T01:39:46.500", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "In addition to the other answers, ライス is sometimes simply used for\ndisambiguation. The meaning of ご飯 _gohan_ largely overlaps with \"meal\", so it\ncan become ambiguous whether you're talking about a \"meal\" (as opposed to à la\ncarte) or \"rice\". The more specific words for \"rice\" like 白米 can be too\nspecific, so ライス is a broad, convenient descriptor.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T01:42:06.347", "id": "909", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T01:42:06.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "925", "answer_count": 2, "body": "why is it that some 形容動詞 accepts の after it while some only accepts な after\nit?\n\nExamples:\n\nの only: 普通、大勢\n\nな or の: 初心、特別、特殊\n\nIs there a way for us to tell if a 形容動詞 needs a の or な particle after it.. or\nis it just by brute force memory?\n\nBtw my second question is that if a 形容動詞 accepts both の and な after it, is it\ntrue that usually we will use the な, even though の is grammatically correct\ntoo?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T03:17:50.157", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "920", "last_activity_date": "2023-09-03T03:32:10.063", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T06:38:02.960", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "politeness", "nuances", "na-adjectives" ], "title": "why is it that some 形容動詞 accepts の after it while some only accepts な after it?", "view_count": 1787 }

[ { "body": "I'm not sure if there's a real answer to that. At least not something that\nwill help you learn which is which. Some 形容動詞 take な, some take の, and some\ntake both. How did that happen? That's quite simple.\n\nAll 形容動詞 are in fact a special class of nouns. In academic English material,\nthey are often called \"adjectival nouns\" or even \"descriptive nouns\", to\nemphasize the fact that they're nouns. So how do you use a noun to describe\nanother noun? Since Classical Japanese we had two main methods of doing that:\n\n 1. Using the the copula (ADJであるNOUN)\n 2. Using the genitive relation particle (ADJのNOUN)\n\nIn Classical Japanese, the copula was なり, and for genitive relation we also\nhad が besides の, but it probably worked more or less the same. In the modern\nlanguage, the copula なり went out of use and was replaced by だ in all forms\nexcept for the positive present form, where な (which comes from なり) remains in\nuse.\n\nThe inconsistency is mainly there, in the positive present form, since in\nother forms (past or negative), the copula is used always. That's because you\njust cannot use の in other forms, since it's not copula and therefore does not\nconjugate, so you have to replace it with forms of the modern copula だ. な, on\nthe other hand, can be said to be a copula, but it conjugates like だ in all\nother forms, so in these forms all adjectival nouns behave the same.\n\nBut still, why is the choice of の, な or both in the present-positive form so\ninconsistent? That's just how languages tend to work, chaotically. When you\nhave two possible ways of forming an adjective (with a copula and with a\ngenitive particle), people use both, and both forms come into what linguists\ncall 'a competition'. There are several possible resolutions to a competition,\nsuch as one of the forms dying in favor of the other, or each form grabbing a\ndifferent meaning. In this case, we have a [complementary\ndistribution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_distribution), where\nsome adjectival nouns settled take な, some settled for の, and for a good\nmeasure of irregularity some settled for both.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T07:19:41.350", "id": "925", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-28T21:56:44.227", "last_edit_date": "2023-08-28T21:56:44.227", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "There is no such thing as a 形容動詞 which 'takes の' as opposed to な. The dōshi\ncomponent of the name reflects the fact that na inflects like a verb, albeit\nin a very limited fashion---we only find -na, when used attributively, and -ni\nwhen used adverbially, e.g., 華やかな装い, 華やかに装っている. As has been pointed out in\nposts elswhere this na is the remains of the literary naru.\n\nNormally, keiyōdōshi cannot be used as subjects or objects as they are not\nnouns, e.g, *benri ga/wo, and the normal (abstract) noun formation would be to\nadd -sa, e.g, from benri na, 'convenient', benrisa 'convenience', but there\nare examples of keiyōdōshi that fuction as abstract nouns as well, e.g.,\nteinei na taido, teinei ga daiichi ('Politeness is first', a slogan).\n\nThe examples of 普通, 大勢 are nouns. If they occur in a construction with の, such\n普通の態度 or 大勢の人 they should be construed as the predicate of a sentence with the\ncopula as verb, hence, ‘ōzei no hito’ is to be construed as 'ōzei de aru\ntokoro no hito' 'people such that they are a great number', 'futsū no taido'\nas 'futsū de aru tokoro no taido', 'an attitude such that it is normal'. (This\nconstruction, Verb + tokoro no, appears to have come from the translation of\nthe English relative pronouns, but it is sometimes used in scholarly texts, or\nthe like, to make an attributive relationship explicit, which is why I have\nused it here.)\n\nWords like 特別 and 特殊 form another class in that they can take な when used\nattributively, like keiyōdōshi, e.g., 特殊な技能, but may also take の, 特殊の技能.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-09-03T03:32:10.063", "id": "100875", "last_activity_date": "2023-09-03T03:32:10.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "40564", "parent_id": "920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "927", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is there a grammatically correct expression similar to the {～って感じ} slang?\n\nFor example, I heard something like the following conversation in an anime:\n\n> A: テストはどう? \n> B: どうって? 「もう死にてぇ」って感じだぜ。 \n> A: アハハ。何だそれ?\n\nWhat grammatically correct expression should B-san replace the {～って感じ} part\nwith, while retaining similar nuance, emphasis and emotion?", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T07:28:53.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "926", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T13:54:38.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "slang", "expressions" ], "title": "Grammatically correct expression similar to the {～って感じ} slang", "view_count": 2218 }

[ { "body": "I guess you can always use `～という感じがする` or `～という感じです`, which, I guess, is where\n`～って感じ` comes from.", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T07:35:23.403", "id": "927", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T07:35:23.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "926", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "933", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'd like to know what the difference between 悪 and 惡 is. And also what usage\nyou should do between both. I heard that they both mean \"bad\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T09:15:07.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "932", "last_activity_date": "2016-12-27T12:46:07.727", "last_edit_date": "2016-12-27T12:46:07.727", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "296", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "usage", "kanji", "kyūjitai-and-shinjitai", "language-reform" ], "title": "What's the difference between 悪 and 惡 ?", "view_count": 1217 }

[ { "body": "惡 is the traditional (pre-1946) form of the kanji, while 悪 is the new,\nsimplified form. The simplification in this case may not seem much (just a\nsingle stroke has been removed), but it was probably made to make the form of\nthe kanji more 'natural' and flowing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T09:20:01.403", "id": "933", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T09:20:01.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "932", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 }, { "body": "惡 is 旧字体 of 悪. Recently 惡 almost always is used for cool-looking designs in\nmanga, anime, and so on.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T11:04:16.830", "id": "935", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T11:04:16.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "90", "parent_id": "932", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "What is the difference between にかんして and について? Example usage would be much\nappreciated!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T09:53:44.443", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "934", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T09:37:58.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "299", "post_type": "question", "score": 31, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Difference between にかんして and について?", "view_count": 17527 }

[ { "body": "に関して => Related to, in relation to について => Concerning, along, under, per\n\nこの問題に関して質問を受ける Be questioned in relation with this problem\n\nこの点に関しての米国の見方は、各国が必要とする行動には差異があるということです。 The view of the United States on this\npoint is that there is differentiation in what countries need to do\n\n（人）の学校での一日について話し合う Discuss someone's day at school\n\n2年目はロボット工学や宇宙科学の発達について学びます。 In the second year, the students will learn about\nrobot technology and the development of space science.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T11:14:16.967", "id": "936", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T11:14:16.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "934", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In many contexts, they can both be translated to English as variations of\n\"related\", \"as for\" etc, but there are some differences...\n\nAs far as I know (and could find from different Japanese grammar sources), a\nfew of the nuances are:\n\n 1. について means you are setting (in a restrictive manner) a theme/topic. It is preceded by something you are talking/thinking/writing about and often followed by a verb expressing such an action.\n\n日本語について研究する → \"I study (about) the Japanese language\" with a notion of topic\nrestriction (e.g. Japanese grammar, Japanese vocabulary etc.)\n\n 2. に関して does not have that nuance of topic restriction, rather that of a relation (関係/関連) between the part that precedes and the part that follows. It is therefore used with a wider range of verbs.\n\n日本語に関して研究する → \"I study things (closely) related to the Japanese language\" with\na notion of topic relation (e.g. plays or novels that are written in\nJapanese).\n\n 3. **Usage:** について is more common conversational Japanese. に関して is slightly more often found in writing.\n\n 4. **Grammar:** Although について and に関して are both followed by a predicate (verb or verbal noun), their \"adjectival\" variations (form attached to a noun) are different (についての and に関する):\n\n日本の文化について話す ▶ 日本の文化についての話を聞く\n\n日本の文化に関して勉強する ▶ 日本の文化に関する論文を読む\n\n 5. Also, I believe you would never see に関して ending a sentence, whereas it could be the case with について (and the copula omitted):\n\n「これから歴史の授業が始まります。今日は江戸時代について。」\"History class will now start. Today's topic is\nthe Edo era.\" [this example is my own, so please take it with some reserve]\n\n**Edit:** a large part of the above examples are taken from the [very\nlink](http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-study/old/mie-bbs.cgi?s=86) mentioned\nby phirru below: it is indeed a nice page on the topic. However, I found the\nexplanations a lot more confusing than in my other grammar books (and decided\nnot to go for a full translation).", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T12:34:58.973", "id": "939", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T23:22:47.117", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-22T23:22:47.117", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "934", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I found the answer on this website to be incredibly useful and explained the\ndifference in a very understandable way: <http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-\nstudy/old/mie-bbs.cgi?s=86>\n\nHowever, I've quickly attempted to do a rough translation of the important\nparts of the answer so that even beginners who see this question can\nunderstand the difference. If able, I highly recommend reading the original\npost, however.\n\n**Usage Context/Literary Differences**\n\nWhen studying Japanese, 「〜について／〜についての」is studied before 「〜に関する／関して」. That is\nto say, 「〜について」is often used as a basic phrase in conversation.\n\nIn the case of foreign language study, when you translate into your own\nlanguage and the words come out the same the difference can be difficult to\nunderstand. However, there is the following difference. 「〜について」→ Expression\nused often in conversation. 「〜に関して」→ Expression often used in written\nlanguage.\n\n**About The Differences In Usage**\n\n1) The meaning of「○○について～する」\n\n\n\nWith verbs like 「話す」and 「考える」, for the reason of stating the topic or theme\nabout which you intend to speak or think about first, 「について話す／考える」is used. In\nother words, if you were to say 「自分の夢について話す」, it would be because you are\ngoing to talk about things like 1) What you want to be, 2) Why you want to be\nthat, 3) How you're going to become what you want to be.\n\n2) The meaning of 「○○に関して〜する」\n\nThe meaning of 「関する」is \"to be related\", \"to have a connection\". Therefore, the\nexpression 「○○に関して〜する」is used with the meaning of \"In relation/connection to\n○○ I/He/It will 〜\". That is to say, much like 「について」it displays the theme or\ntopic, however it is not restricted to just THAT topic. Of course\n「○○に関して〜する」indicates a direct relation to ○○, however, it indicates strongly\nthat related and connected topics will also be addressed.\n\n\n\nIf you picture the above description as an image, I think the difference can\nbe understood easily.\n\nIf you were to say「日本語 **について** 研究する」, it would have the theme of 「日本語」and be\nrestricted to content such as 「日本語の単語」、「日本語の文法」and 「日本語の発音」.\n\nHowever, If you were to say 「日本語 **に関して** 研究する」, 「日本語」would be centered on,\nhowever it would point out that it is not \"restricted\" and areas peripheral to\nthe topic are included.\n\nFor example, things like:\n\n 1. 「日本語を使った劇」\n 2. 「日本語で書かれた小説」\n\nSo, if you were going to be writing about Japanese festivals (What is\ninteresting, what type of festivals you like, etc), you normally say\n\"日本のお祭りについて書く\". If however, you were to say 「日本のお祭りに関して書く」, it gives the\nimpression that you will be centering around festivals but also touching on\nrelated topics. Additionally, it gives a much \"stiffer\" impression than\n\"について\".\n\n**Sentence Patterns**\n\n（Ａ）「～について ＋ Predicate」（Predicate：Verb、Noun ＋ Verb)\n\n 1. 日本の文化について 話す\n 2. 日本の文化について 考える\n 3. 日本の文化について 知識を深める\n\n（Ｂ）「～についての ＋ Noun」\n\n 1. 日本の文化についての話 を聞く\n 2. 日本の文化についての考え を話す\n\n（Ｃ）「～に関して ＋ Predicate」\n\n 1. 日本の文化に関して 勉強する \n\n（Ｄ）「～に関する ＋ Noun」\n\n 1. 日本の文化に関する論文 を読む", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T13:34:38.623", "id": "942", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T09:37:58.503", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-23T09:37:58.503", "last_editor_user_id": "168", "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "934", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "I think it's just important to look at the kanjis to get the meaning.\n\n「に関する」means \"to have a link with, to be related to\". \n「に就いて」means \"concerning\".\n\nThose two meanings are different: one is concrete (ついて) one is meta (関して).\nEither you literally discuss the contents (ついて) either you discuss what\nrevolves around (関して).\n\nExamples: \nGNU GPLに関する質問: Questions that are related to the GNU/GPL. (Can I sell GPL\nsoftware? are there compatible licences? (subject is _not_ the GPL)) \nGNU GPLについての質問: Questions on the GNU/GPL (Is the GPL legal? Can GPL be\ntranslated? (subject _is_ the GPL))", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T01:58:13.347", "id": "1426", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T01:58:13.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "934", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "954", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Today I heard the phrase なんてことしてくれた, as in:\n\n> 君！なんてことしてくれたんだ！\n\nwhich I learned means \"[Look what you've\ndone](http://english.mag2.com/marvin/beginner_37.html)\". I thought くれる was\nonly used when someone does something nice for you. Is this just a set phrase,\nwhere くれる is being used sarcastically, or are there other times you can use\nくれる when someone does something you don't like?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T12:17:20.423", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "938", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T04:13:47.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T04:13:47.327", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "usage", "words", "perspective" ], "title": "Using くれる for doing something bad", "view_count": 463 }

[ { "body": "Speaking from personal experience, I do hear the ~くれる form used this way all\nthe time in video games and such, and it seems to me that it does carry a kind\nof sarcasm(the Japanese kind :D).\n\nI mostly hear やってくれたな! when the opponent does something to the person, but I\nseldom hear it used this way on any word besides する and やる, so I'd assume\nyours is a good bet.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T17:11:45.427", "id": "954", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T17:11:45.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "263", "parent_id": "938", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "947", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When people imitate yakuza speech, what are the major things they do to make\nit recognizable as such?\n\nIf possible, how accurate is this compared to actual yakuza speech?\n\nI've seen mention elsewhere on this site that there is some relationship with\nHiroshima dialect - how so?\n\nOne thing I've been told is that r's should be trilled. Intonation also seems\nto be exaggerated. Is this so and what else is there?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T13:30:10.820", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "941", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T16:42:39.930", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T16:42:39.930", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "dialects", "spoken-language", "register" ], "title": "What are the stereotypical characteristics of yakuza speech?", "view_count": 21192 }

[ { "body": "As you probably already read in the [question on\ndialects](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/654/how-many-dialects-\nare-commonly-used-today), Yakuzas are often pictured speaking Hiroshima-ben\n_on TV_. According to Japanese friends, this has probably as much to do with\nthe fact that Hiroshima-ben naturally sounds quite hard to the ear (whereas\nsoft-spoken Kyoto-ben is the typical dialect choice for cute, feminine\ncharacters) as any real-world trend.\n\nIn reality, I'd say your average yakuza speaks a slang-heavy, ultra-masculine\nversion of whatever his (or his clan's) native dialect is. As it happens, many\nyakuzas do come from Hiroshima and the West of Japan in general, so Kansai-ish\naccent is usually a safe bet (once again: Kansai-ben(s) tend to sound harsher\nand more direct than other dialects, so there's that too). Pretty sure the\nnone-to-rare Osaka yakusa speaks exclusively osaka-ben...\n\nAs you already guessed, among obvious (possibly stereotypical) characteristics\nare:\n\n1) extreme rolling of 'R's and ample exaggerated [consonant\ngemination](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/751/how-did-little-\ntsu-become-a-lengthener)...\n\n2) liberal use of profanities (このやろう、おんどれ etc.) and strong interjections (ほっっら\netc.)\n\n3) casual use of boastful/demeaning pronouns (われ、俺、きさま etc.)\n\nBut frankly, you will hear all of the above (and more) by talking to any\nsufficiently cocky working-class Osaka resident.\n\nMy nifty [bilingual kansai-ben\nphrasebook](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E9%96%A2%E8%A5%BF%E5%BC%81%E3%82%92%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%A7%E5%96%8B%E3%82%8C%E3%81%BE%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8B-%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%8E%E3%83%B3-%E3%83%92%E3%82%AE%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9/dp/4796639829)\nhas a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) \"angry speech\" section. Here are a couple of\nthe more straightforward ones:\n\nええ加減にせぇ！【ええかげんにせぇ】→ \"Enough!\"\n\nワレ、どつきまわすど！ → \"I'll beat the crap out of you\"\n\n血い見るどわれぇ【ちいみるどわれぇ】→ \"So you wanna see some blood?!\"\n\nクソガキがいちびりやがって！しまいにはイてまうぞ！→ \"You're asking for trouble, kid!\"\n\nおんどれ、ええ根性しとるやないけ！ → \"You are starting to piss me off\"\n\nOne more for the road?\n\nワレ、目ん玉ほじぐりかえすど！ → \"I'll rip your eyes out!\"\n\nOnce again same warning applies re. real yakuza vs. average Kishiwada nomiya\ndweller (never faced a pissed-off yakuza, so couldn't tell you)\n\nPS: all apologies if the above is more an overview of regular rude/harsh\nKansai-ben than bona-fide Yakuza-speech, but in my limited (courteous, non-\nconfrontational and definitely non-violent) interactions with these types,\nthat's pretty much what they've always sounded like.\n\n**Addendum** : talked some more with (Japanese) friends about this and the\nconsensus was that there ultimately isn't any fundamental difference between\n\"Yakusa-speech\" and heavily-masculinised working-class osaka-ben (or\nhiroshima-ben, or whatever you pick). There are, however, a few _words_ that\nare exclusively Yakuza slang, e.g.:\n\nチャカ → gun (instead of 鉄砲【てっぽう】)\n\nサバく → to sell (instead of 売る)\n\nシャブ → drugs (methamphetamine)\n\nNot to mention common terms for Yakuza hierarchy (チンピラ, おやぶん etc.) and\nderogative nicknames for the police: 犬【いぬ】, ポリこう etc.\n\nGood luck placing those in everyday conversation ;-)\n\nWhile googling around to double-check the above, I found [this great\npage](http://www.jingai.com/yakuza/lesson1.html) which is essentially the\nanswer to your question (and more).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T15:23:11.187", "id": "947", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T03:16:18.273", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "941", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "946", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The katakana changes with time, and so recently they introduced the \"v\" \"ヴ\",\nand I'd like to know if there's a possibility they'll add letters like \"si\"\n\"セィ\" or something similar in the future? Do the Japanese government has some\nplans for that or not?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T14:52:55.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "945", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T16:26:51.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T15:05:27.437", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "296", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "spelling", "katakana" ], "title": "Katakana changes", "view_count": 707 }

[ { "body": "There are no plans that I know of, but I would be surprised if Katakana (and\neven Hiragana) does not change over time. Writing systems tend to change with\ntime, to better reflect natural changes in the languages they represent. So\nthe real question should probably be whether there will be a change _soon_.\n\nAnd maybe there will be change soon, since already some Japanese can perfectly\ndistinguish between `[si]` and `[shi]`, snd it seems like the Japanese\ngovernment isn't too conservative about small changes to the gairaigo spelling\nrules.\n\nAnyway, I'm not sure that there is a definite answer to your question. Unless\nthe Ministry of Education (which is in charge of these things, AFAIK) is\nworking on a solution _right now_ , everything we can say is just speculation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T15:04:59.153", "id": "946", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T15:11:18.433", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-10T15:11:18.433", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "945", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I'd be surprised if the カタカナ didn't change at all; they changes with 日本語 to\nbetter express 日本語. Sounds like スィ and ウィ likely arose due to a need to better\nexpress how a borrowed word is pronounced in the original language.\n\nOver time, 日本語 and カタカナ will undoubtedly change to suit possible new sounds\nand language constructs as people need to express new things. I agree with\nYaniv; it isn't a question of whether it _will_ change, but _when_ or if it\nwill change _soon_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T16:26:51.113", "id": "971", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T16:26:51.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "281", "parent_id": "945", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "950", "answer_count": 4, "body": "In this scene a young girl, Yotsuba, drops in on her neighbors for some\nbreakfast. The mother who's cooking breakfast says:\n\n> 「今お父さんの焼いてるからその次ねー。ちょっと待っててー。」\n\nSo I guess she's preparing her husbands food first, and tells Yotsuba to hang\non for a minute.\n\nBut why didn't she just say ちょっと待って?\n\n[Image redacted]", "comment_count": 20, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T15:33:04.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "948", "last_activity_date": "2019-07-14T02:04:30.520", "last_edit_date": "2019-07-14T02:04:30.520", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "translation", "て-form" ], "title": "What does the final て in 待ってて signify?", "view_count": 5308 }

[ { "body": "I think it's short for 待っていて. Though I'm just taking a guess in the dark here.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T15:36:34.447", "id": "949", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-01T11:52:18.567", "last_edit_date": "2017-07-01T11:52:18.567", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "948", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Like Mark says, it's short for 待っていて, which is the て-form of 待っている. I think\nit's a little softer than saying ちょっと待って, and since Yotsuba is not one of the\nfamily, the mother is being a little more polite. Saying ちょっと待って can sound a\nlittle short. The meaning changes with the extra て, but I can't describe how\nit changes well. Something like \"please be there waiting\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T16:09:13.667", "id": "950", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T16:09:13.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36", "parent_id": "948", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Other than soft / politeness on using 待って(い)て、 I think it has some sense that\nyou don't have to stop what you are doing now to wait, and you may do\nsomething else while waiting.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T16:20:23.753", "id": "951", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T16:20:23.753", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "948", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "could it possibly mean \"you only have to wait a little while.\" because of the\nite being there.. chotto modifies matte which equals wait a little (while) and\nite means to be/exist/stay so therefore, 'a little bit wait is' could be a\nrougher interpretation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-02T01:54:54.753", "id": "5721", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-02T02:00:18.337", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-02T02:00:18.337", "last_editor_user_id": "1395", "owner_user_id": "1395", "parent_id": "948", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "953", "answer_count": 4, "body": "My friend and I are learning Japanese. For a time, all we knew was 私, but\nafter we learned more words, she started to use あたし when referring to herself,\nand I began using 僕. What I'm wondering is, how commonly are these used?\n\nRelated: [Is it ok for non-japanese to refer to themselves as [僕]{ぼく} and if\nnot why?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/580/is-it-ok-for-non-\njapanese-to-refer-to-themselves-as-and-if-not-why)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T16:47:51.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "952", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T09:46:24.577", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "83", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "colloquial-language", "culture", "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "How commonly are \"あたし\" or \"[僕]{ぼく}\" used?", "view_count": 4250 }

[ { "body": "あたし is quite common for females, but 僕 is not that much. In my feeling, 僕 has\nsome romantic sense, so using 僕 when you talk to girls should be no problem at\nall. (Note that I use romatic sense here is for non-family members, and non-\nclosed friends)\n\nJapanese use 俺 a lot recently, and here is a\n[report](http://www.isc.hokudai.ac.jp/www_ISC/staff/010/ningen9.pdf) about\nusage about 僕 and 俺\n\n第１期 - 1895~1935, 第２期 - 1966-1991, 第３期 - 1991~1998\n\n\n\nAnd this is the [another\nreport](http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/fushigi/report/?id=20110222-00005446-r25&page=2)\nabout 僕 vs 私 at business/work taken at 2011, results in around 20%~20% people\nusing 僕.\n\n\n\nref:\n\n * <http://www.isc.hokudai.ac.jp/www_ISC/staff/010/ningen9.pdf>\n * [http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/fushigi/report/?id=20110222-00005446-r25&page=2](http://r25.yahoo.co.jp/fushigi/report/?id=20110222-00005446-r25&page=2)", "comment_count": 16, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T16:52:19.430", "id": "953", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-05T09:46:30.443", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-05T09:46:30.443", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "952", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "This is a very difficult question to conclusively answer. \"Common\" depends on\nwhere you are, who you're with, and what the context is. The word you choose\nto refer to yourself often changes depending on these factors. If \"common\"\nmeans, \"Does a significant percentage of Japanese use these words regularly?\"\nthen yes, everyone will tell you they are common. But does that mean you can\nuse them all the time? Of course not. You have to adjust to whatever situation\nand context you're in.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T17:30:25.933", "id": "956", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-10T17:30:25.933", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "952", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It depends on who uses it. あたし is very common with women. Gay men also use it\n(sometimes for a joke, like Tanoshingo). If you watch Japanese TV, you'll hear\nit everyday!\n\n僕 on the other hand isn't that popular within young guys. They tend to use 俺\nin informal speech. However, instead of using the too formal 私, they might use\n僕.\n\n(Young) people (or kids) using 僕 might also be called 僕ちゃん, because it has\nsome kind of a cute meaning.\n\n僕 tends to have a more polite feeling, a more \"educated\" feeling.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T00:56:21.820", "id": "960", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T09:04:49.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-11T09:04:49.610", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "952", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "In Tokyo, among the people I speak with, this is mostly a matter of age.\n\nあたし is simple. In Tokyo, younger (er) women, say 30 and below, use this all\nthe time in casual situations.\n\n僕 is commonly used by my friends in their 30s, whereas friends in their 20s\ntend to use 俺.\n\nI use both depending on which group I am speaking to.\n\nAlso very common is to refer to yourself using your own name. This feels weird\nfor English speakers at first but is normal in Japanese.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-09T00:08:34.290", "id": "1813", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-09T00:08:34.290", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "117", "parent_id": "952", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "970", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Way back when, I remember being taught that when you want to say a really\npolite \"thank you\", sentences such as these are basically the same:\n\n> 文章を訂正して **いただきまして** ありがとうございます。\n>\n> 文章を訂正して **くださいまして** ありがとうございます。\n\nBut are they really? Does it make a difference if a) I specifically asked for\ncorrections, or b) the corrections were voluntarily offered?\n\nFurthermore, if these were truly the same, why is it you always hear the first\nof this following pair, but rarely the second?\n\n> 本日ご来店 **いただきまして** 、まことにありがとうございます。\n>\n> 本日ご来店 **（して）くださいまして** 、まことにありがとうございます。\n\nUnless you switch things up a bit:\n\n> 本日ご来店 **いただいた** お客様、まことにありがとうございます。\n>\n> 本日ご来店 **（して）くださった** お客様、まことにありがとうございます。\n\nWhat is the nuance buried in this pair? In what \"thank you\" situations can one\nbe used and not the other?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-10T18:21:52.820", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "957", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T14:19:14.797", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "politeness", "nuances", "keigo" ], "title": "When can I exchange くださる for いただく in expressions of gratitude?", "view_count": 1154 }

[ { "body": "I had been wondering for years why we hear ～いただきましてありがとうございます more often than\n～くださいましてありがとうございます, but now I can make up a plausible explanation, inspired by\nBoaz’s comment on the question. This is very incomplete, but let me post it as\nan answer because I hope that it explains a small part of the question.\n\nAs a background, as explained in the answers to [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/402/is-it-ok-to-use-\ninstead-of), いただく is to receive and くださる is to give. So the grammatical\nsubject of the first part of the sentence\n\n> 文章を訂正していただきましてありがとうございます。\n\nis the speaker (who “received” the favor), while the grammatical subject of\nthe first part of the sentence\n\n> 文章を訂正してくださいましてありがとうございます。\n\nis the listener (who “gave” the favor). Both describe the same fact and the\nonly difference is perspective. I do not think that there is any difference in\nmeaning between the two sentences in each pair, and we can use both sentences\nno matter whether the favor was offered voluntarily or as a result of asking.\n\n* * *\n\nNow why do we hear ～いただきまして more often than ～くださいまして? I do not have a\nreference at hand, but as I wrote in the answer to the other question, one of\nthe ways to express the politeness in Japanese is by avoiding using the person\nto be respected as the grammatical subject. This is probably why we hear\n～いただきましてありがとうございます more often than ～くださいましてありがとうございます.\n\nBecause ～くださいまして is more direct in the sense that it uses the listener as a\nsubject, there might be cases where the sentence using ～くださいまして has a nuance\nof the favor offered voluntarily, but I cannot get a grip on this. Even if\nthis nuance exists, it is understandable that ～いただきまして is used more often\nsimply because ～いただきまして is more polite.\n\nI have no idea which of ご来店いただいたお客様 and ご来店くださったお客様 is used more often, and if\nthe latter is more common, I do not know the reason for that.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T14:19:14.797", "id": "970", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T14:19:14.797", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "957", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "969", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I remember reading that there is a dialect in which older men refer to\nthemselves as あたし. It didn't have a feminine connotation, it may have even\nbeen a bit rough.\n\nI think I read it on Wikipedia, but being as I can't find it now, I wonder if\nit was a prank edit. I'm also pretty sure it was a Honshu dialect.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T03:40:22.790", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "961", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T14:10:46.250", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "dialects", "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Is there a dialect where older men refer to themselves as あたし?", "view_count": 681 }

[ { "body": "No. Older men might use わし, but men don't use あたし. Maybe if they are\nhomosexuals (like Tanoshingo) and even then, it would be to joke around, I\nthink.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T04:34:34.420", "id": "962", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T04:34:34.420", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "961", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "I never heard that あたし is used as _regional_ dialect, but old men from Rakugo-\nka ([落語家](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%90%BD%E8%AA%9E%E5%AE%B6)) sometimes\nuse it. If I remember correctly, Hayashiya Kikuou\n([林家木久扇](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9E%97%E5%AE%B6%E6%9C%A8%E4%B9%85%E6%89%87))\nfrom Shou-ten ([笑点](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AC%91%E7%82%B9)) uses it.\n\nNote: rakugo-ka are a group of people who do\n[rakugo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakugo), a kind of comedian talk show.\nOne of the definitions at the [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-\nwebster.com/dictionary/dialect) dictionary mentions \"dialect\" as \"a variety of\na language used by the members of a group\", so that could be a kind of\ndialect. But the Japanese Wikipedia definition of dialect,\n[方言](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B9%E8%A8%80), only mentioned regional\ndialect as dialect. (I didn't read the details of it, so I could be wrong.)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T04:49:26.473", "id": "963", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T14:10:46.250", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-11T14:10:46.250", "last_editor_user_id": "270", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Looks like the reason I couldn't find it was because someone recently rewrote\nthe Tokyo dialect article on Wikipedia (by chance the [old\npage](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_dialect&oldid=420269742#Shitamatachi_dialect)\nwas still cached and served to me!). It said, \"Atashi is a feminine first\nperson in standard Japanese, but in Shitamachi dialect, it is often used by\nboth men and women.\"\n\nSorry if I threw anyone off by limiting it to older men. I think my brain just\nassociates Shitamachi with older people (maybe because of\n[this](http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%B1%9F%E6%88%B8%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89&oldid=37694691#.E7.8F.BE.E4.BB.A3)).\n\nI also found this [goo question](http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/4479107.html)\nwhich was answered with 「あたし」は男女問わず東京弁です。特に男が使うのが下町の特徴です。 (Forgive the\ntranslation: Tokyo-ben's atashi isn't connected to gender. In particular, it's\na trait of the Shitamachi men who use it.)\n\nUnfortunately, the Wiki wasn't well sourced, and well the goo site isn't\ndefinitive either.\n\nBy the way, I found a few links that agree with what YOU said about being used\nby rakugo professionals.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T13:33:20.070", "id": "969", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T13:33:20.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "968", "answer_count": 1, "body": "is it true that なら is merely a short form of ならば and as such, both are totally\ninterchangeable without affecting the nuance of the sentence?\n\nAlso, a second question is is ならば more \"formal\" than \"なら\" ?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T06:19:32.073", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "964", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T11:54:13.240", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "ならば vs なら. both are totally interchangeable without affecting the nuance of the sentence?", "view_count": 6880 }

[ { "body": "First things first, なら does come historically from ならば. ならば itself is the\nhypothetical form of the old copula なり, and it was constructed in the same way\nthe auxiliary verb たり changed into たらば, as I've already explained here: [Can\n【～たら】 be a short form of\n【～てから】?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/889/can-be-a-short-form-\nof/897#897)\n\nSo it's なら (the mizenkei of なり) plus the hypothetical particle ば. Originally,\nit was just the hypothetical form of the copula, so you could say it was the\nequivalent of hypothetical and conditional forms of the modern copula (だ) such\nas であれば and だったら. But in modern language it became a fixed expression and was\nfurther shortened to なら in most cases, and came to be used with verbs as well\nas nouns.\n\n### Are なら and ならば completely interchangeable?\n\nAs far as I know yes, but the nuance of the sentence _could_ change since ならば\nis not only more formal than なら, but also has a somewhat literary feeling to\nit. It's pretty much absent from everyday speech, and even in very polite\nspeech I've rarely ever heard it (which might be just my experience, but\nthat's all I have). So if you want to be safe, you'd better use なら everywhere\nuntil you get a better feel for the language.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T11:54:13.240", "id": "968", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T11:54:13.240", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "964", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "977", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it true that the prefix 超 to mean “very” is seldom used in written works\n(like novels, not counting direct speech), and is usually only used when\ntalking?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T17:08:56.523", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "972", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-16T13:19:38.970", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-16T13:19:38.970", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "words", "usage", "register", "prefixes" ], "title": "Is 超 (chō) seldom used in written works?", "view_count": 526 }

[ { "body": "It depends on what kind of written works you consider.\n\nAs Boaz wrote in a comment on the question, 超 (ちょう) meaning “very” is very\ncolloquial. It is highly unlikely to see it in formal contexts, written or\nspoken.\n\nHowever, this does not mean that 超 (also written チョー or ちょー) is not used in\nwritten Japanese. See latest search results on Google of\n[\"超\"](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E8%B6%85%22&hl=ja&tbs=rltm%3A1),\n[\"チョー\"](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%83%81%E3%83%A7%E3%83%BC%22&hl=ja&tbs=rltm%3A1)\nand\n[\"ちょー\"](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%83%BC%22&hl=ja&tbs=rltm%3A1)\n(but note that not everything in the results is this usage).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T01:46:50.590", "id": "977", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T01:46:50.590", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "We should also note that while 超- meaning \"very\" is colloquial, 超- meaning\n\"super\" or \"above\" (the \"original\" meaning of the kanji) is entirely\nacceptable as a prefix in a literary work. In fact, many words rely on it:\n\n> 超大国 【ちょうたいこく】 superpower, as in US or USSR during the Cold War (from\n> WWWJDIC)\n\n大国 is a word in its own right - 超- is just a prefix.\n\n_EDIT:_\n\nThis answer was kind of an addendum, but has been upvoted a bit (thanks!). I\nstill agree with Tsuyoshi Ito's answer of \"no you shouldn't use it in written\nworks\" as long as we're talking about the OP's meaning of \"very\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T06:12:58.043", "id": "983", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T23:40:05.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T23:40:05.610", "last_editor_user_id": "87", "owner_user_id": "87", "parent_id": "972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "975", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I have occasionally heard and read instances, where a person has referred to\nthemselves as これ. My Japanese dictionary also lists \"Me, I.\" as a definition\nof これ.\n\nNow, this obviously isn't used as frequently as 私, 僕, etc., so it makes me\nwonder: When can it be used to refer to one's self? and Does it have any extra\nor particular meaning as such?\n\nThanks! :)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T18:08:37.337", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "973", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T03:49:12.890", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T13:10:54.607", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "first-person-pronouns", "pronouns" ], "title": "When is it appropriate to refer to yourself by これ?", "view_count": 810 }

[ { "body": "I think that would be おれ 「俺」, and actually most frequently used first person\npronoun for males in Japan currently when speaking.\n\nThe one you found in dictionary might be from まくらそうし「枕草子」 at Middle Heian-Era\n(around 1000 Years ago) but I don't think that one is in used recently.\n\nor [これ](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27360/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%8C/) or\n[こら](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27288/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%89/) has\nanother meaning like \"Hey\"\n\n> これ,静かにしろ Hey, be quiet!\n\nNote: これ has some sense like \"Listen\", \"I say\", but こら is stronger on\nexpression about angriness, scolding.\n\nref:\n\n * [http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27360/m0u/これ/](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27360/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%8C/)\n * [http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27288/m0u/こら/](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/27288/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%89/)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T18:12:19.287", "id": "974", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T05:39:09.960", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T05:39:09.960", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "973", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "To add a little bit more to what YOU said in his answer: in some Classical\nJapanese texts これ was indeed used as a first (and also second) person pronoun.\nIt's not the most common first person pronoun in Classical Japanese (that\nwould probably be われ), but it's a possible use, so maybe that's where your\ndictionary got that from.\n\nThe quote from 枕草子 (The Pillow Book) YOU referred to is probably the one which\nshows up in Daijirin:\n\n> 殿上人なども「なほこれ一人は」などのたまふを\n\nDon't ask me to translate that though. :)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-11T19:01:16.780", "id": "975", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-11T19:01:16.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "973", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "You can use こちら (the humble form of ここ) to refer to yourself (and your in-\ngroup). It's not exactly これ but it's close. I would say this is most often\nheard in the phrase こちらこそ, used after someone thanks you to say something\nalong the lines of, \"The pleasure was all mine.\" See [definition\n#3](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%81%93%E3%81%A1%E3%82%89&enc=UTF-8&stype=0&dtype=3),\ngiven as synonymous with 自分（たち）. I tend to use it in situations that are\nsomewhere between casual and formal, like talking with a 先生 or someone older I\ndon't know very well.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T00:16:47.857", "id": "1073", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T03:49:12.890", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T03:49:12.890", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "305", "parent_id": "973", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1358", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've noticed the following sets of words that seem to have a very obvious\npattern, and, of course, their meanings are very closely related:\n\n * これ、 それ、 あれ、 どれ\n * この、 その、 あの、 どの\n * ここ、 そこ、 あそこ、 どこ\n\nWhat are the origins of these sets of words? I'm asking them all together\nbecause I'm thinking that their origin is interrelated.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T03:21:29.687", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "978", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T00:45:14.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T00:49:14.727", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "83", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "etymology", "demonstratives" ], "title": "What are the origins of the 「こそあど」 demonstratives?", "view_count": 393 }

[ { "body": "Well, if you use the kanjis, you see the pattern even better!\n\n此れ、 其れ、 彼、 何れ\n\n此の、 其の、 彼の、 何の\n\n此処、 其処、 彼処、 何処\n\nFrom there, the suffixes \"れ\"、 \"の\"、 and \"こ\" indicate whether you're talking\nabout a thing, a \"possessive\", or a location. \nThe prefixes are, as you had guessed, the \"distance\": close, somehow far, far,\nand the question \"which\".\n\nSo, \"これ\" is the close thing, そのX is \"the X of mildly far away\" and \"どこ\" is\n\"which location?\". \nUnderstanding the others is then straightforward.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T09:34:30.360", "id": "1358", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T00:45:14.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T00:45:14.370", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "978", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1067", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Yay, yet another first-person-pronoun question!\n\nI know that 自分 is commonly used as a personal pronoun in _indirect speech_ ,\ne.g.:\n\nマイクは、自分はなんと不注意なのだろうと言った。→ Mike said that he was very careless. \nスミスさんは自分はニューヨークの生まれだと言った。→ Mr Smith said, \"I was born in New York.\"\n\nas well as a reflexive pronoun (for speaker or listener/third party):\n\n自分を信じて！→ Trust yourself!\n\nand as possessive, to emphasise the possession:\n\n掘っ建て小屋でもいいから自分の家が欲しい。→ I want my own house, even if it's a shack.\n\nAll these make perfect sense and share the same underlying meaning of\nmyself/yourself/oneself (with emphasis on the self). But I have also\nencountered (in fact even caught myself saying) 自分 in places where 私/僕/あたし/etc\ncould have been used, with only a very weak emphasis on \"myself\" (e.g. not\nanswering a \"did he or did you?\" question):\n\n自分はスポーツが嫌い。→ I hate sports. (?)\n\nMy question is, is this use as a _general_ gender-neutral 私 substitute correct\n(in cases where there is no particular need to assert oneself against others)?\nAnd if so, what would be its speech level (e.g. could it be used in a formal\ncontext)?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T04:08:08.580", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "979", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T09:03:42.917", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T04:10:46.620", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Use of 自分【じぶん】as a personal pronoun in direct speech", "view_count": 4443 }

[ { "body": "Not much of an answer, but between myself and my native speaker girlfriend, we\nboth thought the same thing, \"It's the exact same in meaning and sense to 私／僕\nor any of those, but it's definitely less formal.\"\n\nAt the same time, I don't think that means it's particularly informal; I just\nbelieve that the rigidity of the business language prescribes 私【わたくし・わたし】 over\nsomething like 自分.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T04:17:32.180", "id": "981", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T04:17:32.180", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "87", "parent_id": "979", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "It's not always that interchangeable, as it has the meaning of (\"my-\",\n\"your-\", \"one-\") \"self\":\n\n> 僕が嫌い。 - I don't like it. \n> 自分が嫌い。- I don't like myself.\n\nI'd translate\n\n> 自分はスポーツが嫌い。\n\nmore along the lines of\n\n> As for me, I hate sports.\n\nI'd expect this to be preceded by a discussion of other people's abilities or\ntastes in sport, the 自分 serving as a contrast to others.\n\n> スタジアムでバイトします。スポーツ見る人を見るのが面白いから。自分はスポーツが嫌い。 \n> \"I'm working at the stadium, because watching the fans is interesting.\n> Personally I hate sport though.\"\n\nIf you'd replace the 自分 in the above sentence with 私 or another personal\npronoun, the meaning would somewhat disconnect.\n\n> スタジアムでバイトします。スポーツ見る人を見るのが面白いから。僕はスポーツが嫌い。 \n> \"I'm working at the stadium, because watching the fans is interesting. I\n> really hate sport.\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T04:39:57.317", "id": "982", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T04:39:57.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "979", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "> My question is, is this use as a general gender-neutral 私 substitute correct\n> (in cases where there is no particular need to assert oneself against\n> others)?\n\nThere is no intrinsic gender specificity in 自分, as opposed to 爺さん/婆さん. In\nactual usage, it's mainly used by male speakers (source:\n[Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E8%87%AA%E5%88%86&match=beginswith&itemid=09084100)).\n\nSpeaking from experience, I have the impression that it's especially heard\namong men who have certain inclination towards hard-core sportsmanship and/or\naccustomed to commander-subordinate relationships like in armies. To cite\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E4%BA%BA%E7%A7%B0%E4%BB%A3%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E#.E8.87.AA.E5.88.86.EF.BC.88.E3.81.98.E3.81.B6.E3.82.93.EF.BC.89):\n\n> 自分（じぶん）: 体育会系の男性に多い。力士や野球選手などによく使われる。\n\nHowever, the number of people who use this pronoun is not very great (in my\nexperience). So I think people will have different opinion about just what\nkind of person uses it, because the number of samples available around them is\nquite low. (Which means my impression above can be biased.)\n\n> And if so, what would be its speech level (e.g. could it be used in a formal\n> context)?\n\nDepends on the context. I can easily imagine it used by a foot soldier\nanswering an officer during a formal inspection: (This example is completely\nmade up by me)\n\n> は、自分は第709小隊の木村であります!\n\nThis is acceptable because 自分 is regularly used and even expected in this\nimaginary army.\n\nIn other contexts, when there is no precedented use of the pronoun, it will\ndepend on how the majority of the listeners react. It can vary from offense\n[[3](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1213671462)],\namusement to indifference.\n\nIf something of high value is at stake, like in job interviews, I would stay\naway from 自分 and stick to a more general pronoun. Well, unless it's already a\npart of your speaking style, or you're intentionally choosing it as your\npersonal brand.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T18:24:19.007", "id": "1067", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T09:03:42.917", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T09:03:42.917", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "979", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "994", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I'm (trying) to read a Japanese spy novel at the moment. It could just be the\nauthor's style, but I see lots of sentences end in 〜気配がする。\n\nThe more I read, the more I wonder - is there any difference between this and\n気がする?\n\n> 一人で公園のベンチで本を読んだら、隣にだれか座ってきた気配がする。\n>\n> 一人で公園のベンチで本を読んだら、隣にだれか座ってきた気がする。\n\nThe above example is mine, but it was the context of the book (I am too lazy\nto go find the page now).\n\nA cursory look in the dictionary tells me that 気配 is more like \"sense\" whereas\nthe latter may be more like \"feeling\" \\- anyone care to help?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T04:12:34.993", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "980", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T19:31:05.187", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "87", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "What is the sense of 気配がする (けはいがする) versus 気がする?", "view_count": 628 }

[ { "body": "気配 => indication, sign, tendence ; quotation (esp. stock market) 気がする => To\nhave a certain mood or feeling, to have a hunch.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T14:59:15.433", "id": "987", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T14:59:15.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "980", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "I've always understood 気配to be \"presence/aura\" and きがする as feeling/hunch like\nother people have pointed out.\n\nso like in your examples\n\n気配がする ＝ I was reading a book on a bench in the park when i felt the presence\nof some sitting next me\n\n気がする ＝ I was reading a book on a bench in the park when i got the feeling\nsomeone was sitting next to me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T15:13:49.067", "id": "988", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T15:13:49.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "980", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "気配 is defined in\n[大辞泉](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B0%97%E9%85%8D&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=06954405654400)\nas something which is \"not clearly seen, but vaguely sensed.\" It is used to\ndescribe an indication or hint of something outside the person who senses it,\nand shows up in more patterns than just 気配がする:\n\n> 人の気配を感じた。 I felt the presence of someone.\n>\n> 秋の気配がする。 The first signs of autumn appear.\n\nYou cannot replace 気配 with 気 in the above examples.\n\n気がする, on the other hand, always refers to the subject's intuition or\nsuspicions:\n\n> どこかで会ったような気がする。 I have a vague feeling we met somewhere.\n>\n> 前にこんなことがあった気がする。 I feel like something like this happened before.\n>\n> これから始まるという気がする。 I have a hunch things are going to start now.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T19:31:05.187", "id": "994", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T19:31:05.187", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "980", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1442", "answer_count": 4, "body": "What is the etymology of 右に出る, as in 「右に出る者はいない」? What on earth makes the\nright superior to the left?\n\nRelatedly, is 左に出る ever used to mean \"inferior to\"?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T06:44:18.653", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "984", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T03:07:22.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "etymology", "idioms" ], "title": "Etymology of 右に出る", "view_count": 483 }

[ { "body": "I don't know Chinese histroy but my Japanese dictionary says that during [Han\nDynastry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty) at China, they defined the\nsystem that right side of the place (eg., for seat) is for higher rank. And\nJapanese just follow it.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T06:58:25.650", "id": "985", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T07:03:29.737", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T07:03:29.737", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "It's related to the Han dynasty. A quick search on Japanese sites give the\nfollowing explanations:\n\n\"It was customary at that time to order the people by rank, starting from\nright to left (and putting the emperor in front). When you messed up\nsomething, you were to be seated at a place more on the left than before. This\nis what is called _sasen_.\" \n(Sasen, 左遷 is therefore the \"asymmetrical\" opposite.)\n\n\"When writing down the names of the official ranks, names were written from\nright to left. 右に出るものはいない then means that there is no one above this person.\"\n\nSources: <http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q116204746>\nand <http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1310949173>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T02:09:18.253", "id": "1427", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T02:09:18.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "According to [this page](http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/172565.html), there are a\nfew possibilities.\n\nThe answer that received the highest votes says that In China and other south\nAsian countries, and in Bhuddist and Islamic cultures, the left hand is the\none you use to wipe yourself with after using the bathroom, and so the left is\nassociated with dirtiness.\n\nIt also goes on to say that dioramas with dolls of the imperial family order\nthe members of the imperial house from left to right, where right is the\nhigher status. (This would be inline with the answer given\n[here](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q116204746),\nwhere people actually standing in front of the emperor are lined up similarly\nwith higher ranking people to the right.)\n\nThe answer goes on to say things about how in Europe and generally across\ncultures, there is a bias against left handedness, which I would agree with.\nIn English, the word \"sinister\" comes from Latin roots associated with the\nword for left. In Chinese the word for left is associated with \"out of\naccord\", at least, according to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-\nhandedness#Social_stigma_and_repression).\n\nOther, less plausible (in my opinion) answers offered on that page are:\n\n * In images of the goddess Izanami, who gave birth to Japan, the sun, the moon, and storms, the order of which gods are oriented around her, and associations with those gods gave rise to preferences and associations with left and right. (The explanation on the page was unclear to me as to why one god would be better than another, though. The sun god is on the left, the moon god on the right, but I would have assumed the sun god would be higher status...)\n\n * In the Japanese vertical writing system, columns start from the right and work their way left, so if you were making a list of important points, the more important ones would be in the columns to the right.\n\nIn the end, I personally think the generalist answer is the most accurate:\nRight and left handedness are percieved across cultures as superior and\ninferior, and it's the phrase that follows that bias, not the other way\naround.\n\nSo it might be the case that the specific phrase you're asking about comes\nfrom the ordering of imperial household members, either in person or with\ndolls, but the reason they ordered them that way was because of a fundamental\nbias against left-handedness that originated from way back in China and South\nAsia and across cultures.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T03:52:12.923", "id": "1430", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T05:08:44.477", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-23T05:08:44.477", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "About the etymology:\n\nA more old-fashioned way of saying \"右に出る者はいない\" is the proverb \"その右に出(い)ずる者なし\".\nThe source of this proverb seems to be from「史記 (an old Chinese history book:\n[wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_of_the_Grand_Historian))」([source:a\nproverb dictionary](http://www.proverb.jp/proverb3602.html),\n[source:chiebukuro](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1156704386)).\n\nGoogle found me [a Chinese article about the idiom\n無出其右](http://big5.zhengjian.org/articles/2009/2/21/57584.html) that cites an\nanecdote from 史記 as its origin. How is that relevant? In fact, in Japanese,\n\"無出其右\" is literally read as 其の右に出づる無し.\n\n> ↓ 無出其右 (Chinese proverb)\n>\n> ↓ 其の右に出づる無し (Chinese proverb read the Japanese way)\n>\n> ↓ その右に出(い)ずる者なし (archaic Japanese)\n>\n> ↓ 右に出る者はいない (modern Japanese)\n\nIf someone can read and explain the story in the article, that could be the\nroot of the etymology. (It's not definite because the anecdote can be\nfictitious.)\n\n**Root of the idiom:**\n\nAs most people have said in other answers, in Chinese history, when a group of\npeople is gathered, they are placed in order of importance from right to left.\nRight being the highest position.\n\nNow, the idiom 無出其右 (origin of 右に出る者はいない) has its roots in an old Chinese\nstory.\n\nDuring the Eastern Han dynasty, 班固 (Bān Gù), the great historian, was summoned\nto the imperial court along with 10 other officials (including Xian ZhaoChen,\nTian Shu and Meng Shu) to debate important matters. Bān Gù being highly\nknowledgeable and skilled at debate, none of the 10 other persons could stand\non his right.\n\n_Translation and additional notes from the original sentence\n“贤赵臣田叔、孟舒等十人，召见与语，汉廷臣无能出其右者。 \" (无能出其右者 being the classical Chinese origin of\n無出其右 and its Japanese version 右に出る者はいない)_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T09:45:33.737", "id": "1442", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T03:07:22.707", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "992", "answer_count": 5, "body": "What’s the difference between [v] たとしても and just the plain ても? Example:\n\n> (1) 説明書を読んでも分かりにくい\n>\n> (2) 説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T15:40:07.400", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "989", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-01T19:54:43.273", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-01T19:52:55.043", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances" ], "title": "What’s the difference between [v] たとしても and just the plain ても", "view_count": 3512 }

[ { "body": "1. 説明書を読んでも分かりにくい\n\nIt's hard to understand although I read instructions.\n\n 2. 説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい\n\nIt's hard to understand even if I read the instructions.\n\n〜ても also has some sense like としても, if you use like\n\n> 読んでも分からないと思う (I don't think I will understand it even if I read it)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T15:56:52.527", "id": "990", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T16:27:57.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-12T16:27:57.593", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "The difference between these two hinges on whether or not the action has been\ncompleted at the time the statement was made:\n\n**説明書を読んでも分かりにくい**\n\nThis could be taken in one of two ways:\n\n 1. Even if you (I) read the instructions, it **will [still] be** hard to understand.\n\n 2. Even after reading the instructions, it **is [still]** hard to understand.\n\nSo with the ～ても form in this sentence, the action (読む) may have already taken\nplace, or it may be a hypothetical action to take place in the future.\n\n**説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい**\n\nBy contrast, the ～としても pattern always refers to a hypothetical situation which\nmay or may not take place in the future. As such, the translation \"even\nsupposing you were to [action]\" often works well for ～たとしても:\n\n 1. Even supposing you (I) were to read the instructions, it **would [still] be** hard to understand.\n\nNote that while both ～ても and ～たとしても can both express hypothetical cases, ～ても\nbetter matches a \"even if … will\" pattern, while ～たとしても better matches a \"even\nsupposing … would\" pattern in English.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T18:59:37.550", "id": "992", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T18:59:37.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "I may be wrong about that, but I think `(た-Form)としても` has an extra sense of\nsupposition, while `～ても` has a much more 'real' feeling (in the sense of\n[realis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realis)).\n\nI'll take YOU's examples, which I understand (and would translate) quite\ndifferently. In the most literal sense, they spell to me as:\n\n> 1. 説明書を読んでも分かりにくい \n> Reading the instructions, this is still hard to understand.\n> 2. 説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい \n> Supposing one reads the instructions - this is still hard to understand.\n>\n\nThere's actually no focal (emphasizing) \"even\" in either of the sentences in\nJapanese. If you want to emphasize that that reading the instructions was\nsupposed to help but didn't really help you, you can use たとえ:\n\n> 1. たとえ説明書を読んでも分かりにくい \n> Even though I read the instructions... Even if one reads the\n> instructions...\n>\n> 2. たとえ説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい \n> Even if I - let's say - read the instructions...\n>\n>\n\nSince I've moved to a less literal translation here you can notice something\nelse: (1) easily translates to both a simple concessive statement (although X\nhappens, Y happens too) and a concessive condition (even if X happens, Y will\nalso happen). When we get to (2) on the other hand, it can only be a condition\n- that's is because `～たとしても` is a supposition so it can only be used to\ndescribe hypothetical situations, not something that actually happens now or\nhas happened before.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T18:59:55.740", "id": "993", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-12T18:59:55.740", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> 説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい\n\nThere is an implicit premise in としても expression. Here, the premise is that the\ninstruction is supposed to help the reader/user. \n(But, this equipment is way too hard to operate); even a (helpful) instruction\n(if any) cannot be of help.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-01-25T04:34:21.823", "id": "65063", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-01T19:54:43.273", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-01T19:54:43.273", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "32700", "parent_id": "989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "My teacher explained to me that たとしても should be translated as: “had verb”. So\nin this case from what I learned, would be:\n\n> 説明書を読んだとしても分かりにくい\n>\n> Even if I had read the instructions, it would (still) be hard to understand", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-03-27T01:27:20.007", "id": "85792", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-01T19:51:23.280", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-01T19:51:23.280", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "43366", "parent_id": "989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "996", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My boss is a native Japanese speaker.\n\nIn English, when I have a question or an issue to bring up, I can ask \"Do you\nhave a minute?\" to see if it is an appropriate time to interrupt them. In\nJapanese, when I tried the literal translation `一分【いっぷん】がありますか？` I was told I\nsounded like an Instant Ramen commercial.\n\nI've heard another Japanese student use `ちょっといいですか？` but they were also told\nthat's not real Japanese.\n\nI know the word 暇【ひま】but this doesn't seem like an appropriate context to use\nit, since my boss isn't free, I'm just interrupting him.\n\nHow do I politely ask him for his time?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T19:56:21.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "995", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T02:36:26.977", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T02:36:26.977", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "politeness", "translation", "business-japanese" ], "title": "How do I politely ask my boss for a moment of his time?", "view_count": 9272 }

[ { "body": "ちょっといいですか is a casual expression. Depending on the relation between you and\nyour boss, you may not want to use the phrase to your boss.\n\nOne of the formal and polite expressions is お時間をいただいてもよろしいですか\n(おじかんをいただいてもよろしいですか). If you want to state an estimate of the length (say five\nminutes), you can say something like 五分ほどお時間をいただいてもよろしいですか.\n\nお時間をいただく literally means to be given someone’s time, and is a polite\nexpression which means either to disturb/interrupt (e.g. for discussions) or\nto make someone wait (e.g. until the speaker finishes some work). Therefore\nthe phrase お時間をいただいてもよろしいですか can be used both when the speaker wants to\ninterrupt the listener and when the speaker wants the listener to wait for\nsomething.\n\n一分がありますか does not make sense (I assume that your boss was joking). In Japanese\n一分 (いっぷん) means the length of one minute and does not mean “a short period,”\nunlike the English expressions “a minute” and “one minute.”", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-12T20:25:17.630", "id": "996", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T22:14:43.190", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T22:14:43.190", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "998", "answer_count": 1, "body": "A few years ago I was told by a Japanese friend \"社会の窓\" (shakai no mado).\n\nIt was explained after some giggling that this is what is said to a man who\nhas inadvertently left his fly open, and that it means literally \"society's\nwindow\".\n\nSo why use \"society's window\" for this situation? Is it actually an additional\nsense added to a more straightforward older one? Or does it provide some\ninsight into Japanese culture why such wording would be used?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T04:25:06.147", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "997", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T12:17:03.267", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "set-phrases", "culture", "idioms", "etymology" ], "title": "Why \"社会の窓\" (shakai no mado)?", "view_count": 2630 }

[ { "body": "[俗語辞書（ぞくごじしょ）](http://zokugo-dict.com/12si/shakainomado.htm) (slang\ndictionary) says that that word was formed because of the radio program called\n社会の窓（しゃかいのまど） around 1948-1960, which tried expose anything about\nsociety/community.\n\nAnd people start to called zip fasteners 社会の窓, because it is a hidden place\nfor men.\n\nAlso when zip fasteners are opened in any place other than the toilet, they\ncalled it 社会の窓（しゃかいのまど）が開いている（あいている）.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T04:41:35.583", "id": "998", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T12:17:03.267", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T12:17:03.267", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "997", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1001", "answer_count": 2, "body": "When dining at Yoshinoya I never know how to ask for the size meal I want.\n\nTheir sizes are 並, 大, and 特.\n\nI only know that \"大\" means big, but it also has two readings so I have no idea\nwhether to ask for \"dai\" or \"ooki\". And since the word/character I know for\n\"small\" is not included, I assume they are using a similar gimmick to that\nseen in Western chains where there is no small but only \"regular\", \"medium\",\n\"large\"... sometimes up to the infamous \"venti\" (-:\n\nThen again maybe there are various ways of writing \"small\".\n\nSo are these standard words or gimmicky like \"venti\", what do they mean\nliterally, how do I know which reading to use for each, how would I say them\nin an order? Are these same sizes used just about everywhere in Japanese\nrestaurants or are there some other terms I should also know?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T04:47:12.523", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "999", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-05T05:13:08.133", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "usage", "kanji", "vocabulary", "food", "readings" ], "title": "Words/characters for fast food meal sizes: 並, 大, 特", "view_count": 37214 }

[ { "body": "Although 並(nami), 大(dai) will work in most of the places, others would depend\non each restaurant.\n\n * For Small - 小 (shou), ミニ (mini), 半分 (hanbun), 少なめ (sukuname), S (エス)...\n\n * For Normal - 並 (nami), 普通 (futsuu), 中(chuu), M (エム)...\n\n * For Big - 大 (dai), 大盛り (oomori), 多め (oome), L (エル)...\n\n * For Special Big - 1.5盛 (ittengo mori) ([sukiya](http://www.sukiya.jp/menu/) invented it)\n * For Extra Big - 特盛 (tokumori), 特大 (tokudai)...\n\n * For Extreme Big - 鬼盛 (oni mori), (超)巨大盛 (chou kyodai mori), バカ盛り (baka mori), 激盛り (geki mori), メガ盛り (mega mori)....", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T05:00:56.463", "id": "1001", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-05T05:13:08.133", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-05T05:13:08.133", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "999", "post_type": "answer", "score": 24 }, { "body": "For Yoshinoya, it is 並 (nami) and 大(盛り) (oomori) because that is what the\nservers yell out to the cooks. This has been my experience in Tokyo branches.\nThey didn't have 特 in those days, but 特盛 (tokumori) would be my guess.\n\nYou can/could also order it without onions (neginuki), or darker (cooked-down)\nbroth (karai).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-02-26T20:55:03.863", "id": "43894", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-26T20:55:03.863", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "20056", "parent_id": "999", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1011", "answer_count": 2, "body": "[Statistics](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/952/how-commonly-\nare-atashi-or-boku-used-in-japan/953#953) seem to show that (for young males,\nanyway) 俺{おれ} is beginning to be used more often than 僕{ぼく} to refer to\noneself. I have read that 俺 is somewhat rude.\n\nThere are certain situations, of course, where you would obviously not want to\nuse it (e.g. when speaking with your boss), but when speaking in an informal\nsetting, does it still have a \"rude\" connotation?\n\nHow would you feel if you are speaking to your friend and he's using 俺 all the\ntime instead of 僕?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T04:58:51.160", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1000", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-05T09:41:10.497", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "83", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Just how rude is 「俺{おれ}」?", "view_count": 4871 }

[ { "body": "For the younger generations, the rude connotations seem to be disappearing\nfast. I spent considerable time with Japanese in their '20s over the past two\nyears and the vast majority of males consistently used 俺 to refer to\nthemselves in casual situations. Many of them were far removed from the type\nof personality that wants to present themselves as rude in any kind of\nsituation.\n\nFor older generations the connotations may still be there, but that doesn't\nseem to stop young people using them in mixed company. They may switch to\nsomething softer when addressing older people directly, then return to 俺 when\nspeaking to the younger person sitting next to them a few seconds later.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T05:48:48.750", "id": "1006", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T05:48:48.750", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Like pretty much all pronoun (hell, all politeness-level related) issues in\nJapanese, there just isn't an absolute answer: it's all down to context and to\nthe nature of your relationship with the listener.\n\nThe short answer is: _a lot less rude than you may have been led to believe_\n\nI do remember being given very stern warnings (in manuals or language lessons)\nabout never using it in polite company, lest I gravely offend people by my\nlack of humility etc. etc. In reality, as Oren pointed out, young people use\nit all the time, including in semi-formal situations (e.g. when talking to\npeople they do not know very well).\n\nI recommend you read through the [many questions that have already been posted\non the proper uses of 私 vs. 僕 vs.\n俺](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/first-person-pronoun):\nthey will probably tell you all you need to know about the situations in which\nit is OK to use one or the other. But for a quick summary:\n\n 1. Some examples of situations in which 俺 _is_ indeed going to sound very rude:\n\n * Talking to your boss or a superior at work.\n\n * Talking to an elderly person you do not know well (or any elderly, really).\n\n 2. Typical situations where 俺 is perfectly innocuous:\n\n * Talking to your male friends/schoolmates/coworkers of same or lower rank (in age and/or position).\n\n * Talking to people you know intimately (family members, girlfriend...).\n\n 3. Situations where it can go both ways and you should rely on context and your better judgement:\n\n * Talking to senior coworkers/friends (i.e. 先輩【せんぱい】)\n * Talking to girls or love interests you are not particularly intimate with: I recommend you read up on the 僕 vs. 俺 debate for that one. Some people will recommend 僕 for its \"cuteness\" and harmlessness, while others will point out that 俺, making you sound like a manly man, is a better fit for courtship.\n * When talking to perfect strangers (e.g in a store etc.): I hear it done all the time... Probably depends a lot on your tone but generally safe.\n\nProvided the rest of your sentence and your tone convey the appropriate level\nof politeness, I generally don't think 俺 will offend anyone. A much higher\nrisk, ihmo, is that it will make you sound slightly silly, because out of\ncharacter (i.e. more boastful than your age and position allow you to). Rule\nof thumb is that you should never use it with people that are your father's\nage or above ;-)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T06:37:33.707", "id": "1011", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T07:56:40.100", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1005", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In my wanderings around Japan giving my kana knowledge some practice I've\nnoticed both the words \"ガール\" (gāru) and \"ガールズ\" (gāruzu) in use at least in\nsignage. Obviously they are borrowed from English \"girl\" and \"girls\" in turn,\nbut is either or both of them now considered to be Japanese words, or are they\nmerely seen as English written in katakana?\n\nIf they are now considered to be Japanese words, how do their usages differ\nfrom the native Japanese words for \"girl\"?\n\nAnd if both are now considered Japanese can \"ガールズ\" be considered a plural of\n\"ガール\", especially since Japanese doesn't normally have a grammatical concept\nof plurality?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T05:15:54.923", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1003", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T05:39:09.910", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T05:38:53.907", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "synonyms", "loanwords", "wasei-eigo" ], "title": "Is \"ガール\" (gāru) now considered a Japanese word? What about \"ガールズ\" (gāruzu)?", "view_count": 2962 }

[ { "body": "Japanese also called ガール as ギャル, but the word ギャル is taken by\nblackish/brownish (may be sun-burn or make-ups) girls, see the\n[ギャル](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AE%E3%83%A3%E3%83%AB) on Wikipedia.\n\nSo, I guess someone start using ガール as normal girls.\n\nAnd I think ガールズ comes from something like popular\n[東京ガールズコレクション](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%AC%E3%82%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BA%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3)\n(Tokyo Girls Collection) fashion show or ガールズトーク (girls talk).\n\nAnd also ガール、ガールズ has some good sense about fashionish, stylish, so poeple\nmight use it just because it is cool (カッコイイ).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T05:26:37.493", "id": "1005", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T05:39:09.910", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T05:39:09.910", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1003", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1015", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've noticed that some of my Japanese friends with fluent but imperfect\nEnglish often say \"too _adjective_ \" when a native English speaker would say\njust \"very _adjective_ \".\n\n(I am asking about \"too\" in the sense \"too big\", not as in \"me too\")\n\nDoes this reveal that English makes a distinguish that Japanese doesn't make\nor one which Japanese speakers would find too subtle?\n\nHow would I unambiguously express each in Japanese?", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T05:55:51.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1007", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:41:45.927", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "adverbs" ], "title": "Can the qualifiers \"very\" and \"too\" be expressed unambiguously in Japanese?", "view_count": 2258 }

[ { "body": "I've always heard that \"very\" is 「とても」 (「とても美味しい」), whereas \"too\" is 「～過ぎ」\n(「大き過ぎ」).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T06:09:00.113", "id": "1009", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T06:09:00.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1007", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Not only \"too [big]\" and \"very [big]\", but I have also very often heard \"so\n[big]\" added to the mix of confusion by semi-conversational Japanese (not sure\nit's related, but it sure sounds like it).\n\nA potential lead for an explanation might be in the nuance of 「〜すぎ」in\nJapanese: it is generally more neutral than \"too ~\" in English. In fact, it is\noften **colloquially** used as a synonym for \"very ~\" (when used with a\npositive adjective):\n\n美味しすぎ！ → This is _really_ good! (with positive, not negative, nuance) [col.]\n\nWhen quizzed about that, Japanese coworkers agreed that, in their mind, there\nwasn't such a strong difference between \"too ~\"/\"so ~\"/\"very ~\"... possibly\nbecause of the softer divide between 「〜すぎ」 and 「とても」. I doubt there is a\nstronger grammatical explanation for this (but would love to hear if there\nis).", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T08:19:01.570", "id": "1015", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:41:45.927", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T10:41:45.927", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1007", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1016", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Japanese has two kinds of adjectives known by several terms but the ones I\nknow are `i-adjectives` and `na-adjectives` \\- why?\n\nI recall that Japanese adjectives are much more like verbs than in English and\nmost European languages (where they are more closely related to nouns), but\ndoes this apply to both types of Japanese adjectives or only one type?\n\nI seem to remember that the two kinds are totally different to one another -\nis this true and if so how did each originate? For instance do we know if\nOkinawan/Rkyukyuan languages also have two types of adjectives? What about the\nKorean language, which is the language next most often claimed to be related\nto Japanese? (though far from universally accepted).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T06:07:23.047", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1008", "last_activity_date": "2022-08-24T02:35:45.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 68, "tags": [ "grammar", "adjectives", "na-adjectives", "i-adjectives", "linguistics" ], "title": "Why does Japanese have two kinds of adjectives? (-i adjectives and -na adjectives)", "view_count": 15266 }

[ { "body": "My understanding is that な-adj are actually a completely different type of\nword that are closer to nouns but are taught as な-Adj.\n\ntaken from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_adjectives>\n\n> **adjectival verbs** 形容詞 keiyōshi adjectival verbs, i-adjectives,\n> adjectives, stative verbs \n> **adjectival nouns** 形容動詞 keiyōdōshi adjectival nouns, na-adjectives,\n> copular nouns, quasi-adjectives, nominal adjectives, adjectival verbs\n\nIn fact if you say な-adj to japanese person, they'll have no idea what you are\ntalking about.\n\n> 外国の日本語教育における形容動詞 [編集]\n>\n> アメリカやアジア諸国を始めとする海外の日本語教育では、形容動詞を「な形容詞(na-\n> adjective)」、形容詞を「い形容詞(i-adjective)」として形容詞の一部に分類して教えることが多い。また活用としては名詞＋コピュラとほとんど同じで、連体形をナ、連用形をニとするだけの違いであることから、ナニ名詞、na-\n> noun, qualitative noun, adjectival nounと呼ばれることもある。\n>\n> 形容動詞を adjectival noun と呼ぶ場合、対比させる形で形容詞を adjectival verb と呼ぶことが多い。\n> いっぽう、日本語名を直訳する形で形容動詞を adjective verb などと呼ぶこともあり得るので、注意が必要である。\n\nAlso in regards to Korean, it also has the same 3 types of adj. The following\nalso taken from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_adjectives>\n\n> Korean has exactly the same three word classes as above, called 형용사\n> hyeongyongsa, 형용명사 hyeongyongmyeongsa, and 관형사 gwanhyeongsa respectively.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T06:30:56.437", "id": "1010", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T06:48:54.387", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T06:48:54.387", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1008", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "The reason for the western language learners' confusion when facing the so-\ncalled \"two types of Japanese adjectives\" is that they try to find similar\nconstructs to their own native language in Japanese. And when they fail (since\n**Japanese has no real adjectives at all** ), the naïve learner or teacher\n(which unfortunately includes most textbook writers, who are not\nlinguistically trained) will try to force their familiar concepts on Japanese.\n\n## What is an adjective?\n\nBefore we get to discussing what the \"adjectives\" in Japanese really are, we\nfirst have to define and understand the concept of adjective - otherwise it\nwould be quite meaningless talking about them. I'll have to concede here that\ndifferent linguistic schools have different ideas of adjectives, so the idea I\nrepresent here represents structural linguistics and especially the ideas of\nsome of my own teachers. Some other schools (e.g. many functionalists) have\nnot all too different ideas, but others, generative linguists in particular,\nmay not agree.\n\nAn adjective is most simply a [word\nclass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_class) that is used specifically to\nqualify and describe nouns by being in\n[agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_%28linguistics%29) (i.e.\nmatching [gender](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender),\n[number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number) and/or\n[case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case)) with them. A classical\nexample would be the following Latin pairs, where as the noun changes, the\nadjective changes as well (note that word order is not important, and\nadjectives don't even have to be adjacent to their nouns):\n\n```\n\n Abacus (masculine) Terra (feminine)\n Singular novus abacus nova terra New abacus/land\n Plural novi abaci novae terrae New abacuses/lands\n \n```\n\nYou've probably noticed that English adjectives do not really match this\npattern, since they show neither gender nor number nor case (they did show all\nof that in Old English, but not anymore). And indeed, the English adjectives\nare not quite adjectives in the classical sense, and the line is actually\nquite blurred between nouns and adjectives in English (Is 'winter' in \"\n_winter_ clothes\" an adjective or a noun? And what about 'Hollywood' in \"a\ntypical _Hollywood_ ending\"?). In fact, English adjectives resemble the na-\nadjectives of Japanese more than Latin (and French, German, Spanish and\nHebrew) adjectives.\n\n## Japanese counterparts of adjectives\n\nJapanese has three (or more accurately two and a half) word classes whose most\nmembers translate to adjectives in English and other European languages, and\ntherefore they are all usually called \"adjectives\" in textbooks. These classes\nare\n\n### 形容詞: Descriptive verbs\n\nDescriptive verbs are also called _stative verbs_ (verbs of state) or\n_adjectival verbs_ by linguists, but most of us know these guys as _i-\nadjectives_ or even _true adjectives_. Descriptive verbs are really just\nverbs, although they miss some verbal forms that are available to other verbs.\nIn essence, descriptive verbs are just verbs that come before the noun and\nform a [relative clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause).\nThere's really no difference in syntax between 踊る蝶 (the butterfly who is\ndancing) to 白い蝶 (the butterfly who is white).\n\n### 形容動詞: Descriptive nouns\n\nDescriptive nouns are also called _adjectival nouns_ by linguists, but most of\nus know them as _na-adjectives_ or _quasi-adjectives_. Despite their name,\nthey are no less adjectives than the \"true adjectives\", and [some of\nthem](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/920/why-is-it-that-some-\naccepts-after-it-while-some-only-accepts-after-it) can actually be connected\nto nouns by using の rather than な. Historically, descriptive nouns were either\nnouns followed by the genitive の or nouns followed by な, which is the\nattributive (before-noun) form of the copula なり. So a の-adjective like `普通の男`\nstarted out as basically just saying \"a man of ordinary\", and `静かな場所` (which\nin classical Japanese meant: `静かである場所`) started out as saying \"a place which\nis silent\".\n\nIt's instructive to note that descriptive nouns actually take a completely\nnormal copula instead of な when past or negative forms are used (e.g.\n`普通だった男`, `静かじゃない場所`), so these adjectives actually still use a copula to this\nvery day, but it's most common form is replaced by the special な or の\n(depending on the adjective).\n\n### 連体詞: Attributives\n\nThis class includes a rather small number of words that attach directly to the\nnoun without a special copula and have no verb-like conjugation (like 形容詞).\nThis includes words such as ある (some), いわゆる (so-called), 同じ (the same), たいした\n(great), この・その・あの, 大きな and 小さな. In fact, it's not really a real consistent\nclass, but just a mish-mash of several frozen forms of words that used to be\nverbs (ある, いわゆる、たいした), descriptive nouns (大きな and 小さな), pronouns that merged\nwith the particle の (この・その・あの) and the more special case of 同じ. There's\nnothing much to unite them, and this class is not productive (i.e. creating a\nnew word in this class is very rare, and not at all trivial).\n\n## What's the state in other languages?\n\nWell, the situation in Classical and Old Japanese was very much as it is\ntoday, except for descriptive nouns not using a special copula, but the\nregular copula instead. The conjugation of descriptive verbs was very\ndifferent from today, but normal verbs also had a different conjugation.\n\nI know Okinawan has at least descriptive verbs that are directly related to\nthe descriptive verbs in Classical Japanese: e.g. `takasi` ( _tall_ ) from Old\nJapanese becomes `takasan`. I guess it should also have a class of descriptive\nnouns, since they tend to be more productive than verbs, but I really don't\nknow much about it.\n\nAs for Korean, it definitely resembles Japanese here. Descriptive verbs are\nconjugated like normal verbs but have some differences with them. Descriptive\nnouns have to be followed by the verb 하다 (hada - _to do_ ) instead of the\ncopula, as we do in Japanese, but other than that they are very much alike.", "comment_count": 18, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T08:38:53.507", "id": "1016", "last_activity_date": "2022-08-24T02:35:45.143", "last_edit_date": "2022-08-24T02:35:45.143", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1008", "post_type": "answer", "score": 121 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1017", "answer_count": 1, "body": "On the [talk page of the Wikipedia article on \"Japanese\nadjectives\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3aJapanese_adjectives), user\nDougalg suggested nearly two years ago:\n\n> I know these are falling out of use, but still exist. If anyone can give an\n> explanation of the taru adjectives, I'm sure that would be helpful to many\n> people\n\nBut nobody took up his suggestion in the article which leaves me to wonder\nwhat it is that he was talking about. Can somebody shed some light on this\n\"taru forms\" please?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T07:02:39.533", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1013", "last_activity_date": "2022-05-26T11:32:03.690", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 31, "tags": [ "grammar", "adjectives" ], "title": "What exactly is a \"taru adjective\"", "view_count": 17195 }

[ { "body": "Today these are mostly frozen forms that behave like attributives (連体詞, see my\nanswer [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-does-\njapanese-have-two-kinds-of-adjectives-i-adjectives-and-na-adjectives)). Verbs\nin this class include 確たる ( _sure_ , _certain_ ) and 堂々たる (majestic). It's\nreally not such a big class.\n\nOriginally, they were descriptive nouns or descriptive verbs that were\nfollowed by the auxiliary verb たり (itself a combination of the particle と and\nthe verb あり, _to be_ ). So an expression like 確とあり (`kaku to ari`), became 確たり\n(`kakutari`), which could then be conjugated as if it were a verb.\n\nNow, the forms ending in the vowel `i` are all the _conclusive forms_ (終止形),\nwhich were used in classical Japanese for verbs in the end of the sentence.\nVerbs that came before nouns used the familiar _attributive forms_ (連体形),\nusually ending in `u`, which are now used indiscriminately both in the end of\nthe sentence and before nouns - so 確たり became 確たる in Modern Japanese.\n\nBesides ～たる adjectives, there are also ～なる adjectives in Modern Japanese.\nTheir history is quite similar: they used to be descriptive nouns or verbs\nfollowed by the old copula なり (like the auxiliary verb たり, the old copula also\nultimately comes from a particle + verb combination, this time に + あり). Modern\nexamples of such verbs include 単なる ( _mere_ , _simple_ ) or 聖なる ( _holy_ ).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T09:00:42.387", "id": "1017", "last_activity_date": "2022-05-26T11:32:03.690", "last_edit_date": "2022-05-26T11:32:03.690", "last_editor_user_id": "627", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 32 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "Mainly inspired by [this question on what seems to be the misuse of a standard\nidiom by a Japanese\nemployee](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/798/usage-of-chdo/), I\nwas reminded of being told about バイト敬{けい}語{ご} (\"manual keigo\") in the past: a\nslightly dumbed-down sonkeigo crash course handed to new kombini recruits,\nthat covers the basics but often results in widespread misuse of proper keigo\nforms at the hands of young Japanese unused to this level of speech.\n\nI know there were a couple very specific examples of classic mistakes\n(generally: confusions between sonkeigo and kenjôgo).\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88%E6%95%AC%E8%AA%9E)\n([en](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_keigo)) lists a few disputed forms\n(「おつぎのお客{きゃく}様{さま}」,「〜になります」...) present in the manuals themselves...\n\nI'd be interested to hear if anybody has other examples of egregious misuse\nand why they are not correct.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T09:15:55.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1018", "last_activity_date": "2015-12-15T14:24:20.407", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "keigo", "business-japanese" ], "title": "What are common mistakes made by Japanese kombini employees speaking \"manual keigo\" (バイト敬語)", "view_count": 1743 }

[ { "body": "Using ～から like １万円 **から** お預かりします, which seems to be grammatically incorrect.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T09:20:57.543", "id": "1019", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T09:36:14.123", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T09:36:14.123", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> お釣りは、◯◯円になります。\n\nIf someone said this, I'd reply with\n\n> おおすごい! 本当に◯◯円になったよ。手品か?! \n> _Wowie! It really became xx yen. Is it a magic trick?!_", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-17T15:51:30.917", "id": "1999", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-17T15:51:30.917", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "1018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Another one that is frequently brought up is 「ご注文は以上でよろしかったでしょうか？」, where the\n\"correct\" form is 「ご注文は以上でよろしいでしょうか？」.\n\nAdding 「～のほう」 is also very common (e.g. 「お車のほうは大丈夫でしたか？」).\n\nThese are all attempts to soften the language (i.e. to be more polite) (at\nleast according to my theory!). The first example uses past tense, the second\nuses an indirection by talking about the \"direction where the car is\" rather\nthan just directly mentioning the car itself.\n\nIMO it's always tough to define what is \"incorrect\" and \"correct\". After all,\neven when you look at the Japanese language just 30 years ago, it's quite\ndifferent from how it's spoken now. Not to mention how it changed since the\nMeiji-era etc. :p\n\nPersonally I find these indirections annoying but perhaps that's just how the\nlanguage is evolving. Right now though, it is true that many consider these 敬語\nto be wrong. Especially older ppl.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-17T16:25:28.370", "id": "2000", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-17T16:25:28.370", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "1018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 5, "body": "Regarding `すごい`:\n\n 1. What is the right way to spell it?\n\n 2. Is it vulgar, or is it slang like the English \"cool\"?, or informal or colloquial? Is it archaic?\n\n 3. If it is slang, does it have a non-slang meaning?\n\n 4. If it would be considered too slangy or informal, is `すばらしい` the right word to use in its place?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T12:34:51.377", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1023", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-04T06:16:49.270", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-01T08:39:42.690", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "usage", "words", "slang", "formality" ], "title": "Is すごい slang or just informal?", "view_count": 18254 }

[ { "body": "I think it is pretty hard to differentiate between slang and informal, but my\nguess would be that it would be considered informal because it is used across\nall of Japan AND there is another way to say \"sugei\" that is definitely slang.\n\nI don't think it would be considered vulgar, as there aren't many words in\nJapanese that would be considered vulgar.\n\nSugoi actually has a kanji btw, 「凄い」. You are are also correctly spelling it.\n\nAnd you are correct that \"Subarashii\" would be the correct word to use in its\nplace when wanting to be more formal", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T13:24:51.153", "id": "1034", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T13:24:51.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I've taught すごい to friends as their first or second word too, it's very\nuseful. I wouldn't say that it means \"cool\" though, more like \"wow!\". You\ncan't use it to say \"a cool guy\". On its own as exclamation it means \"cool\"\n(like when you're looking at some great scenery). It's a little informal when\nused on it's own like that. You can definitely use it in a less informal way,\nbut the meaning there is \"very\", not \"wow!\".\n\n> 昨日はすごく寒かったです。 - It was very cold yesterday.\n\nI think to make it even more formal, you can use 大変\n\n> 昨日は大変寒かったです。 - It was very cold yesterday\n\nI don't know if the strength of the coldness changes between them. 大変 might\nsound a little stronger.\n\nThe other meanings are \"dreadful\" and \"horrible\", or really anything adjective\nthat you want to make stronger: \"tasty\" -> \"delicious\" (すごくおいしい), \"beautiful\"\n-> \"gorgeous\" (すごくきれい), \"loud\" -> \"ear-splittingly loud\" (すごくうるさい).\n\nFor example すごく怖かった - Very frightening.\n\nThe slangier examples are すげえ, which is kind of masculine, and\n[すんごい](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm4BGK-XkXI), which adds (even more)\nemphasis. You can extend the え in すげえ (すげえぇぇぇ) or extend the ん in すんごい for\nadded effect.\n\n**Edit** I realise that I didn't actually answer the question. Like Mark, I\nhave trouble differentiating between slang and informal and even though I said\n\"slangy\" in my original answer, I think that using it to mean \"wow!\" is just\ninformal, not slangy.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T13:59:47.483", "id": "1055", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T14:14:23.410", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T14:14:23.410", "last_editor_user_id": "36", "owner_user_id": "36", "parent_id": "1023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "凄い【すごい】in itself is neither colloquial nor vulgar, even somewhat literary, I\nbelieve... if you use it to mean that something is _literally_\nterrible/horrible (e.g. some mythological beastie etc.)\n\nThe use you are referring to (\"cool\", \"great\"...) is very recent by comparison\n(no more than 20-30 years, definitely colloquial (though not particularly\nvulgar) and in fact, already a bit dated. It belongs to the same category of\nwords as \"super-duper\", \"rocking\" or \"jiggy\" in English: words appropriated by\na generation and more or less quickly thrown away when the next generation of\nno-good punks comes up. A slightly-more-recent similar word is やばい, which has\nreceived a near-identical treatment and appropriation into youngster slang.\n\nBoth are now nearing their expiration date and soon threatening to make any\ngrown-up using them in the wrong context, sound like your dad telling you\n\"everything is cool banana, as you kids say nowadays\".\n\nWhen used as slang, most people do not use it in a grammatically correct\nfashion:\n\nInstead of: すごく高い\n\nPeople usually say: すごい高い！／すんごい高い etc.\n\nUsing すごく where you should, will therefore make you both more acceptable to a\nsemi-formal audience, and a lot less hip to the young crowd...\n\n[slightly off-topic: I remember some jokes in the movie\n\"[バブルへGO](http://movie.goo.ne.jp/contents/movies/MOVCSTD10140/)\" centered on\nits teenage time traveller heroine from 2007, confusing the hell out of 1980s\npeople with her use of すごい and やばい]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T14:32:50.023", "id": "1059", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-04T06:16:49.270", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-04T06:16:49.270", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I do not know if 凄い (すごい) is slang or not, so I will skip that part.\n\nThe word has an interesting origin.\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%99%E3%81%94%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=110356900000)\nexplains the original meaning of the word as follows:\n\n>\n> 心に強い衝撃を受けて、ぞっと身にしみるさまの意が原義。平安時代から見える語で、良い意味でも悪い意味でも用いられた。近代以降、心理的圧迫感を伴わない用法が生じた\n\nI do not think that I can translate this accurately to English, but anyway\nhere is my attempt:\n\n> The original meaning is “shocking, causing shivers, and going straight to\n> one’s heart.” The word is observed since the [Heian\n> era](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_period) (794–1185), and was used\n> both in the positive sense and in the negative sense. The usage without the\n> oppressive feeling emerged in the [modern\n> era](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%BF%91%E4%BB%A3#.E3.82.A2.E3.82.B8.E3.82.A2)\n> (mid-19th century and onward).\n\nSo it is used to mean “terrifying” as in:\n\n> * すごい目つきでにらまれる be glared fiercely\n> * すごい絶壁 a scary precipice\n>\n\n“extraordinary beyond imagination”:\n\n> * すごい怪力 extraordinary strength\n> * すごい根性 extraordinary spirit/guts\n>\n\n“excellent (to the extent that one gets terrified),” “terrific”:\n\n> * すごい性能の車 a car with an extraordinary performance\n> * すごい美人 a very beautiful woman\n>\n\nor to describe that the degree of something attribute is high:\n\n> * デパートはすごい混みようだ The department store is very crowded.\n>\n\n(All the examples were taken from Daijirin, with English translations by me.)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T16:03:24.187", "id": "1063", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T16:03:24.187", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "すごい does not always mean cool, nice, or anything positive.\n\nFor instance, on the contrary:\n\n * Very (cold, expensive (=negative))\n * When looking at something repulsive, or too strange. With a descending volume (pronunciation)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T07:14:17.347", "id": "1113", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T07:14:17.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "1023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1056", "answer_count": 3, "body": "青 _ao_ seems to be used very much interchangeably for both _blue_ and _green_.\nWhy is that so, and how does 緑 _midori_ play into this?", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T12:36:26.320", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1024", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-17T16:08:59.507", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T12:43:18.637", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "88", "post_type": "question", "score": 41, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "colors" ], "title": "How indistinguishable is blue from green really?", "view_count": 4933 }

[ { "body": "[This page in the 日本語Q&A over at\nALC](http://home.alc.co.jp/db/owa/jpn_npa?stage=2&sn=185) addresses this\nquestion. Apparently the historical definition of 青【あお】, even when defined\nnarrowly, covered an entire range of colors which are today separated as\n青【あお】, 緑【みどり】, and 藍【あい】 (indigo). This trend carried into the modern\nlanguage, and many words which refer to things that are actually 緑【みどり】 still\nuse 青【あお】: 青葉【あおば】 and 青竹【あおだけ】 are two examples given on the linked page.\n(This in spite of the fact that 緑【みどり】 has existed alongside 青【あお】 all this\ntime.)\n\nApparently when traffic signals came along, 緑信号【みどりしんごう】 was the official name\nat first, but it was eventually overtaken by 青信号【あおしんごう】 in common use and\nthis latter name became the official term.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T12:54:40.533", "id": "1025", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T14:55:58.030", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T14:55:58.030", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "Beside some of the historical examples mentioned by Derek, there is also an\ninherent nuance that separates 青 from 'blue', as it is commonly understood in\nWestern culture (and similarly, albeit less strongly, for 緑 and 'green'). This\nis not unique to Japanese-English and probably applicable to any pairs of\nsufficiently separate cultures: [colours are, for a large part, an artificial\nconstruct](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2723520)\nand there is only limited reasons two people should pick the same arbitrary\nfrontier along the green-blue continuum (or red-orange, or yellow-green etc).\nI recommend digging in [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com) for more on\nthat, but it's worth mentioning that there is much debate on what the [causes\nand extent of these differences between cultures\nare](http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4w7577rx7qk617w/).\n\nAnyway, back to 青/緑: leaving aside the fact that the past 100 years of\nintermingling with Western culture have no doubt influenced the native\nJapanese perception of these colours, there is still a real difference between\nthe range of what a Japanese will call 青い and a Westerner call 'blue' (talking\nabout pure colours here, not objects' traditional colours, which might be tied\nto historical reasons). 'Blue' for 青 and 'green' for 緑 are just approximations\n(as are probably most other native colour translations).\n\nA diagram might be the easiest way to put it. Assuming that horizontal line\nrepresents the true continuum of hues from blue to green, and the vertical\nbars, the separation between the two colours in Japanese and English\nrespectively, you'd have:\n\n```\n\n 青い | 　緑\n ーーーーーーーーーーーーー\n Blue　　|　　Green\n \n```\n\nAs a result, when talking about something on the far left (say, the sky) or\nthe far right (say, fresh verdure), both English and Japanese words agree\nquite well. If you pick things that are in that middle area where the\ndefinitions do not match, you get these quizzical looks and people arguing\n\"what do you mean green? it's obviously blue!\" etc.\n\nSorry for the longwinded answer to what is a fairly basic/obvious point... ;-)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T14:00:38.810", "id": "1056", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T07:07:43.190", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-23T07:07:43.190", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 51 }, { "body": "This partially also has to do with the fact that in old Japanese they only\nused four colours: あか・あお・しろ・くろ. Obviously, with this limitation, あお came to\nrepresent a wide range of different cool shades. Then once more \"colours\nstarted to be used\", a lot of things retained their original descriptions as\nあお.\n\n**Edit: Here is that handout I have from my Japanese teacher which I describe\nbelow in the comment. It is from a book she has, but I don't have the\nreference for it.**\n\n> まめ知識\n>\n> * 昔の日本では、あか（紅）・あお（緑）・しろ（白）・くろ（黒）の四色\n> この四色は、「青く[ない]、青かっ[た]、青い[。]、青い[物]、青けれ[ば]...」と活用するように、\n> 「青い・赤い・黒い・白い」といずれも形容詞になります。 それに対して、緑は形容詞として「緑い」とは使えません。\n> また「青々と」「赤々と」「黒々と」「白々と」のように副詞にできるのに対して、「緑々と」という表現はありません。\n> このような点から、青・赤・黒・白の四語と緑は、別なのではないかと考えられます。 文献上で「緑」が用いられるのは、平安時代ごろからです。\n> ＊注）平安時代：794〜1185 それ以前は、青いが黒から白までの間の広い範囲の色を表したようです。\n> （特に現代の青・緑・藍の三色を表すことが多かったようです。）\n> * 1930年に日本で初めて信号機が設置されたとき、 法令では緑色信号だったのですが、新聞が「青」と掲載してしまったことや、\n> 色の三原色、赤・青・黄にあてはめると理解されやすかったために「青」信号が定着してしまいました。 1947年には法令でも青信号と呼ぶようになりました。\n> 日本語の青を表す範囲は広く、「青りんご」や「青葉」など緑のものも青と呼んでいます。\n> ちなみに現在の信号機は緑ではなく青緑色で点灯前は青になっているはずです。\n> * あお 青・蒼・藍 → 空・顔色・信号・草 \n> みどり 緑・翠・碧\n>", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T18:14:12.517", "id": "1066", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-17T16:08:59.507", "last_edit_date": "2017-01-17T16:08:59.507", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1074", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I am searching for a way to ask a question like \"When did you last see her?\"\nor \"When did you last do the laundry?, or also \"When did we last meet?\"\nBasically, how do you construct a question with this content:\n\n> \"When was the most recent time when X happened?\"\n\nAnd even less specific: How to talk about the most recent point in time in\ngeneral.\n\n> \"Last time you ate lunch, did you eat a salad?\" \n> \"When was your last holiday?\" \n> \"Who was your last boyfriend?\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T14:35:15.003", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1060", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-06T03:20:27.067", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T08:23:15.027", "last_editor_user_id": "84", "owner_user_id": "84", "post_type": "question", "score": 21, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "time" ], "title": "When did you last...?", "view_count": 6898 }

[ { "body": "\"When did you last see her?\" \n最後に彼女を見たのはいつ(ですか)?\n\n\"When did you last do the laundry?\" \n最後に洗濯をしたのはいつ(ですか)?\n\n\"When did we last meet?\" \n最後に会ったのはいつ(ですか)?\n\nI think you can easily use 最後に to say \"last\" in this context.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T14:46:09.357", "id": "1061", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T23:48:43.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-13T23:48:43.363", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "296", "parent_id": "1060", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "This depends on the semantics that are unfortunately not given by the English\nlanguage.\n\nIf by \"last\", you mean \"the final time\" (\"When did you see her for the final\ntime?\"), then 最後に is used as @Rolf said.\n\nBut if \"last\" means \"the most recent\", I think 最近 is a better choice to use.\nActually, they may both work, but I'm confident that 最近 works, but I have no\nconfidence as to whether or not 最後に fits this context.\n\n> * 最近いつメアリーに会いましたか? → When did you last see Mary?\n>", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T19:39:29.467", "id": "1070", "last_activity_date": "2013-11-03T19:46:39.453", "last_edit_date": "2013-11-03T19:46:39.453", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1060", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I don't think _\"last\"_ can be translated literally in most situations, or at\nleast shouldn't. _\"Last\"_ will be very much understood from context in most\ncases. I'd come up with:\n\n\"When did we last meet?\"\n\n> この前会ったのはいつ？ _Kono mae atta no wa itsu?_\n\n\"When did you last see her?\"\n\n> 彼女を見たのはいつだった？ _Kanojo o mita no wa itsu datta?_\n\n\"When did you last do the laundry?\"\n\n> 洗濯したのはいつだった？ _Sentakushita no wa itsu datta?_ \n> いつ洗濯したんですか？ _Itsu sentakushitan desu ka?_\n\nこの前 is a common way to say _\"last time\"_ , but it's usually only used if you\nfind yourself in exactly the same situation as before and want to refer to the\n_last time this happened_. You can't usually apply it if you're asking another\nperson when he last did something if you had no part in that \"last time\".\n\nUsually the best way is to simply phrase the question in past tense, which\nvery much implies that you're asking for the _last time_ something happened.\nIf you want to very explicitly say _\"most recently\"_ , 一番最近 _ichiban saikin_\nshould do.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T01:33:53.017", "id": "1074", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T09:13:58.463", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T09:13:58.463", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1060", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "possibly... 最後の 何々 を するの は いつ？ When is the last time you played tennis?\n最後のテニスをするのはいつ？ Who was your last boyfriend? 最後の彼氏は誰？ When was your last\nholiday? 最後の休暇をとるのはいつ？ Not sure of this...I'm looking for the answer myself\nand thought of this before I started searching. Hope it helps :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-09-06T03:20:27.067", "id": "27844", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-06T03:20:27.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "11106", "parent_id": "1060", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1414", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When I had the chance to go on a Jungle Cruise at Tokyo Disneyland, I noticed\nthe skipper talked with sprinkles of prolonged vowels and uncommon rising and\nfalling intonation patterns.\n\nIs this \"dialect\" original, or was it borrowed from existing\nprofession/region?\n\n**Edit:** you can check video recordings of the ride on Youtube:\n\n * [By a male captain](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p78jDj1GFhc)\n * By Captain Sato: [Part 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bAFroIai-U), [Part 2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkAstbRQTxk)\n * [By a female captain](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU393yfMfio)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T15:22:37.987", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1062", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T19:02:29.517", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T09:36:28.760", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "dialects", "intonation" ], "title": "What is the origin of the theatrical intonation used by Tokyo Disneyland's cast members?", "view_count": 232 }

[ { "body": "It's just typical for entertainers who want to capture the attention of the\naudience.\n\nIt's not even unique to Japanese. When you take the English one in Disney\nWorld (Florida) they talk the same way.\n\n<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtDKnYCTIh0> The guide in this one does the\nsame thing in English, if not quite as often. On the rides I've been on, some\nof them have done it just as often as those Japanese videos.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T19:02:29.517", "id": "1414", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T19:02:29.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1062", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1065", "answer_count": 1, "body": "[WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C) lists 差す\nas an intransitive verb, but in all of the example sentences I've seen it\nlooks more like a transitive verb.\n\nSo my question is, is 差す a transitive or intransitive verb?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T17:03:08.050", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1064", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T00:46:38.917", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-23T00:46:38.917", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "verbs", "transitivity" ], "title": "Can 差す be an intransitive verb?", "view_count": 354 }

[ { "body": "It's both. My copy of Kōjien has entries for both the transitive and\nintransitive uses of this verb.\n\n**Intransitive**\n\n * 夕日が部屋に差し込む。 (ゆうひがへやにさしこむ。)\n * 潮が差す。 (しおがさす。)\n\n**Transitive**\n\n * 傘を差す。 (かさをさす。)\n * 会話に水を差す。 (かいわにみずをさす。)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T17:34:16.127", "id": "1065", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T17:34:16.127", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1064", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3356", "answer_count": 2, "body": "i was wondering what may be the difference in nuance between 右へ曲がる and 右に曲がる ?\n\nExample: Take a right turn and you'll see the library.\n\n1) 右へ曲がると、図書館がある。\n\n2) 右に曲がると、図書館がある。\n\nAs for [noun-location] with the verb 行く, the へ should be used when we want to\nemphasis the direction, and the に particle is used when we want to emphasis\nthe location (Source: [When going somewhere, is there any difference between e\n(へ) and ni (に)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/80/when-going-\nsomewhere-is-there-any-difference-between-e-and-ni))\n\nDoes this work the same way for 右[へ・に]曲がる? (Since 右 is the direction itself\nand not a location?)\n\nOr is it true that we can treat 右 and 左 as locations themselves and we can say\n右へ行く and 左へ行く?\n\nIn fact if we say _\"Turn to the right (standing on the spot) and you will see\nthe painting.\"_ there isn't even any direction nor location at all is it?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T18:24:22.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1068", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T16:39:54.390", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "nuances", "particle-に", "particle-へ" ], "title": "へ or に particle for 曲がる?", "view_count": 2360 }

[ { "body": "I think it's not much different than the other threads (to which I will not\nlink). I would say it's nothing more than 右に being \"turn right\" and 右へ being\n\"turn to the right\" or \"turn right-ish\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T19:50:50.880", "id": "1072", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T19:50:50.880", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1068", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "In English terms, when saying `左{ひだり}に曲{ま}がる` you're saying \"turn _to the_\nleft\", and when you say `左{ひだり}へ曲{ま}がる`, you're simply saying, \"turn left.\"\n\nWhich, as Troyen pointed out in his comment, is still a little vague because\nthe difference in English is also subtle. So much so that I have to concede\nthat there is a fair amount of individual perception here on what the English\nterms mean, and the Japanese may also have a degree of overlap.\n\nWhich means that native speakers might have different assumptions about the\nsubtleties, but, on the upside, you can probably interchange the terms to some\ndegree and will most likely be understood.\n\nHaving given all that qualification, I believe the two terms can be looked at\nthis way:\n\n\n\nIn the case of `に`, there is a conceptual point up ahead which one turns _to_\n, designated \" _the_ left\". Critical to note, though, is that _it is not the\ndestination_. Think of it like being in a car and telling the driver to turn\nto the left at an intersection. You can not begin turning until the\nintersection, and you are not going to stop at the intersection either.\n\nIn the case of `へ`, there is no conceptual point which defines the point of\nturning, one is simply going to turn. Imagine being on the open water in a\nboat, and if you wanted to turn left, you would simply begin doing so.\n_(Though you should tell the captain you want to turn`左舷{さげん}(\"port\")`\nbecause, for reasons I've never understood, nautical people have different\nwords for left and right.)_\n\nJust for clarity and comparison, note how `左{ひだり}へ曲{ま}がる` is different from\n`左{ひだり}へ向{むか}う`. `向{むか}う` would mean to turn on your axis, to face left,\nregardless of your forward momentum. `曲{ま}がる`, which also means \"twist\" or\n\"bend\", is referring to the course ahead of you, and not turning on an axis.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T04:48:52.017", "id": "3356", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T16:39:54.390", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T16:39:54.390", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "1068", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1071", "answer_count": 1, "body": "After reading the 2 threads: [How to use へ (-e), に (-ni), まで (made) and の方\n(no-hō) with destination and\ndirection?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/275/how-to-use-e-ni-\nmade-and-no-h-with-destination-and-directi) and [When going somewhere, is\nthere any difference between e (へ) and ni\n(に)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/80/when-going-somewhere-is-\nthere-any-difference-between-e-and-ni)\n\nI would like to ask how would a native ask the question \"Where are you going\nlater?\"\n\n1) 後どこへ行くか？\n\n2) 後どこまで？\n\n3) ?\n\nContext: john talking to mary 30 minutes before school ends.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T19:32:54.867", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1069", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T00:42:46.937", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "usage", "translation", "questions" ], "title": "how would a native ask the question \"Where are you going later?\"", "view_count": 1436 }

[ { "body": "Well, I'm not native, so I don't know if this disqualifies me from\nanswering... ... But in the context of your question, I'd say この後（で）どこ{へ／に}行く？\n\nYour #1 could work, but using just あと instead of このあと gives a sense of \"later\"\nlater. Adding the この solidifies the meaning of \"after this\", where \"this\"\nmeans being at school. You wouldn't use まで unless John knows she is definitely\ngoing somewhere somewhat far away and is really interested/concerned with the\ndetails of the whole journey. #3 is just a question mark and presumably means\nhe is just looking at her with a stupified, questionable look on his face. :)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-13T19:47:14.847", "id": "1071", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-13T19:47:14.847", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1069", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1935", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm looking for a cheap secondhand character dictionary in Japan but:\n\nI don't know if there is one or more kind of these, and I don't know what they\nare called.\n\nTwo I saw had these on their spines, but I don't know if they are titles or\ntypes of dictionary:\n\n * 漢辞海\n * 漢字典\n\nTsuyoshi Ito suggests this term in a comment:\n\n * 漢和辞典\n\nIs there more than one kind of character dictionary? What are the various\nkinds called? (Please supply romaji or at least kana too)\n\nI do not need to know about general Japanese or translating dictionaries, just\nthe ones that focus on kanji.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T01:50:53.990", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1075", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-14T17:08:43.753", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-16T04:53:23.993", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "kanji", "resources", "terminology", "dictionary" ], "title": "What are the Japanese terms for \"character dictionary\"? \"漢辞海\"? \"漢字典\"?", "view_count": 393 }

[ { "body": "[漢和辞典](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%A2%E5%92%8C%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8) is\nwhat you want:\n\nShinchosha have just released a Kanji-only dictionary called: Shin'Nihongo\nKanji Jiten: <http://www.shinchosha.co.jp/jiten/kanjijiten/index.html> that\nincludes not only words with origins in China, but also native Japanese words\nthat happen to be scripted in Kanji.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-14T17:08:43.753", "id": "1935", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-14T17:08:43.753", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "511", "parent_id": "1075", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1645", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How are fiction books such as novels sorted on the shelves at Japanese\nbookshops? Kana order seems to play a small part but not the whole part.\n\n(I'm not asking about nonfiction books since those are ordered by category and\nare much easier to find)", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T02:20:42.730", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1076", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T14:56:12.803", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T14:56:12.803", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "culture", "kana" ], "title": "Are bookshelves in alphabetical (kana) order in Japanese bookshops and libraries?", "view_count": 3794 }

[ { "body": "I haven't been to a Japanese library yet, but judging from the book shops I\nhave been to so far, fiction and such have been sorted by publishing house\n(such as Kadokawa or DC Comics).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T07:31:15.427", "id": "1118", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T07:31:15.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "335", "parent_id": "1076", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "From what I've observed, it varies from shop to shop:\n\n * by publisher -> by author name -> by book title\n * by author name -> by book title\n * by library -> by series number (In case of 文庫 [ぶんこ] (library), 新書 [しんしょ] (library of pocket-sized paperbacks)\n * by relevance/context (in untraditional bookstores like [ヴィレッジ・ヴァンガード](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A3%E3%83%AC%E3%83%83%E3%82%B8%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89_\\(%E6%9B%B8%E7%B1%8D%E3%83%BB%E9%9B%91%E8%B2%A8%E5%BA%97\\)), [松丸本舗](http://www.maruzen.co.jp/shopinfo/matsumaru/) [まつまるほんぽ])\n\nAlso, 文庫 and 新書 are placed in separate bookshelves on their own.\n\nAs for libraries, most of them follow the [NDC classification\nsystem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Decimal_Classification). NDC\nstands for Nippon Decimal Classification.\n\nIf you go to a library, you'll see that books are labelled with NDC\nclassification number (分類番号 [ぶんるいばんごう]), a letter or two denoting the Kana to\nbe used for further ordering1 (図書記号 [としょきごう] / 著者記号 [ちょしゃきごう]) and an optional\nseries number (巻冊記号 [かんさつきごう]). These numbers are called 請求記号 [せいきゅうきごう] as a\nset and is used for ordering books and tracking down a book to a specific\nlocation in the library2 3:\n\n```\n\n +-------+\n | 810.4 | - 分類番号 +\n +-------+ |\n | イ | - 図書記号/著者記号 +-> 請求記号\n +-------+ |\n | 2 | - 巻冊記号 +\n +-------+\n \n```\n\nHere's how it looks like (notice the small white labels at the bottom of the\nspine):\n\n\n\n([Photo by LWY](http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwy/2201154175/in/photostream/))\n\nFor fiction books, they fall under the main class of 9, and further classified\nlike:\n\n```\n\n 9 - Literature\n 900 - Literature\n 910 - Japanese Literature\n 911 - Poetry\n 912 - Plays\n 913 - Novels\n ...\n 920 - Chinese Literature\n ...\n \n```\n\nAgain, 文庫 and 新書 will be in separate bookshelves in libraries too, and can be\nordered by library -> by series number instead of NDC.\n\n[1] Usually the first letter of the primary author's surname, or the book\ntitle when there are a lot of authors. \n[2] Some libraries may have an internal tracking number of their own, in\naddition to / in place of NDC, especially the small, private or academic ones. \n[3] This sounds all neat and ordered, but 請求記号 isn't portable across different\nlibraries, because they have different ideas about how to format it and what\nto use for 図書記号.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T03:17:09.377", "id": "1645", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T15:17:41.993", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T15:17:41.993", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1076", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1121", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What function does は provide in statements such as 本ではない or 本だとは思わない? I notice\nthe は after と is often left out, at least if a Google search for 思わない is any\nindication, but there still seems to be a general trend of sticking は into\nnegatives where I presume they wouldn't be used in positive sentences (one\nhears です and である, but not ではある). What's going on here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T03:52:31.030", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1077", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T07:54:46.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T04:35:00.733", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "224", "post_type": "question", "score": 35, "tags": [ "grammar", "negation", "particle-は" ], "title": "Why is the topic marker often used in negative statements (ではない, ～とは思わない)?", "view_count": 3787 }

[ { "body": "To answer that, I think we first have to look at one of the more important\nroles of topic markers (in any language that has them): marking contrast.\n\n## The topic marker as a marker of contrast\n\nLook at this conversation for instance:\n\n> A: 一番好きな中華料理か？ たぶん麻婆豆腐だと思う。 \n> My favorite Chinese dish? Probably Mapo Doufu, I guess. \n> B: そうか。俺はちょっと辛いのが苦手なんだ。 I see. I'm not good with spicy stuff.\n\n(I really hope it's natural Japanese, but it's really not that important here)\n\nA is asked what is his favorite Chinese dish. He picks Mapo Doufu, which is\n(or at least should be if the cook is not squeamish) very spicy. B says he\ndoesn't like spicy, and 俺 (which is the topic here) stands in contrasts to A.\nHe doesn't just say out of nowhere that he doesn't like spicy stuff - look how\nunnatural the English translation reads here. A more natural translation would\nhave to use something extra to mark the contrast, e.g. \"I see. Well, I'm not\nso good with spicy stuff.\"\n\nB can also add later:\n\n> 私も中華料理は大好きだけど、四川は苦手。\n\n(This is actually a quote from Google, so at least I know it's natural :))\n\nThe は after 中華料理 here (especially with 大好き, which usually takes が) is a strong\nhint that the 中華料理 stands in contrast to something. So B likes Chinese food,\nbut in contrast, he's doesn't like the numbing-spicy cooking of Sichuan.\n\n## The contrast marker and negation\n\nWhen you say that sentence is negative, you can actually mean that several\ndifferent things are negated in the sentence:\n\n 1. The subject: \n\n> **I** didn't see him. (but maybe someone else did)\n\n 2. One of the other complements, such as the direct object: \n\n> I didn't see **him** (but maybe I saw someone else)\n\n 3. The predicate itself (which can be a verb or a noun): \n\n> I didn't **see** him (but maybe I **heard** him) \n> That's not **a book** (but maybe it's an umbrella)\n\n 4. The entire predication (the link of the predicate with its complements - i.e. the whole sentence):\n\n> I didn't see him. (this whole thing of \"me seeing him\" just didn't happen)\n\nIn Japanese verbal sentences, this stuff is quite easy - you use a negative\nform and if you want to emphasize that you are negating some specific\ncomplement (and not the entire predication) you can just mark it with は and\nchange the intonation a little:\n\n> 1. 私は見ませんでした。\n> 2. 彼は見ませんでした。\n>\n\nYou could negate the verb itself in several ways, but I think the most obvious\nwould be this one:\n\n> 彼を見たりはしなかった。\n\n## Negation of copulative sentences in Japanese\n\nWhen you come to copulative sentences (i.e. sentences with a copula, in the\ngeneral pattern of `XがYだ`), things don't work quite as smoothly, and my\nimpression is that people mark the negated part using mostly intonation, just\nas in English.\n\nWhat's interesting in copulative sentences, however, is that は is used almost\nin all cases after で (which is the adverbial form of the copula だ), so it\nlooks like we put the entire predication (which is held by the copula) in\ncontrast to something. Now, this is not the case, since `～ではない` is also used\nin sentences where the subject or the predicate alone are negated. In fact,\nthe only place where we commonly see `～でない` (without the は) is in relative\nclauses (I'm not sure about that, but I think even this use of `～でない` is not\ncommon anymore in colloquial language).\n\nSo how did the は come to be used anywhere? This is probably part of an\nhistorical process of trivialization and loss of meaning. It seems to me that\noriginally, the pattern `～ではない` was used to only mark a strong contrast of the\nentire predication to something else (e.g. something that was said or implied\nbefore by someone else), but later became more and more popularized until what\noriginally was a contrast marker became an almost necessary feature of the\nnegative form. And this is one very important rule of structural linguistics:\nwhen an optional marker becomes necessary, it doesn't mark anything anymore.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T07:41:04.567", "id": "1121", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T07:54:46.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T07:54:46.827", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1077", "post_type": "answer", "score": 31 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1192", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I know that you can use ご～いただく toward \"clients\" (which is something I've never\nreally understood; maybe better as a question of its own) such as\nご来店いただき、まことにありがとうございます (\"Thank you (customer) for coming to our store\").\n\nFollowing this logic, I know you can express \"can\" with ご～いただけます. However, the\nnormal keigo pattern ご～になる would then (also) morph into ご～になれます. I've heard\nboth in practical situations, but I'm very confused as to the nuances of when\nto use which.\n\nFor example, I'm currently translating a software help file, which is directed\ntoward the end user. If I want to say, \"you can see X\", I'm not sure if I\nshould say ご覧いただけます or ご覧になれます.\n\nタスケテ！", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T04:47:58.617", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1078", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-20T16:17:31.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar", "nuances", "keigo" ], "title": "ご～いただけます vs. ご～になれます", "view_count": 729 }

[ { "body": "These phrases are about politely telling someone they \"can do\" or are \"allowed\nto do\" an action. I like to think of it as the action \"is available to you\".\n\nMany people misunderstand this basic point (@istrasci: I know you get this). I\nam only mentioning it because even native speakers frequently use incorrect\nkeigo forms (oh, and so do I, but I looked this one up).\n\nAccording to the 正しい日本語会 (The Association for Correct Japanese ... I kid you\nnot), the correct core usage of ご〜いただける is derived from 〜していただける.\n\nSo based on this, ご覧頂けます is technically incorrect, because you can't even\nnotionally construct ご覧していただけます。Therefore ご覧になれます is the correct form.\n\nLanguage is constantly changing. Once incorrect, deviant usages become\nacceptable and even commonly used, as is the case with ご覧頂けます. Heck, in my\nJapanese study lifetime 三階 has gone from being commonly pronounced as 「さんがい」\nto 「さんかい」 by many people under 40. So with something as misunderstood as\nkeigo, it's no surprise!\n\nTo help future readers of this answer work their way through this one, look at\nthe following illustrative derivations:\n\n「ダウンロードいただけます」derives from「ダウンロード **して** いただけます」\n\n「ご利用いただけます」derives from「利用 **して** いただけます」\n\nRef: <http://www.tackns.net/word/itadake_masu.html>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T14:35:18.807", "id": "1138", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T06:07:57.137", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T06:07:57.137", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1078", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Although @crunchyt provides a helpful answer about the `ご～いただけます` form, it\ndidn't answer my original question about comparing the two forms. I knew I had\nthis somewhere and I finally found it. If you have a copy of `続弾！問題な日本語`\ndictionary, it contains an article for exactly this question. I'll summarize\nit for you:\n\n`ご～になれます` is grammatically **correct**. `ご～いただけます` is grammatically\n**incorrect** to use toward \"clients\" since it is really 謙譲語, but it is\n**WIDELY USED** if you want to say\n\n 1. The \"client\" is able to do the action\n 2. The client is doing something useful/beneficial for you by doing the action\n 3. You want to show respect for the client\n 4. You want to put the focus of the statement on the client, and/or\n 5. You don't want the client to feel obliged or compelled to do the action.\n\nI can't find the actual `続弾！問題な日本語` entry online anywhere, but here are\nseveral links talking about this.\n\n * <http://roverandom.blog52.fc2.com/blog-entry-693.html> \n\n * <http://uuair.lib.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10241/6875/1/KJ00004824238.pdf> \n\n * <http://gabacho.reto.jp/whims/whim0122.html>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T06:05:11.803", "id": "1192", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-20T16:17:31.427", "last_edit_date": "2014-02-20T16:17:31.427", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1078", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "The term \"onigiri\" covers all kinds of rice balls, with or without filling,\nand with or without nori seaweed around it.\n\nIs there a specific term that only covers the one class of onigiri available\nin supermarkets and konbinis that is triangular in shape, has a filling, and\nis wrapped in a special way that keeps the nori separate from the rice until\nit is opened so that it stays crisp?\n\n\n\n(Side note: In Korean I don't know of a generic term for onigiri but there is\na term for this specific kind: \"삼각김밥\" [samgak gimbap].)", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T05:23:57.420", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1079", "last_activity_date": "2019-11-03T20:56:52.410", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-03T05:06:48.513", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "words", "food" ], "title": "Is there a word for the type of onigiri that comes in the triangular wrap that keeps the nori fresh?", "view_count": 3435 }

[ { "body": "Not really. The closest is \"三角のおにぎり\" to describe the shape. Onigiri have been\nmade in many different shapes over time, including a round shape and the\noccasionally clever shape that a creative mom might try to make. But many\npeople now think of triangular ones as the normal mode, so you wouldn't need\nto say anything other than \"onigiri\" to imply the triangular shape. You might\nneed to use special terms now to imply non-triangular shapes, the same way you\nmight describe a \"square hamburger bun\" in English.\n\nI'm not entirely sure if it's the shape or the packaging that you're concerned\nwith identifying. However, unless you're a packaging industry professional,\nthere's probably no need to make that distinction, and therefore there's no\ncommonly used term to describe that special packaging. The fact that you got\nit at a convenience store or supermarket will be enough to imply this kind of\npackaging, so you could just say \"コンビニのおにぎり\" if you got the product at a\nconvenience store.\n\nIn Korean the term you are describing, kimbap, without the \"samgak\" modifier,\nusually implies a rolled sushi-like item which resembles makimono (巻物) in\nJapanese. This may explain the need to use the \"triangular\" modifier in\nKorean.\n\nAs a food geek, I can attest to the credibility of the onigiri explication\nhere: <http://justbento.com/handbook/bento-basics/onigiri-on-parade-guide-\nonigiri-omusubi-rice-ball-shapes-types-and-fun>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T05:55:17.133", "id": "1090", "last_activity_date": "2019-11-03T20:56:52.410", "last_edit_date": "2019-11-03T20:56:52.410", "last_editor_user_id": "19951", "owner_user_id": "5", "parent_id": "1079", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I always had the feeling that [お]むすび ([o]musubi) was more closely associated\nwith onigiri of triangular shape.\n\nThe Japanese Wikipedia entry on onigiri seems to agree. Although they point\nout that both words are generally interchangeable and depend on\nregions/households, they list the following as one of the difference between\nthe two terms:\n\n```\n\n 1. おにぎりは形を問わないが、おむすびは三角形という説。\n \n```\n\n(\"theory 1: onigiri doesn't have to do with a specific shape, omusubi is\ntriangular.\")\n\n... But then go on to say that other people see the exact opposite:\n\n```\n\n 2. おにぎりが三角型で、おむすびは俵型という説\n \n```\n\nBottom line: there is definitely a connection between shape and use of\nおにぎり/むすび, but it depends who you ask...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T06:19:37.960", "id": "1097", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T06:25:37.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T06:25:37.663", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1079", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I do not know a specific term referring to onigiri with a plastic film\nseparating nori from rice.\n\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%8A%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8E%E3%82%8A#.E7.8F.BE.E5.9C.A8.E3.81.AE.E3.81.8A.E3.81.AB.E3.81.8E.E3.82.8A)\ncalls this plastic film “おにぎりフィルム,” but I did not know this name and do not\nexpect that many people know the name.\n\nIf I want to refer to this kind of onigiri, I would say something explanatory\nsuch as “海苔がフィルムでご飯から仕切られているタイプのおにぎり” (のりがフィルムでごはんからしきられているタイプのおにぎり; onigiri\nof the kind where nori is separated from rice by a film).\n\nFrom your comment on the question:\n\n> For instance if a friend is going to the konbini and offers to pick\n> something up for me, how would I say \"Yes get me some onigiri please, but\n> not the kind with the clammy nori\"?\n\nIn this case, I might just say “海苔が湿気てないのがいい” (のりがしけてないのがいい; It will be better\nif the nori is not clammy).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T12:31:17.090", "id": "1125", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T19:49:22.767", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T19:49:22.767", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1079", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "コンビニおにぎり... or nothing.\n\n2chan, where you'd expect slang:\n<http://logsoku.com/thread/tsushima.2ch.net/news/1278418851/>\n\notaku, where you'd expect precision: <http://blog.livedoor.jp/cvs_onigiri/>\n\nThat's a general term for any onigiri at convenience stores. The 2chan thread\nmakes it obvious that a supermarket onigiri is different (and better!).\n\nThe otaku site uses a \"type\" field to include things like triangular vs.\nsquare. No differentiation is made between \"tear here\" bagged onigiri and the\nones with separated, folding nori.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T06:34:29.443", "id": "1193", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T06:34:29.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "346", "parent_id": "1079", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1122", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When you first begin to learn Japanese you are taught that Japanese has no\nstress and each syllable should be pronounced equally.\n\nYou also learn that certain vowels are not pronounced, or only pronounced very\nslightly, such as the \"u\" in \"desu\" and the \"i\" in \"deshita\".\n\nBut it seems that sometimes these vowels are pronounced if they occur in the\nfirst syllable of a word such as \"sugoi\", \"subarashii\", \"shiro\", \"shimbun\".\n\nIs this a kind of exception to both rules or is it just something a foreigner\nmight think they hear which is not really there?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T06:12:20.800", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1095", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-06T22:43:52.207", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T15:18:04.903", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 55, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "phonology", "vowels" ], "title": "What are the rules regarding \"mute vowels\" (\"u\" after \"s\" and \"i\" after \"sh\")?", "view_count": 54242 }

[ { "body": "I have a book in my university library that has a 100-odd page article\ndedicated to these mute vowels, and it still doesn't seem to give a complete\npicture. So unfortunately, this feature of Japanese phonology is quite\ncomplex.\n\nStill, there's a rather simple rule of thumb that can point you to most of the\nplaces where muting _may_ occur (and in most of them it does occur, most of\nthe time :)). It goes like this:\n\n 1. The vowel must be a short `i` or `u`.\n 2. The consonant before the vowel must be [voiceless](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless): \n`/k/`, `/s/` (also includes しゅ), `/t/`, `/h/` (ふ and ひ), and maybe also `/p/`\n(though it seems rarer).\n\n 3. The vowel must be at the end of a word, or followed by another voiceless consonant.\n\nThis explains why you see muting in s **u** koshi and h **i** kari but not in\ns **u** goi and b **i** kkuri.\n\nAnother useful thing to remember is that you can't have two muted vowels in a\nrow, so in words s **u** ki and ts **u** kush **i** ta not all vowels that\nmatch rule 1-3 become mute.\n\n## Edit:\n\nI should have given more than a passing mentions to the exceptions, because\nthey are quite many. The rules I've given cover _most_ of the occurrences of\nmuted vowels, and by 'most' I don't mean 99%. It's probably not even 80%,\nthough I'm only giving rough guesses here.\n\nSo here are some exceptions:\n\n * `[bikkrishta]` for びっくりした is quite common.\n * Sometimes (in really fast speech) some very specific grammatical forms get their vowels elided, even when the vowels are not `/u/` or `/i/`. For instance, わからない can be shortened to `[wakarnai]`. It usually goes further than that with /r/ assimilating to the /n/, and thus you get the わかんない which you very often find in writing.\n * Tsuyoshi Ito and Kdanski have mentioned `[sbarashii]` `[sgoi]` in the comments.\n\nThere are of course many more. This is just an example why this issue is\ncomplex.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T08:04:53.333", "id": "1122", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-06T22:43:52.207", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-06T22:43:52.207", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1095", "post_type": "answer", "score": 46 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1130", "answer_count": 4, "body": "The title should be pretty self-explanatory. What meanings does each convey?\nAnd in what kinds of circumstances would one be used instead of the other?\n\nFor example, what are the differences between these two sentences?\n\n> 図書館に本がある。\n>\n> 図書館には本がある。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T06:19:27.017", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1096", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-31T14:08:31.203", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "83", "post_type": "question", "score": 92, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-に", "particle-は" ], "title": "What is the difference between \"に\" and \"には\"?", "view_count": 91225 }

[ { "body": "私には means \"as for me\" and it is similar to 私にとって.\n\nIt is a different usage of には completely unrelated to the one that you added\nas an example in a later edit.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T06:31:59.647", "id": "1104", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-31T14:08:31.203", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-31T14:08:31.203", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1096", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "In your library example:\n\n図書館に本がある。\n\nIs the simple \"There are books in a library\".\n\n図書館には本がある。\n\nWould be translated as \"As for the library, there are books (in it)\".\n\nThe に is compulsory in both cases, but は in the second sentence puts the\nstress on the library.\n\nMost people/students will tell you (like Derek's answer) that は stresses the\ntopic. This doesn't mean much really and is missing the essential point of には.\n\nThis form generally appears inside a context, with a preceding sentence\nexpressing some kind of **opposition** or **comparison** as in:\n\n\"There are fishes in the sea, as for the library there are books (in it)\"\n\nThat's a primitive example but I think it shows were the difference lies.\n\nOf course there's the idea of topic marker or emphasis on the topic, but the\nreal point here is to compare (implicitly or explicitly) with another\nsentence.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T07:20:09.110", "id": "1115", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T01:00:16.473", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T01:00:16.473", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1096", "post_type": "answer", "score": 32 }, { "body": "This is really no different than the normal use of the scope/topic particle は,\nexcept that with には (and では, とは, and any other combination), the scope of the\nsentence expands to include the particle itself. (I will use \"scope\" to mean\n\"topic\" here; personally I prefer the former, but most people are used to the\nlatter.)\n\nThe example sentences you chose might not be the best to illustrate the\ndifference, since the first is a classic example of a sentence lacking a\nscope. This type of sentence is used for showing existence, possession, and\nphenomena:\n\n> 図書館【としょかん】に本【ほん】がある。\n>\n> * Scope: none\n> * Statement: There are books in the library.\n>\n\n>\n> 雨【あめ】が降【ふ】っている。\n>\n> * Scope: none\n> * Statement: It's raining.\n>\n\nSo in the interest of better tackling your question, let's change the example\nsentences:\n\n> (私【わたし】は）彼【かれ】 **と** 会【あ】わなかった。\n>\n> (私【わたし】は）彼【かれ】 **とは** 会【あ】わなかった。\n\n私【わたし】は is in parentheses because it could easily be left out. This is what's\nknown as \"implied scope\" in Japanese. As you know, if the scope of a sentence\nis understood by all parties, you have the option of leaving it out entirely.\n\nSo let's break down these two. You'll see that while in the first sentence\nthere is only one scope, the second actually has two:\n\n> (私【わたし】は）彼【かれ】と会【あ】わなかった。\n>\n> * Scope (implied): I\n> * Statement: Didn't meet with him.\n>\n\n>\n> (私【わたし】は）彼【かれ】とは会【あ】わなかった。\n>\n> * Outer scope (implied): I\n> * Inner scope (explicit): with him\n> * Statement: Didn't meet.\n>\n\nNow as for what effect this has, **the は often adds a hint of comparison or\ncontrast** , as repecmps mentioned. While both of the above sentences\ntranslate to, \"I didn't meet with him,\" the second hints that although you\ndidn't meet with him, you may have met with someone else. Put into a diagram,\nthe second sentence looks like this:\n\n\n\nThe dashed green outer rectangle signifies the implied outer scope, the solid\npurple inner rectangle signifies the explicitly defined inner scope, and the\ndashed blue inner rectangle signifies the implication that you may have met\nwith someone else.\n\nLet's consider another pair of examples, this time using に and には:\n\n> 彼女【かのじょ】はヨーロッパ **に** 行【い】く。\n>\n> * Scope: she\n> * Statement: Will go to Europe.\n>\n\n>\n> 彼女【かのじょ】はヨーロッパ **には** 行【い】く。\n>\n> * Outer scope: she\n> * Inner scope: to Europe\n> * Statement: Will go.\n>\n\nBoth of these sentences say, \"She will go to Europe,\" but as with the と/とは\nexample above, the second, by using には, hints at the fact that while she will\ngo to Europe, she may not go to somewhere else (say, the Middle East).\n\nAdmittedly this is a tough one for people coming from an English-speaking\nbackground, since in English we might use only intonation to mark the\ndifference by stressing the contrasted scope:\n\n> 彼【かれ】と会【あ】わなかった。 I didn't meet with him.\n>\n> 彼【かれ】とは会【あ】わなかった。 I didn't meet with _him_.\n>\n> 彼女【かのじょ】はヨーロッパに行【い】く。 She will go to Europe.\n>\n> 彼女【かのじょ】はヨーロッパには行【い】く。 She will go to _Europe_.\n\nOf course, the above stresses may not be natural in every situation, but they\nshould hint at how English and Japanese handle these situations differently.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T13:58:43.723", "id": "1130", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T13:22:25.957", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1096", "post_type": "answer", "score": 126 }, { "body": "I think the existing answers are missing something very important, and that is\nthat に (the dative case marker) can be used to mark subjects given certain\npredicates. This is called the \"dative subject construction\".\n\nIn modern Japanese, I believe you only see this construction if it is\ncontrasted (i.e., には), or if it is embedded. Some examples may help:\n\n* * *\n\n## Contrasted (XにはY)\n\nジョンには英語{えいご}が出来{でき}ない。 \n'As for John, he does not understand English.'\n\nHere, the に marks ジョン as a subject, and the は is used as a contrastive marker.\nThe が marks 英語{えいご} as the nominative object of the intransitive verb 出来{でき}る.\n\n## Embedded ([XにY]Z)\n\nジョンに英語{えいご}が出来{でき}るとみんな知ってる。 \n'Everyone knows that John understands English.'\n\nHere, the に marks ジョン as the subject and が again marks 英語{えいご} as the\nnominative object of the intransitive verb 出来{でき}る. The と embeds everything\nbefore it.\n\n* * *\n\nI believe that this construction is only allowed when you have\n\n * an intransitive verb predicate, or\n * a potential verb predicate,\n\n_AND_ there is a が-marked object present (i.e., this will not work:\n＊ジョンに走{はし}れるとみんな知{し}ってる).\n\nThere are a few papers that talk about this. The one that comes to mind is\n\"Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean\" by\nHiroyuki Ura. This paper seems primarily focused on proving the subjectality\nof the に marker rather than when it feels natural to do this in modern\nJapanese, so be weary of many of the examples in there.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T22:45:36.760", "id": "11021", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-21T04:52:32.770", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-21T04:52:32.770", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "1096", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1151", "answer_count": 1, "body": "As the title says- I'm wondering if anyone is aware of a website used for\nlearning dialects and internet lingo?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T07:16:34.477", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1114", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T16:46:59.323", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T07:54:10.683", "last_editor_user_id": "335", "owner_user_id": "335", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "slang", "dialects", "resources", "website", "internet-slang" ], "title": "Sites/ways helpful for learning internet/slang lingo?", "view_count": 352 }

[ { "body": "There's a zokugo dictionary [here](http://zokugo-dict.com/), which includes\nboth normal slang and internet slang. Of course, it's all in Japanese.\n\nI haven't been able to find any other resources for this sort of thing,\nthough.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T16:46:59.323", "id": "1151", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T16:46:59.323", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "263", "parent_id": "1114", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1149", "answer_count": 1, "body": "毎日は楽しくなりました。\n\nWould you translate this: Every day was fun.\n\nor\n\nEvery day became fun.\n\nI know that なる can be used to say that A becomes B. But in this example what\nis the nuance of the meaning of なる？", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T12:41:14.137", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1126", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T16:43:15.007", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T14:26:13.710", "last_editor_user_id": "61", "owner_user_id": "61", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation" ], "title": "How would you translate: 毎日は楽しくなりました。", "view_count": 316 }

[ { "body": "毎日は楽しくなりました generally makes it seem like the context is:\n\n1) everyday life was not much fun before\n\n2) a particular thing happened and pretty much changed it over night\n\n3) everyday life is now fun.\n\nThus, it's difficult to actually translate this into an English sentence that\ncontains all that context. Something like \"everyday life became fun\".\n\nAs for Kdansky's post above, the てしまった form _could_ add more emphasis on the\nfact that \"yeah, it really DID become fun\". However, the てきた form that he used\nimplies something slightly different: that it wasn't a \"particular thing\" that\nchanged the situation \"overnight\", but rather that everyday life steadily\nbecame more enjoyable, and now it is fun.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T16:43:15.007", "id": "1149", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T16:43:15.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "263", "parent_id": "1126", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1132", "answer_count": 2, "body": "It seems there are three words for the same Japanese food item, a kind of\n\"sushi in a long roll\":\n\n * \"巻寿司\" (makizushi)\n * \"海苔巻き\" (norimaki)\n * \"巻物\" (makimono)\n\nAre they all identical / synonyms? Do they refer to subtly different things?\nAre they used in different regions? Are they used by different generations of\nJapanese?\n\n[Sidenote: At the risk of side-tracking another food question, there only\nseems to be one word for these in Korean: \"김밥\" (gimbap).]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T12:48:52.200", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1127", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T19:23:07.180", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary", "synonyms", "food" ], "title": "What's the difference between \"巻寿司\" (makizushi), \"海苔巻き\" (norimaki), and \"巻物\" (makimono)?", "view_count": 1091 }

[ { "body": "**Norimaki & Makizushi** both refer to the rolled up sushi. Makizushi is used\nmore commonly used than Norimaki. INterestingly Google has 2.28M occurrences\nof _Norimaki_ but 4.85M of _Makizushi_.\n\n**Makimono** (lit: rolled up thing) covers rolled sushi but also describes\ncalligraphic scrolls.\n\nFrom my experience, older people to use the term Makimono, whereas makizushi\nis very heard. I've never had a conversation where the term \"norimaki\" came\nup, and I used to work in a Japanese restaurant with people form Nagoya, so\nmaybe that one is regional.\n\nSearching the usual Japanese resources did not yield any definitive answers.\n\nPS: Inuit have over one hundred words for snow (ref:\n<http://www.mendosa.com/snow.html>). So if Korea only has one word, I guess\nthat shows how important a part of Japanese culinary culture sushi is :D Of\ncourse Korea rules when it comes to Bulgogi/Yakiniku.\n\nEDIT: Fixed for anthropological accuracy, and to garner an up vote from\n@Hippietrail", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T13:17:51.340", "id": "1128", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T13:44:36.597", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T13:44:36.597", "last_editor_user_id": "168", "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The literal meanings of these words are:\n\n * 巻寿司 (まきずし): sushi roll\n * 海苔巻き (のりまき): something rolled with [nori](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nori), a specific kind of seaweed\n * 巻物 (まきもの): something rolled\n\n[海苔巻き](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E8%8B%94%E5%B7%BB%E3%81%8D)\nusually refers to sushi roll with nori, but depending on the context, it can\nrefer to other kinds of food, including [海苔巻き卵\n(のりまきたまご)](http://cookpad.com/recipe/544345) and [海苔巻き煎餅\n(のりまきせんべい)](http://www.minatoya.biz/shohin/okaki_senbei/nori/norimaki.html).\n\nUnlike 海苔巻き, I do not think that 巻物 is understood as sushi roll unless it is\nclear from the context that one is talking about sushi. As crunchyt wrote, 巻物\ncan also mean a scroll.\n\nWhen used to describe kinds of sushi, these three words are almost synonymous,\nbut sushi rolled with something other than nori ([usually\negg](http://www.onigiriya.co.jp/products/norimaki.htm)) can be called 巻寿司 or\n巻物 but not 海苔巻き.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T14:05:12.753", "id": "1132", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T19:23:07.180", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-14T19:23:07.180", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1195", "answer_count": 7, "body": "I was wondering about this one recently. \"Fuck\" in English is famous for being\napplicable in a wide, wide range of circumstances (none of them formal).\n\nWhat word in Japanese covers a wide spectrum of possible meanings and uses\nlike \"fuck\" does. Does not have to be a rude/vulgar term.\n\nAny suggestions?\n\nEDIT: half of you seem to have missed the point of my question. I don't need a\ntranslation for \"fuck\", I want a word as versatile. Maji is pretty good but I\nwould've thought there'd be more contenders. Admittedly it's a vague question,\nbut one for my izakaya zatsugaku collection.", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T13:51:11.447", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1129", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-09T13:59:58.887", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T14:30:26.273", "last_editor_user_id": "168", "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary" ], "title": "Are there any Japanese words as versatile as \"fuck\" in English?", "view_count": 9005 }

[ { "body": "I would say 馬鹿(バカ) is kind of like that. You could use like バカデカイ(** huge).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T14:04:01.087", "id": "1131", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T14:04:01.087", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "What about ちょう? I've heard it used as an adverb, adjective and standing by\nitself. Or was that local slang of the people I was with?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T15:52:10.983", "id": "1146", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-14T15:52:10.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "84", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I am surprised nobody mentioned: マジ (\"maji\")\n\nOnly used as an adverb, with the meaning of \"fucking\", for instance マジ寒い for\n\"fucking cold\".\n\nCombinations can be done: チョウ寒い、マジで！", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T09:09:52.473", "id": "1195", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-09T13:59:58.887", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-09T13:59:58.887", "last_editor_user_id": "107", "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "しまった？ i usually hear like あっ！しまった！ in situations that i would usually mean,\n\"ow, fuck!\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T07:40:43.710", "id": "1298", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-25T17:05:17.400", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-25T17:05:17.400", "last_editor_user_id": "1575", "owner_user_id": "373", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "What about 「[微妙]{びみょう}」. It is used to express something not quite well. e.g.\n[今日]{きょう}行{い}ったレストランは[微妙]{びみょう}だった。 It is also used to say about something\nsubtle. e.g. [微妙]{びみょう}な[色彩]{しきさい}が[施]{ほどこ}された[絵画]{かいが}. It is also used when\nyou cannot make up your mind. e.g. [明日暇]{あしたひま}？ ん～[微妙]{びみょう}. It is also used\nfor something unknown. e.g. [彼]{かれ}の[発言]{はつげん}で[微妙]{びみょう}な[空気]{くうき}が[流]{なが}れた。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-09-25T18:10:14.607", "id": "6925", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-25T19:06:11.497", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-25T19:06:11.497", "last_editor_user_id": "1575", "owner_user_id": "1720", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "My Japanese isn't very good, but I've heard that 一応 can be used in a wide\nvariety of contexts.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-09-26T06:25:14.317", "id": "6929", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-22T21:53:20.950", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-22T21:53:20.950", "last_editor_user_id": "270", "owner_user_id": "1392", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I once checked what is the longest article in the Green Goddess (Kenkyusha's\nNew Japanese-English Dictionary). It was for `き【気】`, which had 10 main\nmeanings and a huge number of idioms. My denshi jiten even had it split in\ntwo, probably because it ran into some software length limitation.\n\nI actually managed to find a copy of the article on the web just now:\n<http://pastie.org/pastes/260480>\n\nHere's the list of main meanings:\n\n1 〔精神･心･意識〕 spirit; (a) mind; (a) heart. \n2 〔気質･性格〕 (a) nature; a disposition. \n3 〔意向〕 a mind; an intention; 〔意志〕 will; 〔意欲〕 high [strong] motivation; 〔意気･気力〕\nspirit(s). \n4 〔気持ち･気分〕 one's feelings; a mood; (a) frame of mind. \n5 〔関心〕 interest. \n6 〔注意力･心遣い〕 care; consideration; attention. \n8 〔雰囲気〕 an atmosphere; 〔精気〕 essence; spirit. \n9 【中国哲学】 〔生命の根元･生命力〕 chi; ch'i; qi. \n10 〔香気〕 fragrance; aroma; 〔風味〕 taste; 〔燻気〕 fumes.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-22T23:10:11.293", "id": "13835", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-22T23:10:11.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "1129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1194", "answer_count": 2, "body": "These two phrases seem to have very similar usage and I'm unable to determine\nthe difference between them.\n\nThe examples I have are:\n\n> 彼は服装 **からして** だらしない。きっと他の面も同じだろう。 \n> _kare ha fukusou karashite darashinai. kitto hoka no men mo onaji darou._\n>\n> 症状 **からすると** 、心臓の病気かもしれません。 \n> _shoujyou kara suru to, shinzou no byouki kamo shiremasen._\n\nHowever, both of these phrases seem to translate to the English word \"from\" or\n\"based on\". I've asked a few Japanese friends about the difference, but they\nwere unable to explain it eloquently.\n\nIs it possible to switch からすると and からして in the preceding examples? Will it\nstill be grammatically correct.\n\n(Additionally, からして seems to have the meaning of \"for a start\" as in\nひらがなからして読めない or \"For a start, I can't even read hiragana.\" But this usage\nseems to be completely separate to the \"from\" or \"based on\" usage.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T14:21:07.403", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1133", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:15:43.973", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar" ], "title": "Is there a difference between からすると and からして？", "view_count": 3933 }

[ { "body": "I learned them as an interchangable set (along with からすれば thrown into the mix,\nthough that one sounds a little bit more formal to my ears), and the two\ngrammar reference books I just checked don't list any nuance differences\nbetween the two. One difference is that adding a も for good measure after からして\nworks better than after からすると, though I don't think it's entirely\nungrammatical. A more formal explanation for this sense of the construction is\nthat Xからすると/からしてY means X (a noun phrase) is something perceivable by the\nspeaker, and Y is a judgment based on that.\n\nIt should also be noted that the construction carries one more sense for both\nforms (separate from the alternate からして sense you mention): \"from the point of\nview of...\" as in\n\n> 一般人からすると、この値段は高く感じられることかと思います。\n\n(usage example provided by Google).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T06:01:11.337", "id": "1191", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:15:43.973", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T10:15:43.973", "last_editor_user_id": "318", "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1133", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "As _@Oren Ronen_ mentioned, there are actually two different grammar\nconstructs concerning this.\n\nCase 1: **～からして** , meaning \"beginning with\". This is used in a list of\nexamples (often incomplete), primarily in a negative context.\n\n> * 私はあの人があまり好きではない。下品な話し方 **からして** 気に入らない。 -- I don't like that guy very\n> much. Starting with his vulgar talk, he just doesn't sit well with me.\n> (indicates possible other negative aspects about the guy, even though they\n> aren't listed.\n>\n\nCase 2: **～からして（も）** ／ **～からすると** ／ **～からすれば**. These mean, \"thinking about it\nfrom the standpoint/position of ...\"\n\n> * 米を作る農家 **からすると** 、涼しい夏はあまりありがたくないことだ -- From the viewpoint of farmers\n> that produce rice, cool summers are not a very good thing. \n>\n> * 芸人とかタレントなど **からして** いつもファンのためサインするのが大変かもしれない -- Thinking about it from\n> their view, it must be tiring for entertainers and celebrities to always be\n> signing autographs for fans.\n>\n\nNow, in case 2, the three forms are definitely interchangeable (with the\nnuance of adding **も** to form ～からしても -- \"Even from the standpoint of...\"),\nand in fact, they are grouped together for this definition. However, for case\n1, I don't believe they are. I've only heard of case 1 using **～からして** , but\nmaybe I've just never encountered this meaning with the other forms (any\nnatives feel free to correct this).\n\nYour first example seems to be case 1: the first negative point about the\nguy's \"slackerness\" is his clothing. So here I would say they are not\ninterchangeable. But your second example seems to be case 2 (\"Looking at the\nsymptoms, it might be a coronary illness\"), so you could use **～からすると** or\n**～からすれば** here.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T06:40:42.757", "id": "1194", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T06:46:44.170", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T06:46:44.170", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1133", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1215", "answer_count": 1, "body": "After showing a project to a Japanese coworker, he answered me the following:\n\n感動した！、小泉元総理風\n\nI found this amusing, but I couldn't get the Mr.Koizumi reference. Is there a\nstory behind this?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T14:35:35.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1139", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:03:53.897", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:03:53.897", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "quotes" ], "title": "\"感動した！(like ex-primeminister Koizumi)\" Where does this reference come from?", "view_count": 238 }

[ { "body": "Well, since no one has commented with a contradictory theory, I'll post mine\nas an actual answer. Quoting a recent\n[MSN産経ニュース](http://sankei.jp.msn.com/sports/news/110528/mrt11052803210000-n1.htm)\n\"10 years ago today\" article:\n\n> **ケガに負けず貴乃花２２度目Ｖ**\n>\n>\n> 大相撲夏場所千秋楽で、東横綱の貴乃花が西横綱の武蔵丸を優勝決定戦の末に下し、通算２２度目の優勝を飾った。貴乃花は前日、右足を負傷したため、千秋楽の出場は微妙とみられていたが、患部をテーピングして強行出場した。気迫あふれる名勝負を演じた貴乃花を、小泉純一郎首相は表彰式で「痛みに耐えて、よく頑張った。感動した」とたたえた。首相の「感動した」は流行語になった。\n>\n> **Holding firm through injury, Takanohana claims 22nd victory**\n>\n> On the closing day of the summer sumō tournament, East Yokozuna\n> [Takanohana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takanohana_K%C5%8Dji) defeated\n> West Yokozuna\n> [Musashimaru](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musashimaru_K%C5%8Dy%C5%8D) in a\n> championship-deciding bout to capture the 22nd victory of his career. As\n> Takanohana had injured his right leg on the previous day, some doubt was\n> cast on his appearance on the closing day, but he stepped resolutely into\n> the ring with tape covering the affected area. In the award presentation,\n> prime minister Jun'ichirō Koizumi praised Takanohana's spirited efforts in\n> the well-fought bout with comments of, \"You fought admirably through the\n> pain. I'm impressed.\" The prime minister's \"I'm impressed\" became a popular\n> catchphrase.\n\nThe exact date of this award presentation was May 27th, 2001, almost exactly\nten years ago, which may have led to a recent spike in Koizumi-like 感動した\nutterances as newspapers and TV shows reflect on the tournament (which also\nhappened to be the final victory of Takanohana's career). As I mentioned in a\ncomment, there's [a YouTube video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRYRexcD13s)\nthat has footage of the tournament, and Koizumi's 感動した is shown at the very\nend.\n\nAlthough 感動した wasn't on the list, [Koizumi did win the top prize for 2001's\n\"Catchphrase of the Year\" award](http://singo.jiyu.co.jp/nendo/2001.html) as\ntabulated by U-CAN. This [annual presentation](http://singo.jiyu.co.jp/) gives\na snapshot of many of the fads that sweep across Japan each year.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:43:36.780", "id": "1215", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T14:43:36.780", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1139", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1153", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I recently used a following sentence in my homework:\n\n> 今日までに 私は 二百まいしゃしんを とりました。\n\nNow, in my homework I actually used 今日まで, without に, and I got it corrected.\nWhat's the difference between 今日まで and 今日までに?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T16:45:46.313", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1150", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-11T23:09:14.620", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T00:50:59.673", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "142", "post_type": "question", "score": 25, "tags": [ "particle-に" ], "title": "今までに vs. 今まで - what is the difference in meaning?", "view_count": 3293 }

[ { "body": "I believe that when you use までに, you're referring to a deadline - thus 今日までに\nwould be \"before the end of today (you need to have finished something, you\nhad done something, etc)\". It's referring to that specific day, in which you\ntook the pictures.\n\nまで, however, is usually just used to specify that something was the case until\nthat time. 今日まで is referring to the time _before_ today - as in, up until this\nvery day, something was the case.\n\ntl;dr \n今日まで = referring to stuff that happened/was the case _before_ today, such as\nyesterday or last week \n今日までに = referring to stuff that happened before the _end of_ today\n\nHope that clears it up, it's a bit weird to explain.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T16:50:49.180", "id": "1152", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-18T09:32:05.120", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-18T09:32:05.120", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "263", "parent_id": "1150", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "This is one of those odd examples where we could drop the に (and perhaps\nreplace it with a comma) and still have an understandable sentence:\n\n> [今日]{きょう}まで、[私]{わたし}は[写真]{しゃしん}を[200枚]{にひゃくまい}[撮]{と}りました。\n\nBut this sentence, while perfectly understandable, is ambiguous on a minor\ntechnicality, since まで by itself could be used to show when a state or an\naction ceases. (Humans are smart and can figure out which one you mean, but\nlet's pretend we're robots. _Grammatically correct_ robots.)\n\n> [募金活動]{ぼきんかつどう}は[来週]{らいしゅう}まで[行]{おこな}われる。 \n> The fundraising efforts will go on until next week.\n\nThe 来週まで in the above sentence shows that the action will not continue after\nnext week.\n\nSince the point of 今日まで in your example sentence isn't to show that the action\nof taking the pictures ceases after today, but to show _when you took the\npictures_ , the particle に is tacked on to まで just like you would add it to\nany other time expression that can take に. 今日まで, though it refers to a range\nof time, is here treated like a single point in time that answers the question\nof when you took the pictures.\n\nIn short, the に can be dropped here. (In writing, when に is dropped, such as\nin the ために and ～ずに patterns, it's often replaced with a comma.) But to erase\nany ambiguity, it's best to leave it in, and I think that's what your teacher\nis getting at.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T17:59:02.540", "id": "1153", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-11T23:09:14.620", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-11T23:09:14.620", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1150", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1183", "answer_count": 4, "body": "If my manager says something that I know to be factually incorrect, how can I\npoint that out without sounding disrespectful? (Is ~違います appropriate in this\ncontext or is that too strong?)\n\nIs this a situation where I would use speech that is more formal than usual?\nFor example, would I switch to a form of keigo for this even if I normally\nhave a more informal relationship?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-14T20:07:48.323", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1154", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T09:44:58.537", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T00:56:18.503", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "politeness", "culture", "business-japanese" ], "title": "How would I respectfully disagree with a superior?", "view_count": 1745 }

[ { "body": "Dave hit it right on the spot. You don't disagree. You have to agree and then\noffer up your own idea as addendum while stating that you are unsure. one way\nto disagree is \"その考え方もあるけど．．．\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T03:04:51.717", "id": "1172", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T06:11:45.793", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T06:11:45.793", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1154", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Not a _bona fide_ answer, in that I am not confident enough to provide you\nwith a reliable example of what you should be saying, but I can definitely\ntell you how you should **not** be saying it (despite some suggestions in the\ncomments to your question):\n\n * Any sentence that **starts** by a word expressing disagreement.\n * Anything that hints at an actual error made by your boss: \"間違っている\", \"間違い\" or, Amaterasu forbid: \"違う！\" etc.\n\nIn fact, the two points above are probably good guidelines for _any_\nargumentative discussion with a Japanese person. I know the whole [resolution\nby consensus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making) thing is\na bit of a tired cliché about Japanese society, but there is a reason it\nbecame one: you can safely expect Japanese in general, your business\nassociates in particular, and your boss _most definitely_ , to dislike direct\nconfrontation even (particularly) when they are factually wrong.\n\nThe standard recommended way to handle both a personal or a business\ndisagreement (there is no such thing as a factual error in Japanese, only\ndiffering viewpoints ;-) is:\n\n * Start by agreeing wholeheartedly (そうですね etc).\n * Introduce your correction/viewpoint, as if it was some last minute detail you just thought of, that was of no importance whatsoever, or as an _improvement_ , rather than a correction.\n\nOf course, I am drawing very broad strokes here and standard use-your-better-\njudgement disclaimer applies, but I think you can't really go wrong with this\napproach.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T03:51:34.077", "id": "1183", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T03:51:34.077", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1154", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I use something like\n\n> それもそうですけど、。。。。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T03:55:17.783", "id": "1184", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T03:55:17.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1154", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "You could say something like \"難しい…\" and let time pass by a bit. It expresses\nyour difficulty with accepting what has been said, letting everyone enough\ntime to reconsider what has been said.\n\nYou could ask for confirmation: \"そうですか\". It will ask for more informations,\npossibly allowing the fact to be shown wrong.\n\nP!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T09:44:58.537", "id": "1240", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T09:44:58.537", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1154", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1162", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I know the general meaning of using お疲れ様です／でした to express gratitude for some\nwork, but I'm a bit fuzzy about appropriate times to use it.\n\nI know it is a common saying when leaving for the day, and I've also seen it\nin email when replying to someone who has just done some task, but are there\nother situations where this would be appropriate (or inappropriate)? Is there\nany kind of time element implied (would it sound strange in the morning?)?\n\nAlso, when is it appropriate to just use お疲れさん instead of お疲れ様?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T02:23:37.610", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1158", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-04T01:21:49.773", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "usage", "nuances", "set-phrases", "business-japanese" ], "title": "When is it appropriate to use お疲れ様 (otsukaresama)?", "view_count": 125248 }

[ { "body": "I'd describe it best as a _greeting_ or _set phrase_ used after (any sort of)\nwork has been done. It can be used in a variety of situations:\n\n * at the end of _any_ shared activity (before leaving home from work, after volunteer work, after group activities like hiking), very much in the sense of _\"See you...\"_\n * when greeting somebody who (supposedly) is working or has just finished work (coming into the office during the day, greeting your colleagues/friends/spouse after work)\n * acknowledging somebody's efforts ( _\"I finished what you asked me for...\" - \"Ah, otsukaresama, arigatō gozaimasu.\"_ , _\"I walked 5 miles to get here.\" - \"Otsukaresama!\"_ )\n * humorously ( _\"I finally decided on which shoes to buy!\" - \"Otsukaresama desu.\"_ )\n\nI wouldn't use it first thing in the morning when coming into the office,\nsince everybody's (supposedly) just starting to work. I'd use it when coming\nback into the office from a client meeting though, for example. Using it if I\njust came in late because I overslept is borderline (お疲れ様って言うなよ、オマエ！ ;-)).\n\nお疲れさん or お疲れ can be used somewhat more informally than お疲れ様. Not advisable in\nformal situations.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T02:43:53.473", "id": "1162", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T02:43:53.473", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 }, { "body": "* Regarding formal use:\n\nIt is a widely-held misconception (even among _some_ young Japanese when they\nstart working in a company) that you should use お疲れさま when leaving the office.\nStrictly speaking, this is incorrect.\n\nお疲れさま[です/でした] is something you say **to people leaving** , or when you and the\nother person are **both** leaving (e.g. when you meet a colleague at the door\netc.).\n\nSaying お疲れさま[です/でした] when you are leaving, has a (very) slightly insulting\novertone, in that you are essentially saying \"I'm knackered and going home!\n[while you guys stay here]\", which is not really the business Japanese way...\n\nWhen **you** are leaving, it is probably more polite to say:\n\nお先【さき】に失礼【しつれい】します: \"I apologise for leaving before [you]\"\n\nOf course, there are also countless informal occasions where using any\nvariations of お疲れ[さま][です/でした] is OK.\n\nMainly:\n\n * at the end of any strenuous activity (or even not so strenuous ones, as a joke)\n * as a less formal and more \"matey\" replacement for 乾杯【かんぱい】(\"cheers\", when toasting).\n\nPS: I don't often hear お疲れさん in daily conversations: people will tend to use\neither お疲れさま (without です/でした → semi-formal) or just おつかれ (very informal).", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T02:48:16.963", "id": "1163", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-02T04:54:30.587", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-02T04:54:30.587", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "Why all the answerers, commentators and upvoters here are hung up only on the\n\"dictionary\" usages of the phrase, I have no idea. The answerers even seem to\nlive in Japan.\n\nIn today's Japan, the phrase is OFTEN used as a casual \"Hi!\" as well --- if\nsomeone wants to know the fact.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-02T22:29:11.610", "id": "13576", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-02T22:29:11.610", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Every time I hear someone answering their deskphone, they greet with お疲れ様です\\,\n_Name_ です Also, in most emails, the start greeting is お疲れ様です", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-02-04T01:21:49.773", "id": "65273", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-04T01:21:49.773", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "32821", "parent_id": "1158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm having trouble putting this question into words, especially short enough\nto use as the question title, basically I'm confused about what the term\n\"keigo\" applies to:\n\n * Is it just the addition of honorific, humble, polite, respectful elements to what otherwise might be called a \"non keigo\" utterance?\n * Or is it a term which covers the whole process or set of rules governing when to apply and not apply such elements?\n\nSo is it possible to contrast vanilla plain Japanese to keigo Japanese? Where\nis the line drawn? When a single honorific, humble, polite, or respectful\nelement is added to an utterance does it become a keigo utterance? To make an\nutterance totally non keigo do I have to go so far as to remove the o- prefix\nfrom mizu? Is keigo a continuum or an optional extra?\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT** to clarify the difference between this and [my previous keigo\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/882/does-keigo-just-\nmean-politeness-or-is-it-a-technical-term-specifically-r):\n\nThe previous question was to find out if \"keigo\" was a\ntechnical/linguistic/grammatical term or just a general term. Now that I know\nit's a technical term I'm trying to pin down with this question what it means\nand when it should and shouldn't be used.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T02:24:17.110", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1159", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T00:38:24.390", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage", "keigo", "terminology" ], "title": "Does \"keigo\" cover only the use of honorific/humble/polite elements, or does it cover the full range and choice of what to use and not use?", "view_count": 338 }

[ { "body": "I think this is a rather hard question to answer, since you'll find people\nusing the term keigo in both senses. I prefer to use in the first sense, but\nit's practically inevitable that keigo training manuals (especially those\ndirected at foreigners) will also teach about the second one, since knowing\nkeigo without knowing when and where to apply is kinda pointless.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T18:24:58.123", "id": "1221", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T18:24:58.123", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1159", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1186", "answer_count": 3, "body": "As a gyudon addict I have noticed that the names of the three major national\nrestaurant chains all end in \"ya\" but they used two different characters:\n\n * \"吉野家\" (Yoshinoya)\n * \"松屋\" (Matsuya)\n * \"すき家\" (Sukiya)\n\nOther shops and restaurants I've noticed just use the hiragana instead:\n\n * \"や\" (ya)\n\nSo is there a subtle difference where one is more like restaurant and the\nother is more like shop/store? And is the hiragana a handy way to be ambiguous\nor would people reading such a sign immediately know whether \"や\" stood for \"屋\"\nor \"家\" based on their language intuition?\n\nWhile I'm at it, is this yet another character for \"ya\" used in the same\ncontexts?\n\n * \"店\"", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T03:56:55.557", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1185", "last_activity_date": "2016-10-27T09:01:54.933", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T11:32:18.607", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "synonyms", "spelling", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "What's the difference between \"家\" (ya), \"屋\" (ya), and \"や\" (ya) as used in the names of shops/stores/restaurants?", "view_count": 10055 }

[ { "body": "屋 and 家 both roughly mean _\"house\"_ , with 屋 tending more towards the meaning\nof _building_ and 家 more towards _home_. The choice of which to use is\nentirely the owner's. や is the ambiguous way to write either and is pretty\nmuch a stylistic choice. Do keep in mind that in the olden days Japanese\nstores tended to be part home, part store, with the owners living in the back\nwhile serving guests out front. You can still find such stores today, but\nthey're disappearing in favor of purely business stores. The naming stuck\nthough, possibly due to it's \"homeliness\".*\n\n店 _ten_ has the pure meaning of \"store\".\n\n* * *\n\n* Note that I'm pretty sure that even in in the olden days there were purely business stores called _-ya_. I can't say whether 屋 was used for such whereas 家 was used for \"home stores\" or whether the choice was always arbitrary.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T04:13:19.453", "id": "1186", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T04:28:25.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T04:28:25.857", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1185", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "deceze's answer may be correct (I do not know), but in present Japanese, 屋\nmeans that it is a store whereas 家 puts more emphasis on the fact that it has\nbeen inherited for generations. For 屋, besides your example, it is often\ncombined with the merchandise: 靴屋, 自転車屋, 魚屋, etc. 家 usually combines with the\nfamily name that is inherited.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-27T08:19:35.450", "id": "5973", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-27T13:56:44.200", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-27T13:56:44.200", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1185", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "-屋{や} is also used in some words describing character traits, e.g.\n\n * 恥{は}ずかしがり屋{や} (bashful person)\n * 寂{さび}しがり屋{や} (lonely person)\n * 寒{さむ}がり屋{や} (someone who gets cold easily, cold-blooded)\n * くすぐったがり屋{や} (ticklish person)\n * 目{め}立{だ}ちたがり屋{や} (attention seeker)\n * のんびり屋{や} (lazy, laid-back person)\n\nthey usually end in -(が)り屋\n\nbut also professions (often used to refer to the the shop's owner):\n\n * 八{や}百{お}屋{や} (greengrocer)\n * 床{とこ}屋{や} (barber)\n * 大{おお}屋{や} (landlord/landlady)\n * 酒屋{さかや} (sake dealer/brewer)\n * 質屋{しちや} (pawnbroker)\n * 殺{ころ}し屋{や} (professional killer/hitman)\n\nWhile -家{か} (NB: -ka, not -ya) is also used for some professions, usually(but\nnot always) related to creativity:\n\n * 漫画家【まんがか】 (mangaka, manga/comic writer)\n * 画家 【がか】 (painter)\n * 作家【さっか】 (writer/author)\n * 所説家【しょせつか】 (novelist, fiction writer)\n * 芸術家【げいじゅつか】 (artist (in entertainment industry))\n * 評論家【ひょうろんか】 (critic)\n * 農家 【のうか】 (farmer/plant grower)\n * 実業家【じつぎょうか】 (businessman)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-10-25T19:45:47.807", "id": "40310", "last_activity_date": "2016-10-27T09:01:54.933", "last_edit_date": "2016-10-27T09:01:54.933", "last_editor_user_id": "3295", "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "1185", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1189", "answer_count": 2, "body": "if お腹が空いた means \"I'm hungry\",\n\nthen what would be the past tense of お腹が空いた since (i think) it's already in\nthe past tense?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T04:45:54.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1187", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T20:32:21.047", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T04:55:15.100", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "tense" ], "title": "what is the past tense of お腹が空いた?", "view_count": 3628 }

[ { "body": "The past tense would be:\n\n**お腹がすいていた**\n\nThis would be along the lines of \"my stomach was in the state of being empty\"\nor simply \"I was hungry.\"\n\nAdditionally, the \"た” in お腹がすいた is not showing \"past tense\" but is actually\nshowing the completion of an action. In this case, the stomach has emptied.\n\n食べた後で部屋を掃除します。This is the \"た” which shows completion of an action.\n\n昨日ケーキを５個食べた！ This is the past tense version of \"た\".\n\nI believe this た is called 完了形 in grammar terms.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T05:12:18.107", "id": "1189", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T05:12:18.107", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "1187", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "As phirru already answered, “I was hungry” is おなかがすいていた. However, this is not\nthe past form of おなかがすいた. Although phirru explained it in his/her answer, let\nme be more explicit in this regard.\n\nおなかがすいた is the past form of おなかがすく, which means to _become_ hungry. In other\nwords, おなかがすく refers to the change of the state from “not hungry” to “hungry.”\nFor example,\n\n> 食事をしないとおなかがすく。 (しょくじをしないとおなかがすく。) We become hungry if we do not eat.\n\nThis is why “I am hungry” is おなかがすい **た** ; a literal translation would be “I\n**have become** hungry.”\n\nおなかがすいている also means to be hungry, and おなかがすいていた is the past form of this.\n(Unfortunately, I cannot explain the difference in usage between おなかがすいた and\nおなかがすいている.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T20:32:21.047", "id": "1227", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T20:32:21.047", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1187", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1203", "answer_count": 6, "body": "How do you pronounce the Japanese \"r\"? Is it more like an \"l\" or something\ninbetween? Would there be any picture or video explaining it correctly, please\nlink it!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T10:19:35.230", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1199", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-16T22:58:26.740", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T10:26:30.293", "last_editor_user_id": "296", "owner_user_id": "296", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "pronunciation" ], "title": "How do you pronounce the Japanese \"r\"?", "view_count": 20325 }

[ { "body": "It's in between the English \"l\" and \"r\" sounds. Make a \"l\" sound, but sweep\nthe tip of your tongue back without letting it touch your hard palate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T10:24:53.503", "id": "1200", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:24:53.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The sound that's transcribed in Romaji as 'r' is what's refered to in\nphonetics as an [alveolar flap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_flap)\n(or alveolar tap). It's a sound made by quickly tapping the tip of your tongue\non the alveolar ridge (the same place you use to pronounce sounds like 't' or\n'l') and to native American English ears sounds somewhere between an 'r' and\nan 'l'.\n\nIf you are an American English native speaker, you probably already make this\nsound when speaking your own language. It's what's the double-t is pronounced\nas in \"better\", for example.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T10:31:32.983", "id": "1203", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T10:31:32.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "I pronounce it as a singular Spanish 'r'. If you can pronounce Spanish, this\nwill help you. If not, it probably won't. Although I've often described it as\nclose to a 't' or 'd' sounds (as _@oren Ronen_ mentioned with 'better').", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T15:06:58.267", "id": "1216", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T15:06:58.267", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "[Tofugu video](http://www.tofugu.com/2009/12/30/how-to-pronounce-the-japanese-\nr-sound/ \"Tofugu\") I've used.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T15:07:31.343", "id": "1267", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T15:07:31.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "366", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I found [a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUF5rAsaCKI) which shows a\nshadow of the tongue position when a native speaker uses ra etc. There is also\nsome assistance using a Canadian English dialect which may add value.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2018-03-14T16:28:17.377", "id": "57270", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-14T16:28:17.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "25922", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Raq0eo0znLY?t=8:33s) is the best video\nI’ve found about pronouncing the Japanese r. It describes it as the sound\nbetween d and l, and has lots of diagrams about where your tongue should be\nwhen you say these different sounds.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2018-03-16T22:58:26.740", "id": "57314", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-16T22:58:26.740", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28148", "parent_id": "1199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [Significance of the kanji 「茶」 in the set phrase 「滅茶滅茶 / 目茶目茶」\n> {めちゃめちゃ}](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/666/significance-of-\n> the-kanji-in-the-set-phrase)\n\nSo, in Kansai they use めっちゃ, and in Kanto 超. But what about the other parts of\nJapan? And from where to where exactly do they use these words? Can you also\ntell me where these words came from? Derived from what word or so (especially\nfor めっちゃ, since 超 has a kanji and a meaning.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T10:29:21.927", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1202", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T02:57:00.620", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "296", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "dialects", "expressions" ], "title": "超 vs めっちゃ + explanation", "view_count": 945 }

[ { "body": "Mecha has kanji and was explained in another thread [Significance of the kanji\n茶 in the set phrase 滅茶滅茶{めちゃめちゃ} /\n目茶目茶{めちゃめちゃ}](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/666/significance-\nof-the-kanji-in-the-set-phrase)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T01:17:28.757", "id": "1228", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T01:17:28.757", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1202", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1248", "answer_count": 4, "body": "A little while ago I was in a shop, and about 5 minutes after I left, they\nphoned me to tell me I had left my USB stick there. I said I would head back\nand pick it up.\n\nI used `戻{もど}って行{い}く` to mean \"I'll go back\", but I wonder if `戻{もど}ってくる`\nwould have been better, as in \"I'll come back\".\n\nJapanese has always tripped me up a bit in terms of which point of view one\nrefers to when describing direction. Am I coming to where they are, or going\nfrom where I am? Or are both okay?\n\nNow that I think about it, English can be flexible on this as well, so perhaps\nthere aren't strict rules. Maybe I'm over thinking it...?\n\nIn any case, does anyone have any pointers which can help determine when one\ncomes to where the other person is, or when one goes from where the speaker\nis?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T10:48:34.943", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1204", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-03T02:33:09.240", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-03T02:23:37.070", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "nuances", "verbs", "words" ], "title": "Am I coming or going? 戻ってくる vs 戻っていく", "view_count": 2909 }

[ { "body": "戻ってくる is the one to choose.\n\nBasically, when opponent is in same place where you're going to, you may need\nto use 来る.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T11:35:21.067", "id": "1205", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T11:35:21.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Neither seems really appropriate to me. In that case the best thing to say\nmight be 戻ります _modorimasu_.\n\nYou can never really say 戻って行く _modotteiku_ about yourself. You can say\n彼は戻って行く when somebody else is leaving to return to where he came from. You can\nsay 戻ってくる _modottekuru_ when you're going somewhere but are going to _return\nhere_ (e.g. 「戻ってくるね、待ってて」). 戻る _modoru_ already has the meaning of \"going\nthere\" and doesn't need an 行く or くる for other cases.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T13:41:15.633", "id": "1208", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T13:41:15.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "_I'm not really answering my own question as much as I am relaying what I\nbelieve is the correct answer after polling a few Japanese people on this._\n\nA simple `戻{もど}ります` or `戻{もど}る` would be the usual way to go.\n\n`戻{もど}って行{い}く` is definitely wrong. However, `戻{もど}ってきます` isn't totally wrong,\nand I was told there are some people who would use it. Specifically they said\n`「言{い}う人{ひと}もいるよ」`.\n\nHowever, possibly the best to say would have been:\n\n> 取{と}りに戻{もど}る\n\nWhich is something like, \"[I'll] head back to pick [my USB thingy] up\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T15:58:57.970", "id": "1248", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-03T02:33:09.240", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-03T02:33:09.240", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "1204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I know that this thread is a bit old now, but I couldn't help responding.\n\nNo one answered with `取りに伺います（とりにうかがいます）` which is what i understand to be the\nmost polite and well understood.\n\n`取りに行きます and 取りに戻ります` also fit the bill but my research does not agree with\nthe previous answers stating `取りに戻ってくる･いく･帰る`are the best answers or even that\nthey feel natural but the meaning should still be understood.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T13:07:41.560", "id": "2103", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T13:07:41.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "276", "parent_id": "1204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1212", "answer_count": 3, "body": "A friend just wrote this as a comment on a photo of mine on Facebook.\n\nIs it an actual word or is it what I call a \"vocal noise\"?\n\nBy \"vocal noise\" I mean those things which convey some meaning but they're not\nreally lexical and can't be used like regular words. Examples in English\ninclude \"shhh\", \"zzz\", and \"tsk tsk\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T13:15:24.370", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1206", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-08T09:01:14.103", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-08T09:01:14.103", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "words", "sound-symbolism", "phonotactics" ], "title": "Is \"あらら\" (arara) a word or just a \"vocal noise\"?", "view_count": 22713 }

[ { "body": "According to this: <http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%82%E3%82%89%E3%82%89>\n\nIt is a word that is used when you are surprised or astonished.\n\nPerhaps like the English \"woah\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T13:32:00.467", "id": "1207", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T13:32:00.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "1206", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "The only real difference between what you call vocal noises and regular\ninterjections (such as \"Well well\", \"Wow!\" or \"Ouch!\") is that these vocal\nnoises do not fit into the phonology of their language, usually for one of two\nreasons:\n\n 1. They use sounds that are not inside the [phoneme](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme) inventory of the language, such as \"tsk tsk\" which is actually a [dental click](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_click) (a sound that exists as a perfectly normal phoneme in many of the native languages of Southern Africa, but not English).\n\n 2. They use existing phonemes, but combine them in normally unacceptable ways (in linguistic terms: in ways that are incompatible with the language's [phonotactics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonotactics)). The English \"shh\" use the perfectly normal English phoneme /ʃ/, but it used irregularly, since English doesn't normally allow words composed of consonants alone, without any vowels, and also since the consonants /ʃ/ is usually very prolonged.\n\nIf we choose to use this criterion to distinguish between \"regular\"\ninterjections and \"vocal noise\" interjections, then あらら is definitely a\nregular interjection: it's a completely normal word as far as its phonology\ngoes: it doesn't have any strange sounds or phoneme configurations. It's\nreally not different than the English \"Wow\". It's probably an\n[onomatopoeia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia) if that's what you\nmean, but for the record so is わんわん, どきどき、旗 (originally: `[pata]`, cf. ぱたぱた,\nthe modern onomatopoeia for flapping) and probably even 光 (originally:\n`[pikari]`, cf. ぴかぴか, the modern onomatopoeia for shining things).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:31:57.193", "id": "1212", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T14:31:57.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1206", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "A few friends of mine say it quite often, to express some kind of slight\ncompassion. If someone said \"I have to work on Sunday\", they would say \"arara,\nwhat a pity\" (あらら、大変です) in return. I would consider it a real\nword/interjection.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T09:39:32.500", "id": "1239", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T09:39:32.500", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1206", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1211", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I thought the character \"を\" (wo) was only used for the particle whose only job\nwas to indicate the direct object of a verb.\n\nBut today I saw it at the end of an exclamation on a sign I think on a shop:\n\n> 西部に活力を!!\n\nSo what job is を doing here?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:05:04.230", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1209", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-30T12:27:41.950", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-14T07:56:34.543", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "usage", "particles", "hiragana", "particle-を", "kana-usage" ], "title": "Does the particle \"を\" (wo) have a special use when at the end of a sentence?", "view_count": 15316 }

[ { "body": "It's still the object marker. The sentence is just not finished and the verb\nis implied.\n\n(there was a question mentioning suspended sentences but I cannot find it for\nthe moment)\n\nAnyway it's often used:\n\n> フォースと共{とも}にあらんことを\n>\n> May the force be with you!\n\nAdditionally it gives some kind of propaganda feeling to the sentence.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:25:45.860", "id": "1211", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-30T12:27:41.950", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1209", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "It's just an ellipsis of the verb. It happens too with other particles, for\nexample, you have \"復興へ！\" (towards reconstruction!) here and there in the\nTohoku area.\n\nI think that it is mostly used in an incentive context, to express \"let's\nall…\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T09:50:26.807", "id": "1241", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T05:55:42.403", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T05:55:42.403", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1209", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1214", "answer_count": 2, "body": "For the longest time I've been hearing the word ダイヤ and just always assumed it\nmeant \"Diamond\", but found recently it all means \"train schedule\". My question\nis, what word/language did this word originally come from?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:35:49.777", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1213", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T19:30:50.047", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "etymology", "loanwords" ], "title": "Where does the word ダイヤ come from that means \"train schedule\"?", "view_count": 924 }

[ { "body": "Original word is from \"Diagram\" ダイヤグラム, which is a 外来語.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T14:37:55.253", "id": "1214", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T14:45:11.427", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T14:45:11.427", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1213", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "When used in relation to public transportation, ダイヤ means a [diagram showing\nthe schedule](http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/Gov01_02Rail-fig-\nGov01_02Rail021a.html), or the schedule itself. It is used not only for trains\nbut also for buses, planes, and so on. For example, the schedule of planes can\nbe called as [飛行機]{ひこうき}のダイヤ, [航空便]{こうくうびん}のダイヤ or [空]{そら}のダイヤ.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T19:30:50.047", "id": "1222", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T19:30:50.047", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1213", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1219", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Today I saw onigiri claiming to contain \"しゃけ\" (shake). When I asked my friend\nwhat that was, she said it was the same as \"さけ\" (sake), \"salmon\".\n\nSo are these two just different readings of a kanji, regional differences,\nused by different generations, etc? How did the two pronunciations come about?\nWhich should I use?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T15:22:56.863", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1217", "last_activity_date": "2018-10-01T23:52:25.797", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-23T20:01:27.827", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "word-choice", "etymology", "synonyms", "food", "animals" ], "title": "What's the difference between \"さけ\" (sake) and \"しゃけ\" (shake)?", "view_count": 40122 }

[ { "body": "This answer from another site claims that しゃけ is an accent difference in\nSaitama, Chiba, Shizuoka (basically Kantou).\n\n<http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/11481.html>\n\nBut, when I did a part-time job at an 居酒屋(いざかや) during my college time in 四国\n(Shikoku - not in Kantou region) around 2005, some people used しゃけ. I didn't\nknow the meaning at that time, and some people smiled and told me that it is\nthe same as さけ and told me some people use it.\n\nAnd some use しゃけ to differentiate from 酒(さけ) \"alcohol\", according to another\nanswer on that Q & A page.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T15:43:56.313", "id": "1218", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-13T02:41:57.987", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-13T02:41:57.987", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1217", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "Both さけ and しゃけ mean salmon and are written as 鮭 in kanji (but I will avoid\nusing this kanji in this answer for an obvious reason). As far as I know,\nthere is no difference in meaning, but some people seem to distinguish the two\nwords in meanings (see below).\n\nAccording to a [webpage](http://www.food.maruha-\nnichiro.co.jp/salmon/faq/index.html#q11) by Maruha Nichiro Foods, Inc., the\nKōjien dictionary lists the word しゃけ as a variation of the word さけ with the\nsame meaning. The webpage also states that there is no obvious geographical\ntendency between the use of さけ and しゃけ.\n\nAccording to [this\npage](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1211008052) and\n[this page](http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/qa/hatsuon4.htm), some people distinguish\nthe two words, in which case さけ means living or raw salmon and しゃけ means\ncooked salmon. I had never heard of this distinction personally, and I doubt\nthat many people distinguish the use of the two words.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T15:48:00.353", "id": "1219", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T23:18:39.563", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T23:18:39.563", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1217", "post_type": "answer", "score": 28 }, { "body": "[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B5%E3%82%B1) has this to say:\n(I omitted some parts)\n\n> 「シャケ」[...] それを食品用に加工したものを「シャケ」だという見解もある一方で\n\n->Vulgar translation:\n\n「シャケ」 is used when talking about salmon processed to become food.\n\n> 江戸時代の江戸では「はひふへほ・さしすせそ」の発音が苦手だった為、訛って「シャケ」になったという説もある\n\n(Only a theory atm, no source to support it) In Edo period, 「はひふへほ・さしすせそ」 were\nconsidered low standard so 「シャケ」 became 「さけ」\n\nThe food thing makes sense in my opinion but I've personally only used and\nheard サーモン", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-15T15:50:47.157", "id": "1220", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-15T16:34:16.980", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-15T16:34:16.980", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1217", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Part of the variance, and the confusion, arises from the fact that this word\nis not native to Japanese -- this was originally a borrowing from Ainu. The\nAinu term for _salmon_ is variously _sak ipe_ , _sak ibe_ , _shak embe_ ,\ndepending on dialect, and apparently both the _s-_ and _sh-_ beginnings were\nborrowed into Japanese. Modern Hokkaido Ainu seems to use _sak ipe_ ,\nliterally \"summer + food\" in reference to the salmon fishing season.\n\nAs others have noted, it is sometimes advisable to use the _shake_ variant in\nJapanese to avoid potential confusion with 酒{さけ}.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-22T23:18:51.627", "id": "39412", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-22T23:18:51.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "1217", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1236", "answer_count": 2, "body": "開ける, 明ける and 空ける are all read as あける.\n\nFrom their kanji, it is obvious that 開ける has to do more with opening (a door\netc), 明ける with dawning and 空ける with emptying...\n\n**However** , [JMDict](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1E) gives the exact same senses for all three of them (in\nfact, lists them as the same word):\n\n> 開ける(P); 空ける(P); 明ける(P) 【あける】 (v1,vt) ① (esp. 開ける) to open (a door, etc.); to\n> unwrap (e.g. parcel, package); ② (esp. 開ける) to open (for business, etc.); ③\n> (esp. 空ける) to empty; to clear out; to make space; to make room; (v1,vi) ④\n> (esp. 明ける) to dawn; to grow light; ⑤ (esp. 明ける) to end; (P)\n\nOK, not _quite_ the same senses for all (each sense is given a \"preferred\"\nkanji), but still seems to claim that there might be cases where one kanji\nspelling could be used instead of another.\n\nIs this an error in JMDict (and should all three have separate definitions),\nor can anybody think of cases where the above spellings are used instead of\none another?\n\n**Edit:** to clarify, my question could be summed up as:\n\n * Does your dictionary disagree with mine?\n\n_if not:_\n\n * Can you give me _one_ situation example where any two of the above spellings could be used interchangeably (with or without **minor** differences in nuance)?", "comment_count": 16, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T01:39:59.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1229", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T17:00:27.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-16T07:17:02.287", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances", "dictionary", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "Nuances between the different kanji spellings of あける：明ける vs. 開ける vs. 空ける", "view_count": 1002 }

[ { "body": "My understanding was that while they all have the same reading, they are in\nfact completely different words. Which the 3 definitions that you have\nmentioned Dave being in line with how _I_ would use and have seen these kanji\nbeing used in Japan.\n\nSo to answer your question, i think the Edict is incorrect. Looking at some of\nthe other comments it seems that they are listed properly, at least from my\nperspective, as separate entries in their dictionaries.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T02:54:20.443", "id": "1230", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T03:27:15.550", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-16T03:27:15.550", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1229", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Historically, all of these are indeed the same word, which had a base meaning\nof \"clearing an obstruction\". From this base meaning you can easily get to\n\"making/getting empty\" and \"opening\".\n\nAs for the meaning of \"brightening\", if I understand correctly, the story goes\nlike this: Since ancient time had a metaphor of dawn (夜明け) as the night (夜)\nclearing up (あける) the obstruction it has put on the sky, and allows the light\nto flow freely. From the same root (`ak-`) also come the words 明るい and 赤い.\nYes, the color that is associated with the night clearing up is red and not\nwhite, because the reddish hue that often accompanies dawn (though we're more\nlikely to associate reddish hue with sunset in our western imagery).\n\nAll of these words and senses seems to be of very old origin, i.e. they had\nformed well before kanji came to be used for writing Japanese. When the\nJapanese had to fit the Chinese kanji (which were obviously tailored around\nChinese words and meanings) to their language they obviously couldn't find a\nsingle kanji that would convey all of the senses of あける together.\n\nMost of the kanji associations that evolved into what we now know as [kun-\nreadings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kun_reading#Kun.27yomi_.28Japanese_reading.29)\ncame from an old writing system called\n[kanbun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun), that barely had any phonetic\nelements. Japanese written in kanbun was effectively translated to Chinese and\neven laid out in Chinese syntax (though later some reading aids were added to\nhelp readers convert it back to Japanese syntax), and at least in the\nbeginning, it had to be acceptable Chinese, so the writer had to replace あける\nwith 開 (remember, there was no okurigana in the first kanbun texts) when it\nmeant 'open', with 空 when it meant 'empty' and with 明 when it meant\n'brighten'. Over the time these distinctions stuck, and up till today most\nJapanese choose the appropriate kanji for each meaning. In my personal\nexperience, these meanings have grown so distinct in modern language that\nyou'd usually find people \"confusing\" the kanji only when their IME misfires\n(which happens quite a lot :)) or when they try to make a word-play.\n\nDictionaries are another thing though, and since most of them base their entry\npartition (at least partially) on etymological grounds, they may end up\nputting all of these kanji under one unified entry (often with usage\nguidelines, but still under one roof).", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T07:51:20.653", "id": "1236", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T17:00:27.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-16T17:00:27.593", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1229", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1233", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Both 問い合わせ and 依頼 can mean to ask, but my co-workers are using both words in\nthe application we are working on as if they are two different words.\n\nI have a suspicion one is transitive and one is intransitive in their usage,\nbut not entirely sure.\n\nEdit: From the comments an enquiry and a request are both asking for\ninformation. That is where i was getting confused.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T06:33:12.847", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1231", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-22T04:59:12.167", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-22T04:59:12.167", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the difference in usage between [問]{と}い[合]{あ}わせ and [依]{い}[頼]{らい}", "view_count": 214 }

[ { "body": "The two words mean different things. They just happen to be different things\nthat can sometimes be represented by a single English word.\n\n`問い合わせ` is a request for information. You often see it used for customer\nsupport phone numbers you can call if you have questions about the product you\njust bought.\n\n`依頼` is a request for someone to do something (such as provide you with a\nservice), often also translated as \"commision\". It's the word you use if you\nask a lawyer to represent you, hire a freelance design firm to make you a web\npage, etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T07:39:40.680", "id": "1233", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T07:39:40.680", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1231", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1235", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Both 完了 and 終了 seem to have the connotation of finished/complete, but what is\nthe difference, if any, in usage?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T07:39:38.980", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1232", "last_activity_date": "2015-10-10T09:11:58.090", "last_edit_date": "2015-10-10T09:11:58.090", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage" ], "title": "What is the difference between 完了 and 終了?", "view_count": 4093 }

[ { "body": "完了 _kanryō_ means \"completed\", while 終了 _shūryō_ means \"ended\".\n\n> 式典の準備は完了した - The preparations for the ceremony are complete. \n> 祭りは夜更けになってようやく終了した - The festivities finally came to an end late at night.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T07:43:57.260", "id": "1235", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T07:43:57.260", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1232", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "The video game Star Fox 64 uses 作戦完了 when you fulfill your mission objective,\nand 作戦終了 when the mission is over but there's some objective you haven't\nfulfilled. The English version translates these as \"Mission Accomplished\" and\n\"Mission Complete\", respectively. So perhaps 完了 suggests some kind of\nfulfillment, and 終了 is more neutral.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T08:30:58.620", "id": "1237", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T08:30:58.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "224", "parent_id": "1232", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "I think 完成【かんせい】 has the meaning \"completed\" with the nuance \"Well done!\" But,\nI'm not positive.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T09:40:29.727", "id": "3070", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T09:40:29.727", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "699", "parent_id": "1232", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1242", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is there a difference in usage between these words?\n\n 1. 演算 (えんざん)\n 2. 算出 (さんしゅつ)\n 3. 計算 (けいさん)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T07:43:33.173", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1234", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T05:51:21.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T05:51:21.593", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage" ], "title": "Difference between various \"calculation\" words (演算, 算出, and 計算)", "view_count": 334 }

[ { "body": "演算 is an operation. When you apply an operation, such as a boolean NOT, you\ncould use this word.\n\n計算 is a computation, a calculation. Morally, it involves many operations. It\nis also the word for formal calculi in the scientific domain (such as \"lambda\ncalculus\" or \"pi calculus\")\n\nI never encountered 算出 and I therefore do not know its usage and nuances.\nHowever, a quick check on the internet give a few compound words where it\nappears to express the result (出) of a computation: 算出税額: calculated tax\namount, and 算出金額: calculated amount.\n\nP!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T09:58:11.313", "id": "1242", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T09:58:11.313", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1234", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1246", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm vaguely aware that the usage of _furigana_ is based on the intended target\naudience. The younger or less likely literate the target audience the more\n_furigana_ are employed. But is there a system to decide which words receive\n_furigana_ and which don't? In intermediate novels I find it not unusual to\nfind _furigana_ on words that were printed without just a few pages earlier.\nIs this done because somebody decided that that word/reading is less likely to\nbe known in that context, or is it pretty _\"tekitō\"_?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T11:33:13.807", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1243", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:54.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:54.610", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "orthography", "furigana" ], "title": "Is there a logic for deciding when to employ furigana?", "view_count": 599 }

[ { "body": "I can't answer on the particular case of a word that would receive furigana\n_after_ not receiving it earlier (the opposite, however, is naturally quite\ncommon): assuming the words are rigorously identical and identically read both\ntimes, this sounds more like an oversight than anything.\n\nAs for the general rules of adding furigana, they are pretty straightforward,\ndepending on what kanji level can be expected from the reader.\n\nOne should probably separate:\n\n * Readings targeting children and young adults (about anybody at High School age or under) have very fluid rules, as far as I can tell. _Overall_ , they will try and follow the regular Japanese school curriculum, which is very specific about which kanji must be mastered by when. But since their target demographic itself might not be all that exact, they will probably err on the side of caution and annotate all **non-kyouiku kanji**.\n\n * Regular readings: newspapers, novels, manga for adults (adult- _age_ , not adult- _themed_ ) etc. will generally put furigana only for highly irregular readings and kanji that are **outside of the jouyou set**. I believe adding furigana to non-jouyou kanji is even a requirement by law for newspapers (but I cannot find a source for this just now). Of course, the socio-professional status of the intended audience will probably play a role in how generous with extraneous furigana they are (e.g. cheap weekly magazines etc.), but I noticed such materials just tend to skip the kanji and go straight to kana when needed...\n\nIt must be said that the strictness in kanji requirement (compensated by the\nuse of furigana) has dramatically decreased over the past 30-40 years: to\nconvince yourself, just compare a copy of any 70s-era manga (e.g. Tezuka\nOsamu's _Black Jack_ ) with modern day mangas targeting the same demographic\n(\"shounen\" - young adult): the latter have furigana all over (anything beyond\nJr High School level, essentially), while the former barely bothers putting\nfurigana on even the most obscure proper noun kanji (let alone anywhere else).\n\n**Edit:** there's been much debate in the answer below, regarding the\nexistence of clearly-defined official guidelines (as opposed to obscure in-\nhouse rules). _At least for newspapers_ , I stand my ground and reiterate:\n**Jouyou kanji** is the **officially agreed** base set of kanji to be used in\nJapanese publications, with some modifications clearly defined and agreed upon\nby the association of Japanese newspaper editors (source: [Wikipedia\nJp](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8)).\nOne could argue that there is yet another small decision-making step from\n\"kanji that people aren't expected to know\" to \"kanji that need to be\nfuriganised\", but frankly, I'm not going there.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T14:22:14.980", "id": "1246", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T08:50:04.530", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T08:50:04.530", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1243", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Short answer:\n\nNo.\n\nLonger answer:\n\nThe thing that makes this a difficult question to answer with authority is\nthat no one can provide evidence of something not existing. I can't prove a\nnegative, so if someone can find any evidence of a system (with universal\napplication, not just someone's in-house policies), then please do so.\n\nOtherwise, until then, I am just about 100% sure that there is absolutely no\nsystem at all. It's entirely done, as you suggest in your question, based on\nthe creator's (including all production levels of authors, editors,\npublishers, etc...) assessment of whether or not the reader can read the\nkanji.\n\nFurther, not only is there no system or agreed standards for when furigana\nshould be employed, there is equally no system for when words that have kanji\nare written entirely in hiragana.\n\nI am currently reading the adventures of Tintin in Japanese, and they make all\nsorts of seemingly random (to my non-native language level) choices about\nwhich words have furigana, which words are offered in hiragana, which words\nare never given furigana, and which words are given furigana once but not\nagain. The people who translated it went case by case for each sentence\nassessing the reader's ability to read what was offered.\n\nAnd that's pretty much how it's always done. The only \"system\" you might find\nwould be within some publisher or company and applied to all their own\nmaterials, but that would be just as arbitrarily decided as any other\npublisher's choices.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T16:16:10.617", "id": "1250", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T16:16:10.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "1243", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "One thing I have noticed among my Japanese coworkers is that it seems that\nthey overuse the verb \"confirm\" when translating 確認する:\n\n> テストを確認する (\"confirm the tests\")\n>\n> 彼と確認して欲しい (\"[I want you to] confirm this with him\")\n>\n> 確認方法 (\"method of confirmation\")\n>\n> ご確認の程よろしくお願いします。 (\"Please confirm this.\")\n\nOr also advice like: \"You should improve you confirmation skills\". I am not a\nnative English speaker though, I think that \"check\" would sound more natural.\nAs in \"check the tests\", \"please check with him\", \"how to check\" etc...\n\nCan somebody confirm this?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T12:39:52.597", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1244", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T17:33:34.977", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "Shouldn't 確認する always be translated into \"check\"?", "view_count": 303 }

[ { "body": "\"check\" is too vague a word to fit all instances, but \"confirm\" is also too\nspecific. I would substitute \"validate\" and other words in there as the\ncontext fits, rewriting entire phrases if necessary.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T12:43:56.153", "id": "1245", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T12:43:56.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1244", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "As mentioned by [Ignacio and\nDerek](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1244/shouldnt-always-be-\ntranslated-into-check/1245#1245), there isn't a single translation for all\nsituations. It depends both on context and the desired tone.\n\n\"Confirm\" works fine for most of your examples, it's just a little bit more\nformal than \"check\". If you were trying to sound sophisticated you'd want to\nuse \"confirm\" or \"validate\", but if you were hanging out with a bunch of\nteenagers, they would probably look at you funny.\n\nTo give you an idea on how a different translation can change the connotation\nof the phrase:\n\n> テストを確認する (\"confirm the tests\")\n\nWhile any of the possible translations would be appropriate here, \"confirm\"\nand \"validate\" sound more professional, as if scientists in lab coats were\nperforming an experiment. \"Check\" is general enough to apply to all situations\nthough.\n\n> 彼と確認して欲しい (\"[I want you to] confirm this with him\")\n>\n> ご確認の程よろしくお願いします。 (\"Please confirm this.\")\n\nBoth of these I hear a lot in formal settings, like the office, a doctor's\noffice, or a fancy restaurant. I don't really hear \"check\" at those places\nunless I know the other person.\n\n> ご予約を確認してください (\"Please confirm your appointment\")\n\nI think \"confirm\" is the only translation that would work in this case. When\nthe doctor's office or a hotel is calling to verify that I will show up for an\nappointment, I've always heard them use \"confirm\" rather than \"check\". This is\nprobably because since I'm their customer, they want to be more polite and\nmore formal.\n\n> 確認方法 (\"method of confirmation\")\n\nThis is the only one that sounds a little funny. As mentioned by Ignacio,\n\"Evaluation Method\" would sound better.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T17:33:34.977", "id": "1251", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-16T17:33:34.977", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "162", "parent_id": "1244", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1262", "answer_count": 4, "body": "what is the theory that 僕は自分にプレゼントをあげる is right but not 僕は自分にプレゼントをくれる ?\n\nBtw I'm also curious if these sentences are equally valid:\n\nA) 僕は自身にプレゼントをあげる\n\nB) 僕は自分自身にプレゼントをある\n\nC) ボブはボブにプレゼントを[あげる/くれる?]\n\nD) ボブはボブ自分にプレゼントを[あげる/くれる?]\n\nE) ボブは自分自身にプレゼントを[あげる/くれる?]\n\nBtw if we do need a context, say perhaps in Christmas and we bought a present\nfor ourself?", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T15:40:46.897", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1247", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T19:08:33.690", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-01T19:08:33.690", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "first-person-pronouns", "perspective", "pronouns" ], "title": "Giving something to oneself", "view_count": 525 }

[ { "body": "This is just my personal opinion, but I thought I'd share it.\n\n 1. I don't think 私は私にプレゼントをあげた / 僕は僕にプレゼントをあげた are correct, because you can't あげる something to 私. You would have to もらう or くれる it. On the other hand, I see 私は自分にプレゼントをあげた as possibly being grammatically correct, as 自分 is a reflexive pronoun — different from 私 and 僕 which are non-reflexive. \n\n> 自分: I gave myself a present \n> 私/僕: I gave I a present.\n\n 2. 私は自分自身にプレゼントをあげた seems to be gramatically correct, as 自分自身 is a noun. It appears to share the same grammatical correctness as 私は日本赤十字社にプレゼントをあげた. ~~However, 自分 is a bit more murky because of its reflexive pronoun status.~~ Misread your sentence, 私は自身にプレゼントをあげた also seems grammatically correct for the same reason.\n\n 3. I guess it could be argued that ボブはボブにプレゼントをあげた is grammatically correct as ボブ is just a noun and replacing 私 with one's name is not disallowed. However, with that said, you can't あげる something to 私, and ボブ is not that murky type of pronoun. ボブは自分自身にプレゼントをあげた seems grammatically correct for the reasons in item 2. Is this a typo: ボブはボブ自分にプレゼントをあげた?\n 4. I don't think your statement is the case.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T02:04:29.570", "id": "1256", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T03:35:24.620", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T03:35:24.620", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "1247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Decent usage for \"giving something to oneself\" would be \"自分へのご褒美する\"\n\nAnd regarding あげる and くれる for those, you can't use くれる, because 自分にプレゼントをくれた,\nstill means someone gave you present.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T03:52:07.220", "id": "1257", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T03:52:07.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Just being curious: where did you learn about the correctness of the two first\nones? I can't recall hearing anything like that ever.\n\nIn a similar way, even if gramatically correct, your other sentences with the\n\"I\" subject feel very unnatural to me.\n\nI believe that a natural way to express self rewarding would be:\n\"プレセントを買わせてもらいましょう\", where context and proudness/relief while saying it do the\njob of telling for whom it is.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T05:35:38.700", "id": "1259", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T05:35:38.700", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I often hear a similar sentence自分にご褒美をあげたいhere in Japan. It is often used\nafter you did some hard effort to achieve something. The subject私は is omitted\nmostly. Also, _I_ haven’t seen プレゼント so much in the sentence. So, it might be\ngood to think it as a kind of idiomatic sentence. Honestly speaking, it seems\nto me that the Japanese sentences in question are more or less strange. So,\nfirstly, I’ll start with 自分にご褒美をあげたい.\n\nご褒美is, in my impression, commonly used for a rewarding gift from an authority\nto a person, from a parent to a child, etc., and with respect. It means an\nimportant gift, different from a present in a casual occasion. Therefore, it\nmight sound strange to give such formal gift to self. Some people might say\nthe expression is a little strange.\n\nBut I would put it this way. たいmeans ‘I could do.’ The basic meaning of the\nsentence is ‘I could give ご褒美 to myself (after this big achievement, etc.)’.\nThe sentence might be wrong in a strict way, but figuratively or subjunctively\ncorrect. The subject of the sentence might be an imaginable ‘I’ who might be\nan authoritative person in a subjunctive world. The great ‘I’ gave ご褒美 to real\n‘me’. So, this sentence works to emphasize great satisfaction to self. Well,\nof course, some people actually buy something good to themselves. If you buy a\nnew car, you might say この車は自分へのご褒美です。自分へのご褒美is a noun form.\n\nBy the way, I hear less 自分にご褒美をあげたthan 自分にご褒美をあげたい or 自分へのご褒美. This might\nprove that Japanese people feel something wrong with using straightforward あげた\nto talk about giving something to themselves, because あげたis a politer word.\nBut using あげたin this sentence might be acceptable, when we remember the\nsentence is basically subjunctive one. An imaginable great ‘I’ agrees with the\nword あげた. I hope this is an answer to your あげる、くれるquestion, though it might be\nconfusing.\n\nIt might be good to think 自分にご褒美をあげたis derived from 自分にご褒美をあげたい, the basic\nform. When you achieve something, you will say 自分にご褒美をあげたい. After that, if you\nbuy something for yourself, you will naturally want to say that 自分にご褒美をあげた.\nThe subjunctive world turned to be real.\n\nNow, I’ll try to answer the rest of your question. I’m not a grammar\nspecialist, so my judge depends on whether it sounds natural to me. Besides,\nas I said earlier, I can’t imagine the situation to say 自分にプレゼントをあげた. So, I\nwould stick to ご褒美.\n\n * 私は私にプレゼントをあげた → （私は）自分にご褒美をあげた (though あげたsounds a little strange to me.)\n * 僕は僕にプレゼントをあげた → （僕は）自分にご褒美をあげた (ditto)\n * 私は自分にプレゼントをあげた → （私は）自分にご褒美をあげた (ditto)\n * 私は自身にプレゼントをあげた → incorrect (In most cases, 自身needs another word)\n * 私は自分自身にプレゼントをあげた → 私は自分自身にご褒美をあげた (ditto)\n * ボブはボブにプレゼントをあげた → ボブは自分にご褒美をあげた(I think あげたsounds a little strange but some people don’t think so. This may be more acceptable because the speaker isn’t the subject.)\n * ボブはボブ自分にプレゼントをあげた → incorrect （if you say ボブ自身, it’s acceptable.）\n * ボブは自分自身にプレゼントをあげた → ボブは自分自身にご褒美をあげた(I think あげたsounds a little strange but some people don’t think so. This may be more acceptable because the speaker isn’t the subject.)", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T08:10:16.140", "id": "1262", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T08:10:16.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1253", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I recently saw 冗談だっつの. What does it っつの mean, or how does it modify the\nmeaning of a sentence?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T19:15:30.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1252", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:17:46.550", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:17:46.550", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 27, "tags": [ "usage", "slang", "て-form", "contractions" ], "title": "What does っつの mean?", "view_count": 7190 }

[ { "body": "っつ (sometimes つう) is a slang version of という (or an alternate version like\nといった, depending on the context). It's extremely informal.\n\n> 冗談【じょうだん】だ **っつ** の。 (＝冗談だ【じょうだん】 **といった** の。) I said I was joking.\n> [Idiomatically: Chill out, I was just kidding.]\n>\n> 彼【かれ】はやめたい **っつって** んだから、やめさせてやりゃいいじゃん。 (＝彼【かれ】はやめたい **といっている**\n> んだから、やめさせてやればいいじゃない。) He's saying he wants to quit, so why not let him?\n>\n> まぁ、なん **つう** かさ、ちょっとまずいっすね。 (＝まぁ、なん **という** かさ、ちょっとまずいですね。) Well, it's…what\n> should I say…kind of a bad situation.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-16T20:04:11.170", "id": "1253", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T13:06:56.190", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1252", "post_type": "answer", "score": 29 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "The Japanese hiragana and katakana syllabaries can mostly be described as\nphonetic. But there are two exceptions, the two pairs of syllables modified to\nbe voiced with the _dakuten_ diacritic which turns them into homophones:\n\n * す (su) → ず (zu); つ (tsu) → づ (zu) \n * し (shi) → じ (ji); ち (chi) → ぢ (ji)\n\nThe same goes for katakana:\n\n * ス (su) → ズ (zu); ツ (tsu) → ヅ (zu)\n * シ (shi) → ジ (ji); チ (chi) → ヂ (zi)\n\nSo are these pairs always pronounced the same or are there sometimes subtle\ndifferences? The former of each pair seems to be the more common, are the\nlatter in each pair much used? How does one choose which to use when spelling\nwords in kana? What about for spelling foreign words or names in kana?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T00:11:40.603", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1254", "last_activity_date": "2020-09-07T08:49:00.177", "last_edit_date": "2016-07-22T21:30:51.910", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 91, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "orthography", "phonology", "kana", "kana-usage" ], "title": "What are the differences between じ and ぢ, and ず and づ?", "view_count": 152375 }

[ { "body": "In modern Japanese these pairs are pronounced exactly the same:\n\n * ず, づ are pronounced either `[dzu]` or `[zu]`. \n * じ, ぢ are pronounced either `[dʑi]` or `[ʑi]`. \n(the first sounding like the English J and the second like the French J, but\nboth are with the middle of the tongue raised to the hard palate, producing\nwhat seems like a softer pronunciation).\n\nSo in short, the pairs are redundant as far as the modern language is\nconcerned. But like most cases of duplicate letters, they originally\nrepresented distinct sounds:\n\n * ず represented `[zu]` (nowadays it is really more like `[dzu]` with `[zu]` being a slacker pronunciation).\n * づ represented `[du]` (and just like `[tu]` became `[tsu]` it became `[dzu]`)\n * じ represented `[zi]` (and just like `[si]` became `[ɕi]` it became `[ʑi]`).\n * ぢ represented `[di]` (and just like `[ti]` became `[tɕi]` it became `[dʑi]`).\n\nWhile the exact pronunciation of these 4 letters have changed since classical\nJapanese, they essentially remained distinct until the Edo period. We can\neasily see this from old Portuguese transliterations of Japanese, which used\nthe following letters to transliterate these sounds:\n\n * じ was transliterated `ji`. \n(remember that this is the Portuguese or French `j` here, not the English\n`j`).\n\n * ぢ was transliterated `gi`. \n(it was obviously distinct from ぎ, but not distinct enough to Portuguese or\nSpanish ears)\n\n * ず was transliterated `zu`.\n * づ was transliterated `zzu` or `dzu` \nI'm not sure how this last letter was pronounced, since the only old text I've\nread, _Ars Grammaticae Japonica_ , makes a clear distinction between 水 (old\nspelling: みづ) which it transliterates as _mizzu_ and 蜜 (strangely enough: みつ)\nwhich it spells as _mizzu_. This mess probably stems from the fact that\nSpanish itself (the writer is Spanish) was undergoing transformations to the\nvery same consonants at that time.\n\nIn the end, `[dzu]` merged with `[zu]` and `[dʑi]` merged with `[ʑi]` in all\nbut a few dialects (the Kagoshima dialect apparently retains these\ndistinctions), but until the spelling reforms of 1946 all words retained their\noriginal spellings, so 水 was spelling ミヅ in and 味 was spelled アヂ. Good kokugo\n(Japanese-Japanese) dictionaries still list these old spellings.\n\nAfter the spelling reforms, づ and ぢ were kept in only two places:\n\n 1. With a repeated sound: [続く]{つづく}, [縮む]{ちぢむ}\n 2. In compounds with [rendaku](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendaku): [気付く]{きづく}, [馬鹿力]{ばかぢから}\n\nIn all of the other places, ぢ was replaced with じ and づ with ず.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T00:49:44.890", "id": "1255", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T14:51:07.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T14:51:07.827", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1254", "post_type": "answer", "score": 88 }, { "body": "Pronunciation-wise, there is no difference in the standard dialect. Some\ndialects may preserve the distinction between the two sounds, but most of the\nwords that used to be spelled with づ and ぢ are now spelled with ず and じ in the\nstandard language. (In other words, relying on the standard spelling won't\ntell you when to use \"dzu\" and \"dji\" in these dialects, because standard\nspelling doesn't reflect when these sounds occur.) [This\npage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotsugana) has more information on\ndialectical usage of づ and ぢ.\n\nThe cases where づ and ぢ are still used today are when rendaku is applied.\n\"Rendaku\" is the voicing of syllables that sometimes occurs when making\ncompound words. For example, the same phonetic process that turns 山口 into やまぐち\n(instead of やまくち) also turns 月々 into つきづき. One of the most common cases is the\nverb つく (付く), which gets tacked onto other verbs: もと+つく = もとづく. つける can turn\ninto づける via the same process.\n\nAlso, occasionally, the sequence \"tsuzu\" is spelled つづ. For example, 続ける is\nつづける even though it doesn't seem to be a compound word.\n\nぢ is considerably rarer than づ for some reason -- I can't think of any words\noffhand that use it, though I may know one or two -- but nonetheless the same\nrules apply.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T05:34:18.450", "id": "1258", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T05:34:18.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "224", "parent_id": "1254", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Here's what my Japanese lecturer told me when I asked her about it:\n\n\"Usually it is じ for ji sound. However, when ji is used after chi sound in one\nword with one kanji, ぢ is used, such as, ちぢむ （縮む）、ちぢれる（縮れる）. When it is a part\nof word with two kanji, such as, ちじん （知人 = acquaintance), じ is used.\"\n\nInteresting....", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-11-16T05:21:20.493", "id": "9454", "last_activity_date": "2012-11-16T05:21:20.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2900", "parent_id": "1254", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "With the writing reform almost most instances of the old ぢ・ヂ and づ・ヅ have been\nreplaced with the homophonic じ・ジ and ず・ズ with the following exceptions:\n\n 1. ぢ・ヂ and づ・ヅ are still used in words containing a voiced repeated ち or つ (i.e. one that could be written with a voiced iteration mark ゞ), e.g.\n\n> ちぢむ（縮む） つづく（続く）\n\n 2. ぢ・ヂ and づ・ヅ may appear as a result of _rendaku_ (when the first _kana_ of a compound word is voiced), e.g.\n\n> はなぢ（鼻血）\n\nFor reference, the relevant section of the [cabinet\nannouncement](http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/t19860701002/t19860701002.html)\nby the _Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology_\n(文部科学省), containing all common examples, is\n\n> 5. 次のような語は、「ぢ」「づ」を用いて書く。\n>\n> 1. 同音の連呼によって生じた「ぢ」「づ」\n>\n> **例** ちぢみ(縮) ちぢむ ちぢれる ちぢこまる\n>\n> つづみ(鼓) つづら つづく(続) つづめる(約△) つづる(綴＊)\n>\n> 〔注意〕 「いちじく」「いちじるしい」は、この例にあたらない。\n>\n> 2. 二語の連合によって生じた「ぢ」「づ」\n>\n> **例** はなぢ(鼻血) そえぢ(添乳) もらいぢち そこぢから(底力)\n>\n> ひぢりめん いれぢえ(入知恵) ちゃのみぢゃわん\n>\n> まぢか(間近) こぢんまり\n>\n> ちかぢか(近々) ちりぢり\n>\n> みかづき(三日月) たけづつ(竹筒) たづな(手綱) ともづな にいづま(新妻) けづめ ひづめ ひげづら\n>\n> おこづかい(小遣) あいそづかし わしづかみ こころづくし(心尽) てづくり(手作) こづつみ(小包) ことづて はこづめ(箱詰) はたらきづめ\n> みちづれ(道連)\n>\n> かたづく こづく(小突) どくづく もとづく うらづける\n>\n> ゆきづまる ねばりづよい\n>\n> つねづね(常々) つくづく つれづれ\n>\n>\n\n>\n>\n> なお、次のような語については、現代語の意識では一般に二語に分解しにくいもの等として、それぞれ「じ」「ず」を用いて書くことを本則とし、「せかいぢゅう」「いなづま」のように「ぢ」「づ」を用いて書くこともできるものとする。\n>\n> **例** せかいじゅう(世界中)\n>\n> いなずま(稲妻) かたず(固唾＊) きずな(絆＊) さかずき(杯) ときわず ほおずき みみずく\n>\n> うなずく おとずれる(訪) かしずく つまずく ぬかずく\n>\n> ひざまずく あせみずく くんずほぐれつ さしずめ でずっぱり なかんずく うでずく くろずくめ ひとりずつ\n>\n> ゆうずう(融通)\n>\n> 〔注意〕\n> 次のような語の中の「じ」「ず」は、漢字の音読みでもともと濁っているものであって、上記(1)、(2)のいずれにもあたらず、「じ」「ず」を用いて書く。\n>\n> **例** じめん(地面) ぬのじ(布地) ずが(図画) りゃくず(略図)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-07-22T19:50:22.133", "id": "36901", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-22T19:50:22.133", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "1254", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1393", "answer_count": 3, "body": "As a valuable feature of my software product, I want to say that results are\ncalculated on-the-fly, meaning the user does not have to wait and receive\nresults by email: results are displayed after two seconds.\n\nShould I say オンザフライ as advised by my friend [alc](http://eow.alc.co.jp/On-the-\nfly)?\n\nThe context would be something like \"オンザフライ結果表示\" in a bullet list", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T07:28:09.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1261", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T19:47:47.410", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T09:28:02.300", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation" ], "title": "Computer calculation: is there a better word than \"オンザフライ\" to say \"on-the-fly\"?", "view_count": 424 }

[ { "body": "Doubt there is anything better than katakana for the exact term \"on the fly\",\nbut if you mean to say \"real-time\"/\"immediate\", perhaps 即時に【そくじに】 would do?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T08:17:29.110", "id": "1264", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T08:17:29.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "If you want to state that the calculations are done as needed in response to\ndemand, [随時](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%9A%8F%E6%99%82/UTF-8/) (ずいじ) would be a\npossible option. (随時更新される結果表示, maybe?) The ALC page I linked gives \"running\",\n\"continuous\", \"as-needed\", and similar terms as candidate translations for 随時.\nBut if the quickness of your calculations is the main focus, I think Dave's 即時\nwould be better.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T14:57:33.487", "id": "1265", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T14:57:33.487", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "You could say\n\n * **その場で** 結果を表示\n\nFor example, an article introducing Google's Instant Previews was titled\n\"[Google、検索結果をその場でプレビューできる「Instant\nPreviews」発表](http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/1011/10/news024.html)\".\n\nI think this is the most natural way to put it. The downside is you lose the\nconciseness coming from the use of all-kanji/katakana compound nouns.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T15:50:18.800", "id": "1393", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T19:47:47.410", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T19:47:47.410", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1274", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In what context and relationship wise to who can I safely say ご苦労様\n(gokurousama)?\n\nI often defer to using otsukaresama since I'm not sure if I'm talking down to\nsomeone by saying gokurousama. Please provide some example contexts where it\nwould be appropriate. Thanks.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T15:04:44.200", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1266", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-11T07:00:34.273", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T15:20:45.447", "last_editor_user_id": "168", "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "politeness", "expressions" ], "title": "When and to whom should I use the expression ご苦労様 (gokurousama)?", "view_count": 8572 }

[ { "body": "AFAIK, it means more or less the same thing as お疲れ様 (おつかれさま). But the nuance\nis to whom you say it. お疲れ様 is used for colleagues or superiours (\"highers\"),\nご苦労様 I believe is only used from superiours to subordinates (\"highers\" to\n\"lowers\"). So you'd probably only say it if you have people \"working\" under\nyou, such as direct subordinates at a job, if you're the leader of some type\nof group project, etc.\n\nSo you're probably safe most of the time to defer to お疲れ様 unless there's a\nvery clear pecking-order of which you're at the top.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T17:41:00.560", "id": "1274", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T17:41:00.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1266", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I think another aspect or nuance of ご苦労様 is to express gratitude for (literal)\nlabor, e.g. in a situation where someone has to physically exert themselves\nfor your benefit - like to thank a carpenter or plumber. I'd think in daily\nwhite collar work life お疲れ様 is going to get used a lot more.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-09T19:42:54.347", "id": "13656", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-09T19:42:54.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4291", "parent_id": "1266", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "As istraci points out, ご苦労様です is usually used to someone below you in\nposition.\n\nHere is what [an alc article\nsays](http://home.alc.co.jp/db/owa/jpn_npa?sn=112):\n\n> ## 「お疲れ様です」と「ご苦労様です」の使い分けは？\n>\n>\n> 「お疲れ様です」には大きく２種類の用法が認められます。ひとつは（１）他人が何らかの労働や作業に従事したのを労う用法です。もうひとつは（２）共同で労働や作業を行った人同士が互いを労う用法です。\n>\n> （１）「お父さん、今日も一日お仕事お疲れ様でした」 \n> （２）「じゃ、どうもお疲れ様です」「あ、お疲れ様」\n\nお疲れ様です has two meanings:\n\n 1. To say thanks for someone else finishing some work\n 2. To thank someone you worked with on something for their work\n\n> 「ご苦労様です」は自分に対して直接・間接的に益をもたらす労働や作業に従事した人を労うときに用いられます。\n>\n> 「ご注文の品をお届けに上がりました」「どうもご苦労様です」\n\nご苦労様です is to thank someone for completed work which directly or indirectly\nbenefited you.\n\n>\n> どちらも労いの言葉ではありますが、「お疲れ様です」が比較的身分に中立的に用いられるのに対して、「ご苦労様です」は「奉仕」というニュアンスが伴って、目上から目下に対して用いられる傾向が強くなっています。特に会社などではこれを目上に対して用いないことがマナーとして確立しているようです。\n>\n>\n> 「疲れ」も「苦労」も類似した言葉ですが、「お疲れ様」「ご苦労様」と表現が固定して慣用的に用いられるようになり、本来の意味に別のニュアンスが伴うようになったと考えられます。\n\nBoth are words of thanks, but お疲れ様です is more neutral in regards to social\nposition, while ご苦労様です has a nuance of someone serving you, so tends to be\nused more from someone in a higher position to someone below them. Especially\nin companies, ご苦労様です is typically not used to speak to someone above you in\nthe hierarchy.\n\nAlthough 疲れ and 苦労 are words with similar meanings, お疲れ様 and ご苦労様 are set\nphrases that have developed with everyday use and so their current use has\ndifferent nuances from the original words.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-11T07:00:34.273", "id": "13670", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-11T07:00:34.273", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3300", "parent_id": "1266", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1269", "answer_count": 3, "body": "My friend tells me one is more polite. I think they're the same. Who's right?\nWhen can I use one or the other?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T15:14:37.923", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1268", "last_activity_date": "2021-08-27T19:26:12.873", "last_edit_date": "2021-08-27T19:26:12.873", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Is there a difference between すみません (sumimasen) and すいません (suimasen)?", "view_count": 25060 }

[ { "body": "す **み** ません is the correct pronunciation, so on that count I suppose it would\nbe considered more polite by a very small margin. But just like in English,\npeople can be lazy with pronunciation, which is why you'll sometimes hear す\n**い** ません. You also might run across す **ん** ません and す **ん** ま **へ** ん, but\nfrom what I've read these are more Kansai-isms than anything else. When in\ndoubt, stick with the standard pronunciation, but in all cases the difference\nis in pronunciation only (the meaning stays the same).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T15:39:41.983", "id": "1269", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T15:39:41.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1268", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "If you compare these two phrases, すみません is more formal than すいません, and\ntherefore probably more polite.\n\nすみません is literally the polite form of the negation of すむ (済む). 済む means to be\nfinished or completed.\n\n> 宿題が済んだら遊びに行く。 (しゅくだいがすんだらあそびにいく。) Once the homework is done, I will go out\n> to play.\n\nすみません, whose literal meaning would be “It will not be finished,” means apology\nprobably because the speaker admits that what he/she did requires some follow-\nup action.\n\nすいません (suimasen) is the result of dropping the consonant “m” in すみません (su\n**m** imasen) and is less formal than すみません.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T15:46:29.677", "id": "1270", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T15:46:29.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1268", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "I asked some of my Japanese family, and they said some words are written\ndifferently to how they’re said so すみません is the written way and すいません is the\ncommonly spoken way but すみません is seen as politer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-08-27T15:01:13.567", "id": "89085", "last_activity_date": "2021-08-27T19:18:30.897", "last_edit_date": "2021-08-27T19:18:30.897", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "47001", "parent_id": "1268", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1273", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What does the もて before a verb means?\n\nI found this word in the dictionary <http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MDEemphatic%20prefix> (which only says it is an \"emphatic\nverb prefix\" and give no other information on it whatsoever)\n\nI've no idea how it is used / whether it is used / or how to use it", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T16:30:50.607", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1271", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T17:32:02.543", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-17T17:13:24.847", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "What does the もて before a verb means?", "view_count": 599 }

[ { "body": "It seems like a rather rare prefix, really. I tried to count all the verbs\nthat have it in my Kenkyusha dictionary (I could go for a larger one, but I\ndidn't want rare verbs) and I've got these:\n\n * もてあそぶ (sometimes in Kanji: 弄ぶ) - _to toy with something or someone_\n * 持て余す - _to be too much_ (especially: too much to handle)\n * もてなす (持て成す) - _to treat_ , _to welcome_\n * もてはやす (持て囃す) 持て囃す- _to extol_\n\nFour verbs in a medium-sized dictionary, that's it. This \"prefix\" definitely\nisn't very productive, and you definitely can't use it with any verbs. In\nfact, it's just the first part of a tiny closed list of compound verbs that\ncome as is. This is different from a productive verb prefix that can be used\nto create compounds ad-hoc such as あえて (e.g. in あえて言う _dare to say_ , _go\nahead and say_ ).\n\nAnother thing that makes もて different from a regular prefix is that it doesn't\nchange the meaning of the following verb in a consistent manner. While あえて\nalways adds the same element of daring, もて isn't simply intensifying all verbs\nin the same way. You can probably say it's an intensifier in all the verbs in\nmy list except for (持て成す), but the intensification works differently in any\nplace and you can't predict the meaning of the compound verb by just knowing\nwhat the verb joined with もて means.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T17:32:02.543", "id": "1273", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T17:32:02.543", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1271", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1275", "answer_count": 1, "body": "For example, from the song Fare Well by L'Arc~en~Ciel:\n\n> あなたは いつまでも この僕のこと 愛してくれたのかな\n\nand countless examples from manga, like:\n\n> だが このオレは 死なん...\n>\n> こんどは このオレが きさまを 滅ぼす\n>\n> このオレに 勝てるわけがない\n\nMy guess is that it この + first-person-pronoun is just emphasis, but is there\nanything more here?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T17:02:19.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1272", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T23:36:29.560", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "38", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "nuances", "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "What is the nuance of この + [first person pronoun]?", "view_count": 378 }

[ { "body": "I would say nuance of ラルク song is different with other manga texts.\n\n> あなたは いつまでも この僕のこと 愛してくれたのかな\n\nこの僕 in above sentence is more like こんな僕, kind of humble.\n\nWill you ever love me even if I were such ...\n\nBut, other sentences on manga are trying to express himself superior\n\n> だが このオレは 死なん... No wonder, I won't die (such easily)\n>\n> こんどは このオレが きさまを 滅ぼす, Remember!, this I will destroy/ruin you next time.\n>\n> このオレに 勝てるわけがない. You can never ever beat me for any reason!!!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-17T19:09:27.660", "id": "1275", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-17T19:09:27.660", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1272", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1326", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The gag expression 掘った芋いじるな (hotta imo ijiruna) sounds to japanese ears\nuncannily like \"What time is it now?\" I'm guessing this is Showa era humour,\nsince English probably sounded more foreign then than now.\n\nDoes anyone know the origin of this saying, and anything about how popular it\nwas (or wasn't)?\n\nFor bonus points: do you know of any other gag expressions like this? I only\nknow one other: アメリカではバス降りたい時は何と言いますか？ 。。。揚げ豆腐(あげどうふ) = I get off.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T00:27:20.943", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1277", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T00:26:36.307", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T16:37:14.110", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "puns" ], "title": "What are the origins of 掘った芋いじるな (hotta imo ijiru na)?", "view_count": 1264 }

[ { "body": "To my surprise, after some research I found a strong link between the \"hotta\nimo\" phrase and **John Manjiro** , Japan's first \"exchange student\" to\nAmerica.\n\nJohn Manjiro was a Japanese fisherman who, along with his four brothers, was\nship wrecked on a pacific island and rescued by a passing American whaling\nship. After being carried to Honolulu (Dec 17, 1850), Manjiro stayed aboard\nhis rescuer's ship and later learnt English, navigation and whaling skills\n(ref: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakahama_Manjir%C5%8D>). He later returned\nto Japan and became the English translator & advisor to the Shogun on foreign\nmatters.\n\nManjiro apparently wrote a book called 「英語練習帳」which used the \"hotta imo iji-ru\nna\" approach to transliterating English into Japanese (ref: 「日本語「らしさ」の言語学」\n\"Nihongo rashisa no gogengaku\", Kodansha p254)**\n\nCoincidentally, I found some other \"sound alike\" sayings I'd like to share:\n\n * 問題ない ​【mondai nai】no problem >> monday night \n * カッパ亭 ​【kappa tei】 Kappa Pavilion (sushi chain) >> cuppa tea\n * 上げ豆腐 ​【agedoufu】deep fried tofu >> I get off\n * どう致しまして ​【douitashimashite】you're welcome >> don't touch my moustache!\n * 犬寝る ​【ken neru】dogs sleep >> kennel\n * 前代未聞 【zendai mimon】never heard of before >> Then Die, Me moan! \n * 斉藤寝具【saitou shingu】Saito Bedding >> sightseeing\n * 危ない ​【abunai】dangerous >> have an eye!\n * 坊や​【bouya】boy >> boy\n\n** I found this reference to the book:\n<http://kotobakai.seesaa.net/article/8173641.html>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:44:01.993", "id": "1326", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T00:26:36.307", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-19T00:26:36.307", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1281", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When describing intransitive actions that are commencing, I often end up\nsaying dumb things like 沸き始まる (わきはじまる) instead of 沸き始める (わきはじめる) - starting to\nboil. Perhaps it's some meta pattern I am projecting from my knowledge of\nEnglish!?!\n\nWhen should I use which, what are the rules and common exceptions?\n\nThank you", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T00:33:41.997", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1278", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T01:22:15.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "verbs", "conjugations" ], "title": "How should I use 始める (はじめる) and 始まる (はじまる) as a suffix to intransitive verbs?", "view_count": 961 }

[ { "body": "When you express the idea of \"begin to [verb]\", the pattern is masu stem +\nはじめる, without exception, whether the verb is transitive or not. The\ndistinction between はじめる and はじまる only applies when the verb is used on its\nown.\n\nYou could think of, say, 走り始める as having 走り as a sort of object of 始める, in\nwhich case it's obvious that you would never use 始まる, though I don't know if\nthis is etymologically what's going on.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T01:22:15.890", "id": "1281", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T01:22:15.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "224", "parent_id": "1278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1280", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was surpised to hear from a Japanese coworker that using a question mark \"?\"\n(gimonfu) after the か particle is correct Japanese.\n\nWhich of these are NG?\n\n 1. 何時に会いましょうか\n 2. 何時に会いましょうか？\n 3. 何時に会いましょう？\n\nIn what context is each acceptable/appropriate?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T00:37:48.300", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1279", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:41.413", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:41.413", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "orthography", "punctuation" ], "title": "Use of the question mark and か", "view_count": 3408 }

[ { "body": "All 3 are correct.\n\n 1. could appear in old and/or formal Japanese, where [the question mark is often absent](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%96%91%E5%95%8F%E7%AC%A6). Note that you would still need a punctuation then, probably a full stop: 「。」\n\n 2. and 3. will both appear anywhere and depend only on the level of formality of the conversation. Omitting the particle would make your question slightly more familiar (or, in some case, slightly more masculine-sounding).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T00:47:42.867", "id": "1280", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T00:47:42.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1301", "answer_count": 3, "body": "The fermented rice alcohol called \"sake\" in English is usually referred to as\n日本酒【にほんしゅ】 in Japanese, while 酒【さけ】 merely means \"alcohol\" in general.\n\nYet, all dictionaries list both \"alcohol\" and \"fermented rice\nalcohol/sake/nihonshu\" as translations for the word 酒.\n\nLately, I have noticed 酒 used a few times in movies to mean \"nihonshu\"\nspecifically (e.g. with one character ordering a beer, and another ordering\n\"sake\").\n\nI imagine the use of 酒 for \"sake\" was the standard in ancient times (and only\nevolved after the introduction of other popular alcoholic beverages), but can\nanybody tell me if there is any _modern_ context where it is still commonly\nused? In such a case, would it be more or less formal?\n\n**Edit:** Yuji's answer below also made me realise that the use of the polite\nform (お酒) might play a role in differentiating the two senses (?)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T03:29:44.397", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1282", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-02T08:25:18.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-18T05:25:56.367", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "When is 酒【さけ】used to mean 日本酒【にほんしゅ】?", "view_count": 1109 }

[ { "body": "It is perfectly normal to use お酒 in modern context.\n\nIn English you don't often say \"Let's drink alcohol,\" but in Japanese it's\nperfectly normal to say \"一緒にお酒を飲みましょう\" (i.e. let's drink alcohol together.) In\nthis case お酒 can stand for any type of alcoholic beverages.\n\nFor example, we often see public signs saying \"お酒は二十歳になってから\" (drinking alcohol\nis after you become 20 years old.)\n\nFurthermore, if you have specific intention to drink beer or wine, I guess we\nsay \"ビールにしましょう\" or \"ワインにしましょう\", so there's a good chance if I say お酒をのみましょう it\nmeans we end up drinking 日本酒。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T05:01:31.400", "id": "1285", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T05:01:31.400", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "372", "parent_id": "1282", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I think this is somewhat equivalent to ご飯、which was also confusing enough to\nwarrant [some](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/901/since-\njapanese-already-had-several-words-for-rice-why-was-raisu-borrowed)\n[questions](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/858/whats-the-\ndifference-between-gohan-and-meshi) (admittedly, non of them about the dual\nmeaning of the word, but the issue became prominent in both threads).\n\nIn essence, you can say that ご飯 generally means _a meal_ , but can also have\nthe more specific meaning of _cooked rice_. This more specific meaning also\nserves as a default meaning of sorts: depending on the context, you may assume\nご飯 specifically refers to cooked rice.\n\nIn the same way, (お)酒 may mean alcoholic beverages in general (equivalent to\nthe English 'booze', except that the latter is very informal) or 日本酒 as its\ndefault more specific meaning.\n\nThis is not an uncommon phenomenon at all. A few decades ago (and to some\ndegree, it's still true today), 'tea' generally meant any beverage made by\nextracting the flavor of tea leaves, but the default meaning was black tea. If\nyou wanted a cup of green tea or oolong tea, you'd usually have to explicitly\nask for it - otherwise you'd just get black tea (and with an atrocious heapful\nof sugar at that :)). In Japan, on the other hand, the default meaning of (お)茶\nwas (and probably still is) 緑茶, that is green tea.\n\nThis is all very culturally dependent, and rather easy to explain, though\nthere are some cases where such a 'default meaning' doesn't have much to do\nwith culture. I can't think of English or Japanese examples for such cases,\nunfortunately. :(", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T09:46:49.750", "id": "1301", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T09:46:49.750", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1282", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I have never heard anyone use the generic term sake (酒) when placing an order\nfor Nihonshu (日本酒), nor have I ever done so.\n\nAs a foreigner, I am often asked if I like various Japanese alcoholic drinks,\nand invariably the the question names the specific drink being discussed, and\nnot the generic word sake.\n\nOn the other hand, just as in the US, friends will also say \"少し飲みましょ！”\n\"Sukoshi nomimasho!\" (Let's drink a little!). Just as in English, using the\nword \"drink\" is understood to mean imbibing alcohol.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-08-02T08:25:18.560", "id": "60625", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-02T08:25:18.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30856", "parent_id": "1282", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1297", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I still have trouble with how に and で differ when dealing with locations, and\nI just stumbled across にて. Are these all interchangeable? How are they\ndifferent?\n\n * オンラインマーケット **にて** 販売開始しました。 \n * オンラインマーケット **に** 販売開始しました。 \n * オンラインマーケット **で** 販売開始しました。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T05:42:27.407", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1290", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T20:07:12.390", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T22:33:59.787", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "particles", "particle-に", "particle-で" ], "title": "In this location context how are に, で and にて different?", "view_count": 547 }

[ { "body": "My understanding is:\n\n> マーケットにて販売開始しました。 [\"にて\" is just the formal version of \"で\".] \n> マーケットに販売開始しました。 [Here, the action is taking place at the market.] \n> マーケットで販売開始しました。 [Here, the action is taking place in the market.]\n\nYour example is a little difficult because one could be referring to a market\nyou have to physically be in （で）, and the other being like an online\nmarketplace (\"に\"）. But in general, \"に\" and \"で\" are not interchangeable:\n\n> 図書館で本を読む \n> × 図書館に本を読む", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T05:56:14.243", "id": "1295", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T20:06:09.210", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T20:06:09.210", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1290", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "* \"で\" indicates the place of an action, or means by which it is performed\n * \"に\" indicates the target of the action\n\nIn your example, \"market\" could mean a few things:\n\n 1. physical place\n 2. virtual place (for all intents and purposes just another place)\n 3. concept of a market (ie. the \"thing\" we think of when we imagine all those buyers and sellers in the economy)\n\nSo the meanings of your examples can be:\n\n 1. \"で\" Selling something at (ie. location) or through (ie. as a tool) the market.\n 2. \"に\" Selling something to the market (ie. the notional market, made up buyers and sellers, is the target of the action)\n\nA better example to remember the differnces might be as follows:\n\n> [You're on a bus, pointing to an empty seat.]\n>\n> ここに座ってもいいですか？ \n> 'Can I sit (in that empty seat)?'\n\nbut\n\n> ここで座ってもいいですか？ \n> 'Can I sit (here, where I'm standing whilst asking this question)?'\n\nThe first indicates with \"に\" the target of your desired action.\n\nWhereas the other will make them wonder if you're completely sane, and if not,\nwhy you're even bothering to ask for permission to sit on the floor of the\nbus!!?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T07:19:17.730", "id": "1297", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T20:07:12.390", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T20:07:12.390", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1290", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1303", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I observed in drama and anime (being outside Japan, those are my only ways of\nkeeping in touch with spoken 日本語) that elder people sometimes say お出で to\nyounger people when they want to say something like \"Come here\". But there are\na few things I think are strange with that word/phrase:\n\n 1. The word seems to originate from お出でになる which is お + verb stem + になる humble form, which from the kanji used means that お出でになる is the humble form of 出る, I think. So, does that mean that if a person says お出で to another person, the first person is using a humble form upon the second person, which seems to be rude? Is the humbleness nuance within お出でになる still retained in お出で?\n\n 2. Since the pronunciation of お出で is お - い - で, does that mean the 出 kanji is pronounced as い? Why isn't the お + verb stem + になる of 出る simply お出になる? Is this another ateji?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T08:46:06.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1299", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-11T12:17:54.173", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-11T02:53:58.000", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology", "keigo" ], "title": "Nuance, usage and etymology of お[出]{い}で", "view_count": 1236 }

[ { "body": "I think this shouldn't count as a humble form, but rather as a patronizing\nform - which is still quite respectful to the recipient, but it's only that\nusually implies that the speaker is in superior position than the recipient of\nthis form.\n\nThere are several forms of patronizing requests, and I'm not entirely sure\nabout the nuances of each and when exactly they can be used in non-patronizing\ncontexts (as they do sometimes), but my impression is that all commands and\nrequests that are based on 連用形 (renyōkei) forms with なさい or without anything\nat the end tend to have a patronizing element to them, even though it's not\napparent in all contexts.\n\nThese forms include (the verb 行く will be used for example):\n\n> * お行きなさい！ (o + _renyōkei_ \\+ nasai)\n> * お行き! (o + _renyōkei_ )\n> * 行きなさい！ ( _renyōkei_ \\+ nasai)\n>\n\nThe following are not patronizing requests:\n\n> * お行きください！\n> * 行きください！\n>\n\nAs for お出で, this is a slightly more complicated case, since it doesn't really\ncome from a verb. From the perspective of the modern language, you can say it\ncomes from the verb 出でる, but you'll rarely find such a verb used alone\n(without the prefix お) and I don't think there was any such verb in Classical\nJapanese. Some dictionaries list the verb お出でる (including the prefix), but\nthey explicitly say it's derived from the noun/adverb お出で.\n\nMy guess is that it comes from the Classical Japanese particle いで (which was\nused from invitation) or maybe from adding to the verb 居る (いる) the particle で\n(or even the renyōkei of the verb 出る which is also で). Either way, お出で was\nfirst formed as a keigo noun which means \"being somewhere\" or \"coming or\ngoing\". It then got used in compounds as if it was a renyōkei form of a verb\n(since renyōkei forms are themselves, in fact, nouns). **Update:** Read\nTsuyoshi Ito's post - お出でる is probably derived from the classical verb 出づ.\n\nI'd say that's the case here with お出で being used as a patronizing form. But I\ndon't think any おいで coming alone would sound patronizing, and お出でください is\nobviously not patronizing but plainly respectful.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T10:53:57.217", "id": "1302", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T18:09:09.350", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-18T18:09:09.350", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1299", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Boaz already gave a nice explanation of the meaning of おいで. Here is why おいで is\nwritten as お出で in kanji (although in many cases it is written in hiragana).\n\nIn Classical Japanese, there is a verb\n[[出]{い}づ](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%87%BA%E3%81%A5&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=100935700000&pagenum=1)\nwhich means to go outside of some place or to appear. The conjugation type of\nthis verb is 下二段活用, and it would have become [出]{い}でる in the modern Japanese\nif it had followed the regular pattern, in the same way as [投]{な}ぐ became\n[投]{な}げる. お[出]{い}で is the [連用形]{れんようけい} form of 出でる with the prefix お, and\ntherefore written as it is.\n\nTherefore, 出でる and お出で just follow the usual pattern, and the irregularity\nlies in the verb [出]{で}る! Somehow the い at the beginning of いでる was dropped in\nthe modern Japanese, and the verb became でる except in certain constructs such\nas お出で. We write でる as 出る because a kanji must replace at least one kana.\n\nThe [命令形]{めいれいけい} (command form) of 出づ in Classical Japanese (and of the\nhypothetical 出でる in Modern Japanese) is 出でよ, and it is sometimes seen in a\nslogan or a fictional work, where archaic form (associated with dignity) is\nneeded. I remember that it was used in an anime [Dragon\nBall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball): a character says\n“[出]{い}でよ、[[神龍]{シェンロン}](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E9%BE%8D_%28%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%29#.E7.A5.9E.E9.BE.8D.EF.BC.88.E3.82.B7.E3.82.A7.E3.83.B3.E3.83.AD.E3.83.B3.EF.BC.89)!”\nto invoke [Shenlong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenlong) (who grants a wish\nin this anime).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T12:44:05.277", "id": "1303", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-11T12:17:54.173", "last_edit_date": "2020-07-11T12:17:54.173", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1299", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I think it should be made clear, since nobody else did, that お出でになる is\nconsidered a 尊敬語 (respectful) of 来る, (not 出る), and the connection with 出る is\nmostly etymological.\n\nOther 尊敬語 for 来る are お見えになる,いらっしゃる and お越しになる, although they might have\nslightly different nuances.\n\n 1. お出でになる is respectful, so using it for the addressee is not patronizing. It is the removal of the -になる or -下さい which makes it slightly patronizing. Similar constructs are ごらん(see) and ごめん(excuse me), which are respectful, but slightly patronizing (or at least colloquial) versions of ごらん下さい and ごめん下さい\n\n 2. お出になる means something else, namely \"exit\", not \"come\". Incidentally, it seems that 出る is the only one-mora-stem verb which allows the お～になる construct.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-20T09:47:39.393", "id": "4356", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-20T09:47:39.393", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "1299", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've noticed (through much frustration) that many 自～／他～ pairs have \"opposite\"\nforms; particularly with the ~u and ~eru types. For example, 焼く・焼ける are\nopposite from 開く・開ける.\n\n> 焼く （他） － パン **を** 焼く (\"Bake bread\") \n> 焼ける （自）－ パン **が** ちょうどよく焼けた (\"The bread was baked just right\")\n>\n> 開く （自） － ドア **が** ひとりでに開いた！怖いでしょう！ (\"The door opened by itself! Isn't that\n> creepy?\") \n> 開ける （他）－ 彼女のためにドア **を** 開けてあげる (\"I open doors for my girlfriend\")\n\nIs there any logical reason that some pairs like these have \"opposite\"\nforms??? Or is it just to piss off the people trying to learn them??", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T15:45:49.443", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1306", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-29T16:11:13.690", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "verbs", "transitivity", "morphology" ], "title": "自～／他～ペア：逆の形 -- Transitive/Intransitive pairs: opposite forms", "view_count": 1097 }

[ { "body": "<http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/ti_list.html> Has a good list of them, in\ncase you wanted to see them at a glance.\n\nNothing I could find gave a good reason for it. Probably the language just\nevolved organically, as they tend to do.\n\nOf course, linguists will try to explain anything, so I'm not surprised that\nJapanese paper is so hard to digest.\n\nPersonally, I wouldn't worry about it and just learn the words in context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T14:28:05.260", "id": "1447", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T14:28:05.260", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Re: organic evolution, I note that Shogakukan's comprehensive JA-JA _Kokugo\nDai Jiten Dictionary_ lists most (maybe all?) of these verbs as having\noriginally been both transitive and intransitive. I suspect the different\nconjugations ( _ichidan_ vs. _nidan_ ) evolved as a way of being more\nspecific.\n\nBy way of comparison, there are verbs in English that are both transitive or\nintransitive depending on context: consider _begin_ or _hang_ or _stop_.\nEnglish and other Germanic languages also have vaguely similar pairs that\ndiffer by the core vowel, which changes depending on whether it's transitive\nor intransitive: consider _lie_ , _lay_ or _sit_ , _set_. English grammar has\ncertain requirements of subject-object word order and the explicit presence of\nsubject and object that clarify the situation even for the verbs that don't\nhave a vowel change to indicate transitivity ( _the test **began_** , _I\n**began** the test_, etc.), whereas Japanese does not, making transitivity\npotentially very ambiguous without some other means of specifying a difference\nin sense. The _ichidan_ to _nidan_ shift may have evolved as such a way of\nbeing specific, perhaps in a way similar to the vowel shift in certain verb\npairs in Germanic languages.\n\nGiven the scattershot nature of the original verbs (where two-mora verb forms\ncould be either transitive or intransitive, depending on the individual verbs\nthemselves, such as transitive 焼{や}く vs. intransitive 開{あ}く as in your example\npair), and given also the presence of verbs like つく that still exhibit\nambiguity (modern つく could still be either transitive or intransitive, as in\n突く _to poke something, to stab something_ vs. 着く _to arrive_ ), learning\nwhether _-u_ or _-eru_ is transitive or intransitive appears to be one of\nthose areas of the language where there isn't any systemic set of rules, and\ninstead you'll just have to learn the verbs over time.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-27T18:05:39.160", "id": "16145", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-27T18:05:39.160", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "1306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1315", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I see that those two compounds mean husband and wife, as a married couple. But\nis there a difference in usage or context?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T20:43:25.913", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1307", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-09T20:58:43.040", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-20T07:01:33.990", "last_editor_user_id": "126", "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary", "compounds" ], "title": "What is the difference in meaning between \"husband and wife\" 夫婦【ふうふ】 and 夫妻【ふさい】?", "view_count": 3642 }

[ { "body": "夫妻 is the more formal of the two, and shouldn't be used when talking about\nyourself or people from your inner circle. As a general rule of thumb, use 夫婦\nfor such close relations or for general comments about married couples, and 夫妻\nwhen talking about people outside your group.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T04:53:20.793", "id": "1314", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T04:53:20.793", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "They mean the same thing but 夫妻【fusai】is more polite.\n\nFor example, you can use 夫婦【fuufu】to refer to yourselves (私たち夫婦), you can use\nfor others and use it formally (ご夫婦). But you can't use 夫妻【fusai】to refer to\nyourselves (私たち夫妻 = NG).\n\nAlso when speaking formally, ご夫妻 is better than ご夫婦.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T04:54:42.887", "id": "1315", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T04:54:42.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "As the other two answers say, `夫妻` 'husband and wife' is a more proper way to\nsay. That is probably because `夫婦` 'huband and woman' is not politically\ncorrect. Interestingly, it goes the opposite of the phrase used in Western\nwedding ceremony: 'man and wife', but the idea is the same; both phrases are\nbased on sexual discrimination.\n\nHowever, since the word `夫婦` is more established, it appears in many compound\nnouns, where it cannot be replaced with `夫妻`, even in legal terms:\n\n> 夫婦漫才 (but not 夫妻漫才)\n>\n> 夫唱婦随 (but not 夫唱妻随)\n>\n> 夫婦喧嘩 (but not 夫妻喧嘩)\n>\n> 夫婦財産制 (but not 夫妻財産制)\n>\n> 夫婦別姓 (but not 夫妻別姓)\n\nAnd `夫妻` cannot be used alone as a word. It needs to be used as a part of a\nword. I.e., `ご夫妻`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-09T16:38:10.513", "id": "1827", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-09T20:58:43.040", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1332", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In particular which one is closer to the idea of \"ability to reason over\nthings\" as a quality of someone in particular?\n\nWhat I believe is that 知識 on the other hand is closer to \"knowledge\" and\n\"understanding\" and 眼識 is more about \"discrimination, insight\", but as an\nintellectual operation, not a property attached to someone, like 認識.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T21:10:46.587", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1308", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T09:56:24.400", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-19T08:11:14.490", "last_editor_user_id": "126", "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "compounds" ], "title": "What are the nuances between these three terms for intelligence: 知恵 [ちえ],　知能 [ちのう],　知性 [ちせい]　?", "view_count": 300 }

[ { "body": "知恵 - means \"wisdom\" \n知能、知性 - means \"intelligence\" or \"intellect\"; my dictionary cites them as\nsimilar meanings \n知識 - means \"knowledge (of/about)\"; that is, the knowledge itself, not the\nproperty of \"having knowledge\"\n\nSo, 知能、知性 are probably what you'd use for \"the ability to reason over things\"\nsince 知恵 (\"wisdom\") has some kind of moral/ethical/right-wrong implications to\nit. I'd say that mathematically, 知恵 implies 知性／知能, but the converse is not\nnecessarily true.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-18T21:45:37.550", "id": "1309", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-18T23:17:36.477", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-18T23:17:36.477", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1308", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I'd add to @istrasci's answer that:\n\n * 知能 is more oriented towards mechanical problem solving skills, while\n * 知性 is more about reasoning and discerning abilities only thought to be possessed by humans.\n\nWords like 人工知能 (artificial intelligence), 知能指数 (IQ) show this aspect of 知能.\nAlso, because of these differences, you will hear more about \"動物の知能\" (animal\nintelligence) than \"動物の知性\" (animal intellect).\n\nSo, \"ability to reason over things\" as a quality of someone, will likely be\nabout 知性.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T09:56:24.400", "id": "1332", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T09:56:24.400", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1308", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 6, "body": "I know that -たち and -ら pluralize the nouns they come after (or indicate a\ngroup that the noun is part of), but most of the time the plural in Japanese\nis implicit. When is it appropriate or necessary to use -たち or -ら?\n\n(Bonus question: is there any difference except formality between -たち and -ら?)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T02:41:06.880", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1310", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-31T22:44:26.057", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-12T17:40:38.127", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 31, "tags": [ "usage", "plurals", "plural-suffixes" ], "title": "Pluralization in Japanese: usage of -たち and -ら", "view_count": 7929 }

[ { "body": "「～[方]{がた}」, 「～[達]{たち}」, and 「～[等]{ら}」 have the same meaning as \"et alia\" or\n\"and company\" in English; you use it when you mean one person (any of the\nthree suffixes) or animal (「～達」 and 「～等」 only) and all the others that are\nattending them (e.g. 「アマンダさん方」).\n\n「～方」 is honorific and 「～達」 is neutral, but 「～等」 is deprecating or familiar and\nso should usually only be used with family or the first person unless you have\na specific reason for it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T02:56:51.927", "id": "1311", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-31T22:44:26.057", "last_edit_date": "2023-08-31T22:44:26.057", "last_editor_user_id": "627", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "This doesn't relate to the necessity/appropriate-ness of when you use them\nnecessarily, but it's related to the topic in general. So I'll post it.\n\nNote that there are several other ways to pluralize things, but their usage is\nvery limited:\n\n> * ども: Used as a very humble plural. 広辞苑 cites 「私ども」and 「身ども」. I've heard\n> of the former, but apparently 「身ども」 was used in old samurai speech.\n> * とも： Means \"all\" when added to another noun.\n> * ３人ともパーティーにいった → All three of them went to the party.\n> * りんごは５つとも腐っていた → All five of the apple were rotten.\n>\n\nAlso, concerning ら, it is often used to \"pluralize\" places/areas (at least in\nKansai-ben); often formed with ～[辺]{へん}.\n\n> * [梅田]{うめ・だ}ら辺 → the area(s) around Umeda\n> * あそこら辺 → those places/areas over there\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T04:21:17.230", "id": "1312", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-13T15:54:16.247", "last_edit_date": "2017-07-13T15:54:16.247", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Adding to the previous answer, I feel that usage with the so-called Japanese\npronouns is somewhat of a special case. For one, the plural cannot be implied\nwithout adding a suffix. 私, 彼, 彼女 and あなた alone never mean (approximately) we,\nthey or the plural you. Secondly, I don't think adding ～達 or ～等 has the nuance\nof putting an emphasis on any one individual in the group, as they do when\nused with other nouns.\n\nAlso, one more pluralizing method, though one that is used very restrictively\n- both in regard to vocabulary and style, is reduplication. It's used mostly\nwith natural landmarks (山々、木々) and (in child-language and as a dual) body\nparts (目々 etc.).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T04:42:20.563", "id": "1313", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T04:42:20.563", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "> When is it appropriate or necessary to use -たち or -ら?\n\n * The suffixes are very appropriate when you're refering to a group of people, for example: 君達、お前ら. That's what a teacher would say to his students. In that case, it seems to me that ら is quite harsh. \n\n`お前ら、なにしているのかい？` (angry guy addressing a group of noisy youngsters)\n\n`君達には明るい将来があります!` (schoolmaster during graduation ceremony)\n\n`マイク達と一緒に飲んでいたんだ` (youngster telling his mother he was out drinking with Mike\nand his other pals)\n\n * The suffix ら is used in formal writing to mean \"et al.\", and written in kanji, as in this famous scientific publication written by 小林等", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-27T05:31:12.040", "id": "6287", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T05:31:12.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Unfortunately I don't have a good answer, but I do have one fact to toss out\nthere, since it doesn't look like anyone else has yet. A number of Japanese\nlinguistics texts I've seen indicate that it's a fallacy that -たち and -ら are\npluralizers. Rather, it's claimed that their meaning is qualitative rather\nthan quantitative, and it's merely that most cases where they are used are\nalso plural semantically (correlation rather than causation). I know I've seen\n(though I don't recall in which article it was) counterexamples where they're\nused with singular meaning. That said, I don't well understand what they\nactually mean.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-30T00:09:54.357", "id": "6316", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T00:09:54.357", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1194", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I don't see that anyone has mentioned it, but exclusively either たち or ら are\npermitted for certain pronouns. For example:\n\n彼ら ✅ | 彼たち ✕\n\nSee the [Wikipedia article on Japanese\npronouns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_pronouns) for more info", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-04-12T18:22:25.420", "id": "86107", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-13T14:36:27.113", "last_edit_date": "2021-04-13T14:36:27.113", "last_editor_user_id": "42142", "owner_user_id": "42142", "parent_id": "1310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1325", "answer_count": 6, "body": "Why is the correct counter for rabbits 羽（わ）, the counter that is used for\nbirds.\n\nI figured it is because they jump, cause fly and jump are the same verb in\nJapanese, but then frogs are 匹.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T05:42:45.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1316", "last_activity_date": "2022-10-25T23:29:25.703", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "etymology", "counters" ], "title": "Why is the correct counter for rabbits 羽（わ）", "view_count": 6251 }

[ { "body": "The usual story is that Japanese Buddhist monks, who were unable to eat meat\nother than birds, liked the taste of rabbit so much that they \"reclassified\"\nthem as flightless birds due to their various body features.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T05:53:37.453", "id": "1318", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T05:53:37.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "羽(わ) is used because there is some stories that rabbit live in Moon, but using\n匹（ひき）is also not wrong, and even sometimes used 一耳(ひとみみ）.\n\nJump and Fly both can read as とぶ、but they have different Kanjis 跳ぶ, 飛ぶ.\nactually, so may be that's not the reason, I think ....", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:24:34.510", "id": "1324", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T06:37:48.083", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-19T06:37:48.083", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I also heard the Buddhist monk story, but another theory is that while the\nword ウサギ is theorized to have come to Japanese from a Sanskrit origin through\nKorea, it was reinterpreted by some as う+鷺, providing a linguistic connection\nto birds and to the 羽 counter.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:43:47.480", "id": "1325", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T06:43:47.480", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "The Sanskrit origin feels most satisfying, but I'll add one more that\nWikipedia mentions: hunters would carry their kills by the ears, tying them up\nand carrying them in bundles. One bundle would be 一把 (いちわ), two\n二把...supposedly counting rabbits in this way, わ became associated with 羽.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T09:04:40.440", "id": "1330", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T09:04:40.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "When I lived in Japan 40 years ago it was explained to me that in feudal times\nthe peasants were forbidden to eat animals, only birds, fish etc. But as\nrabbits were in plentiful supply in a typically Japanese way they used the\nbird counter as a solution to allow themselves to eat rabbits without penalty.\nWhether that’s true or not I don’t know but it was a good story.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-10-25T20:45:07.423", "id": "96855", "last_activity_date": "2022-10-25T20:45:07.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54804", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I'd like to add a note about the etymology of うさぎ, which is touched upon in\nmultiple posts on this thread.\n\n### Theories of a compound seem unlikely\n\nSome sources ([ _Nihon Jiten_](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/45890.html),\n[_Gogen Yurai Jiten_](https://gogen-yurai.jp/usagi/)) describe modern うさぎ as a\ncompound of ancient う (\"rabbit\") plus native Japanese term 鷺【さぎ】 (\"white egret\nor heron\") in reference to the white color.\n\n * Rabbits generally aren't white. In fact, the word for \"rabbit; hare\" in English and many other languages traces back to a Proto-Indo-European root meaning \"grey\", a more common color for hares and rabbits.\n\nThese same references describe an alternative origin for the _sagi_ ending in\na borrowing from Sansrkit _sasaka_.\n\n * This is also problematic, as Sanskrit terms were generally higher-register as part of the Buddhist tradition, and were not widely used for compounding.\n * In addition, the Sanskrit term [शशक ( _śaśaka_ )](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%95#Sanskrit) includes the consonant value //ɕ//, basically identical to the consonant in Japanese し, and thus would likely have been borrowed as シャシャカ, not ササカ.\n * Also, this Sanskrit term is a derived diminutive form of base noun [शश ( _śaśa_ )](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%B6#Sanskrit), adding the diminutive suffix [-क ( _-ka_ )](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%E0%A4%95#Sanskrit). Even assuming that this derived form might have been borrowed into early Japanese, I can find no clear and compelling mechanism or reason for an ending _-ka_ to metamorphose into _-gi_.\n\n### Ancient forms and evidence in Eastern Old Japanese\n\nWhile those sources point to う as the oldest form of the word for \"rabbit\",\nthis isn't strictly true, from what I can find. The 兎【う】 entry in the\n日本国語大辞典【にほんこくごだいじてん】 (NKD) dictionary cites this to a passage in the\n日本書紀【にほんしょき】 of 720:\n\n> 問菟。此云塗毘宇。菟穗名。此云宇保那。\n\nIn both cases, the Chinese term 菟 is rendered in phonetic Old Japanese as 宇 or\n_u_. 塗毘宇 or _tobiu_ is presumably a precursor to modern 跳兎【とびうさぎ】, but I have\nno idea what 宇保那 or _upona_ is supposed to be. While this does show _u_ used\nto mean \"rabbit\", there are cases in Old Japanese of terms used in\nabbreviation, such as [坂 _saka_ abbreviated to just\n_sa_](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%9D%82-508847).\n\nIn addition, the 万葉集【まんようしゅう】 collection of poetry was completed in 759 and\nincludes poems dating back another hundred years or so. [Poem\n3529](http://jti.lib.virginia.edu/japanese/manyoshu/Man14Yo.html#3529) records\nthe eastern dialectal Japanese word for \"rabbit\" in phonetic _man'yōgana_ as\n乎佐藝【をさぎ】. Eastern Japanese would be even less likely to include borrowed and\ncompounded Sanskrit words.\n\n### Possible cognates outside of Japan\n\nLooking outside of Japonic, the Korean word for \"rabbit\" is [토끼 ( _tokki_\n)](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%ED%86%A0%EB%81%BC), from older Middle\nKorean 톳〮기〮 ( _thwóskí_ ), with dialectal variant *투ᄭᅵ〮 ( _*thwùskí_ ). This\nin turn has been linked to modern Oroqen term\n[tʊkʃakɪ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/t%CA%8Ak%CA%83ak%C9%AA#Oroqen), and\nreconstructed proto-Tungusic _*tuksaki_ (\"hare\"), apparently a derivation from\n_*tuksa_ (\"to run\") + nominalizing suffix _-ki_.\n\nWhile certainly not a perfect match, there may be room for Japonic _wosagi_ or\n_usagi_ to be related to Tungusic _*tuksaki_ or descendant Middle Korean term\n_thwóskí_ and dialectal form _thwùskí_. The latter even comes close to\naligning with the pitch accent pattern of modern Japanese [うさぎ]{LHH}.\n\n* * *\n\n### Counters\n\nAs far as the choice of counters goes, I haven't seen anything in my\nreferences, but my personal theory is that this was at least partly influenced\nby the way a rabbit's ears stick up, not too terribly unlike the 羽 pictogram\nof wings.\n\nFWIW, [the NKD entry for 羽【わ】](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%BE%BD-438133)\ncites a text from 1548 for the first appearance of this used as a counter,\nwhich is much later than the first appearance of the word _usagi_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-10-25T23:21:28.750", "id": "96858", "last_activity_date": "2022-10-25T23:29:25.703", "last_edit_date": "2022-10-25T23:29:25.703", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "1316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1319", "answer_count": 1, "body": "There's this rather unpleasant sign on a restaurant that says:\n\n> 中国人＆帰化人、残留孤児、中国系混血人児、絶対入店禁止、純血日本男児のみ。\n\nPutting aside the racist content, from a linguistic point of view, the one\nword that throws me is 人児. It's not in\n[Yahoo](http://dic.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BA%BA%E5%85%90&aq=-1&oq=&r_dtype=all&ei=UTF-8),\n[Denshi\nJisho](http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=%E4%BA%BA%E5%85%90&eng=&dict=edict), or\n[Goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/all/%E4%BA%BA%E5%85%90/m0u/)\ndictionaries.\n\nI know in general that it means people and children, but I'm unclear on\nexactly how to read and define it.\n\nWhat is the right reading? ひとこ、ひとじ、じんこ、じんじ?\n\nAnd does it mean \"young people\", or \"adults and kids\", or \"adults or\nchildren\", or something else?\n\nLastly, is it actually a compound, or is it just the two individual kanji with\ntheir individual meanings that are beside each other like a list (as in\n\"adults, children\")?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T05:43:22.140", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1317", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T16:17:23.803", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T16:17:23.803", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "kanji", "definitions", "compounds", "readings" ], "title": "What is the meaning of 人児, and is it a compound?", "view_count": 522 }

[ { "body": "児 is just means child, but could also be used for adopted, and can even used\nto non-humans.\n\nthe one you seen in 中国系混血人児 is not supposed to be 人児, but which should be\n\n> 中国系(ちゅうごくけい) + 混血人(こんけつじん) + 児（じ） - chinese related (japanese) + mixed blood\n> people's + child\n\n**Note** : according to some searches, that place is looks like adult store or\nkind of, sometimes sex related places here reject for foreigner for several\n(even strange) reasons, but that one is too much. I think that poster might be\neven offensive for Japanese. And they could be choosing only Japanese to do\nsomething bad for example.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T05:55:50.943", "id": "1319", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T06:32:04.160", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-19T06:32:04.160", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1317", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]