>コーヒーはテーブルにあります does not tell you if coffee is on the table or near the table or on the tray. and we have to convert same ambiguity into English
I don't think this particular sentence is ambiguous at all. If someone was going to say something was near the table, they would say something like コーヒーはテーブルのそばにあります or maybe even コーヒーはテーブルの近くにあります. If the coffee is on a tray on the table, then even in English you could say "the coffee is on the table" and I don't think anyone could argue that it's ambiguous unless they are a lawyer maybe.

>while if I say "watashi de" it is obvious that it translates to "in me"
Can you show an example sentence where you would say "watashi de" that translates to "in me"? I can think of a few examples where I can say "watashi de" (such as watashi de yokereba), but they don't mean anything near "in me".


Anyway, don't worry about how exactly it translates into English. As long as you get a general enough sense of how the grammar is interacting with the sentence then that's enough. Read a lot of example sentences, practice using it yourself and have natives correct your sentences, internalize the grammar and understand how it works, and then you'll be able to come up with a good translation for sentences. If you think English "at" or "in" every time you see で or に or whatever then you're probably just not at that stage yet, which isn't a bad thing, but it says you need to study more.

[Zgarbas]

I am really sorry about this, but now you've stirred my curiosity. What *is* your native language, if you don't mind my asking? I didn't quite get your answer, but it got me curious.

'At' in a slavic language can often be used in the sense of 'going to (the market)' 'seen on (tv)', 'moving towards (the right)', etc. I find collocations to be one of the more persistent mistakes at advanced levels, but though they may not mean much to the learner they mean a lot to the listener.

(2016-02-08, 11:52 am)zx573 Wrote: >コーヒーはテーブルにあります does not tell you if coffee is on the table or near the table or on the tray. and we have to convert same ambiguity into English
I don't think this particular sentence is ambiguous at all. If someone was going to say something was near the table, they would say something like コーヒーはテーブルのそばにあります or maybe even コーヒーはテーブルの近くにあります. If the coffee is on a tray on the table, then even in English you could say "the coffee is on the table" and I don't think anyone could argue that it's ambiguous unless they are a lawyer maybe.

>while if I say "watashi de" it is obvious that it translates to  "in me"
Can you show an example sentence where you would say "watashi de" that translates to "in me"? I can think of a few examples where I can say "watashi de" (such as watashi de yokebara), but they don't mean anything near "in me".


Anyway, don't worry about how exactly it translates into English. As long as you get a general enough sense of how the grammar is interacting with the sentence then that's enough. Read a lot of example sentences, practice using it yourself and have natives correct your sentences, internalize the grammar and understand how it works, and then you'll be able to come up with a good translation for sentences. If you think English "at" or "in" every time you see で or に or whatever then you're probably just not at that stage yet, which isn't a bad thing, but it says you need to study more.

you are using context and experience here
but let's replace table with car and we have sentence
コーヒーは車にあります
now can you a tell now if coffee is in the car on the car or near the car?
I used a bit inappropriate example with watashi because there are not many situations you say "in me"
but we can replace watashi with "kuruma ni" or "kuruma de"

(2016-02-08, 12:56 pm)Digix Wrote: you are using context and experience here
but let's replace table with car and we have sentence
コーヒーは車にあります
now can you a tell now if coffee is in the car on the car or near the car?
I used a bit inappropriate example with watashi because there are not many situations you say "in me"
but we can replace watashi with "kuruma ni" or "kuruma de"

There really wasn't any context since it was just a single sentence in a post without context. And I guess you could say I was using experience because I actually know the language. You're trying to come up with arbitrary sentences to prove a point whether or not they make sense.

To apply some common sense, when would you ever say "the coffee is near the car"? Again, you would say something like コーヒーは車のそばにあります or コーヒーは車の近くにあります. In English, you would say "the coffee is on (top of) the car" and in Japanese you would most likely need to specify that it's on top of the car because no one would expect it. No one would ever expect the coffee to be on top of the car if you said "the coffee is in the car". Therefore, if someone said コーヒーは車にあります then I would most likely be correct in assuming that the coffee is INSIDE of the car.

If "watashi" was an inappropriate example for saying "in", then can you show an example of "kuruma de"? I just want you to show me one example of "de" where it means "in".

I still feel like you are trying to force the grammar into English definitions. It completely misses the subtler points of the grammar that you need to understand.

(2016-02-08, 12:04 pm)Zgarbas Wrote: I am really sorry about this, but now you've stirred my curiosity. What *is* your native language, if you don't mind my asking? I didn't quite get your answer, but it got me curious.

'At' in a slavic language can often be used in the sense of 'going to (the market)' 'seen on (tv)', 'moving towards (the right)', etc. I find collocations to be one of the more persistent mistakes at advanced levels, but though they may not mean much to the learner they mean a lot to the listener.

Ok, my language i Lithuanian, and my state is arch nemesis of Russia LOL

Now after some thinking, I decided that was wrong about slavish "at" equivalent, because they have no such equivalent at all. they have even less ambiguity than English language. and are required to use other prepositions.
prepositions "on" and "to" are often interchangeable in russian language ,when they mean direction of movement, and their usage is often conventional. you are supposed to say "I am going to the post office" and "I am going on the train station"
English has similar issue with using "at" because why do you use "at school" but "on the bus"? I don't think there is any rule for that.

A lot of things in English have no very easily understandable rule.

in school or at school
at home but never in home
at work = in one's place of work - "in work" means that one has a job

on a train
in a car (though "on a car" was used in the early days of motoring. It is completely obsolete now)

In the house (if we know the house)
In a house (if we don't) but...
in the hospital* (even if we don't know which hospital it is)
at the airport (even if we don't know which airport it is)

Fortunately Japanese is a little more consistent than English in its usages (though it has its quirks like all languages).

But trying to force the small functional words in one language to be exactly equivalent to words in another language just doesn't work. It doesn't work consistently even between closely-related West European languages, and it certainly doesn't work between very differently-constructed languages like English and Japanese.

___
*or In hospital (British English)

(2016-02-07, 11:38 pm)Digix Wrote: 魚が私に食べられた
"The fish was eaten by me"
"The fish was eaten at me" ???
japanese sentence does not provide that information ether, 


"The fish was eaten at me" is still better than "The fish was eaten in me" or "from me"

It doesn't provide what information? に marks of the doer of an action in passive sentences.

(2016-02-08, 1:26 pm)zx573 Wrote:

(2016-02-08, 12:56 pm)Digix Wrote: you are using context and experience here
but let's replace table with car and we have sentence
コーヒーは車にあります
now can you a tell now if coffee is in the car on the car or near the car?
I used a bit inappropriate example with watashi because there are not many situations you say "in me"
but we can replace watashi with "kuruma ni" or "kuruma de"

There really wasn't any context since it was just a single sentence in a post without context. And I guess you could say I was using experience because I actually know the language. You're trying to come up with arbitrary sentences to prove a point whether or not they make sense.

To apply some common sense, when would you ever say "the coffee is near the car"? Again, you would say something like コーヒーは車のそばにあります or コーヒーは車の近くにあります. In English, you would say "the coffee is on (top of) the car" and in Japanese you would most likely need to specify that it's on top of the car because no one would expect it. No one would ever expect the coffee to be on top of the car if you said "the coffee is in the car". Therefore, if someone said コーヒーは車にあります then I would most likely be correct in assuming that the coffee is INSIDE of the car.

If "watashi" was an inappropriate example for saying "in", then can you show an example of "kuruma de"? I just want you to show me one example of "de" where it means "in".

I still feel like you are trying to force the grammar into English definitions. It completely misses the subtler points of the grammar that you need to understand.

My point was exactly to prove that japanese sentence lacks information which is mandatory for English sentence.
it is not about what should be correct translation and interpretation.

My japanese knowledge is not that good to make my own sentences.
I can only understand them.
now I cant provide you example you ask, but according to my experience de usually menas inside.

I have to push it is not English definition because I cant learn ir so easily and I need to know it all to understand japanese text. of course eventually those approximations will be replaced with something better but it takes lots of time to get used to foreign language style.

If you plan to use Japanese for a long time, it would really be better to study Japanese grammar instead of trying to translate grammar words one-to-one and ending up with very inaccurate translations. に may mean "at" sometimes, but it has more than one meaning and usage, which will be a lot clearer if you study it. Same with other particles.

Here is a definition of に in a Japanese dictionary:

    ［格助］名詞、名詞に準じる語、動詞の連用形・連体形などに付く。

    １ 動作・作用の行われる時・場所を表す。「三時―間に合わせる」「紙上―発表する」
        「熟田津 (にきたつ) ―舟 (ふな) 乗りせむと月待てば潮もかなひぬ今は漕ぎ出でな」〈万・八〉

「二十一日、卯 (う) の時ばかり―船出 (い) だす」〈土佐〉

    ２ 人・事物の存在や出現する場所を表す。「庭―池がある」「右―見えるのが国会議事堂です」

    ３ 動作・作用の帰着点・方向を表す。「家―着く」「東―向かう」
        「蟻のごとくに集まりて、東西―急ぎ、南北―走 (わし) る」〈徒然・七四〉

    ４ 動作・作用・変化の結果を表す。「危篤―陥る」「水泡―帰する」
        「青葉―なり行くまで、よろづにただ心をのみぞ悩ます」〈徒然・一九〉

    ５ 動作・作用の目的を表す。「見舞い―行く」「迎え―行く」
        「白馬 (あをうま) 見―とて里人は車清げにしたてて見―行く」〈枕・三〉

    ６ 動作・作用の行われる対象・相手を表す。「人―よくかみつく犬」「友人―伝える」
        「人―若菜給ひける御歌」〈古今・春上・詞書〉

    ７ 動作・作用の原因・理由・きっかけとなるものを示す。…のために。…によって。「あまりのうれしさ―泣き出す」「退職金をもとで―商売を始める」
        「春の野に若菜摘まむと来 (こ) しものを散りかふ花―道はまどひぬ」〈古今・春下〉

    ８ 動作・作用の行われ方、その状態のあり方を表す。「直角―交わる」「会わず―帰る」
        「桐の木の花、紫―咲きたるはなほをかしきに」〈枕・三七〉

    ９ 資格を表す。…として。「委員―君を推す」
        「はじめより我はと思ひあがり給へる御方々、（桐壺ノ更衣ヲ）めざましきもの―おとしめそねみ給ふ」〈源・桐壺〉

    10 受け身・使役の相手・対象を表す。「犬―かまれた」「巣箱を子供たち―作らせる」
        「ありがたきもの、舅 (しうと) ―ほめらるる婿」〈枕・七五〉

    11 比較・割合の基準や、比較の対象を表す。「君―似ている」「一日―三回服用する」
        「御袴着 (はかまぎ) のこと、一の宮の奉りし―劣らず」〈源・桐壺〉

    12 （場所を示す用法から転じて、多く「には」の形で）敬意の対象を表す。「博士―は古稀 (こき) の祝いを迎えられた」「先生―はいかがお過ごしですか」
        「うへ―も聞こしめして渡りおはしましたり」〈枕・九〉

    13 （動詞・形容詞を重ねて）強意を表す。「騒ぎ―騒ぐ」
        「風いたう吹き、海の面 (おもて) ただあし―あしうなるに」〈枕・三〇六〉

    14 「思う」「聞く」「見る」「知る」などの動詞に付いて状態・内容を表す。
        「この継母の有様をあたらしきもの―思ひて」〈源・帚木〉

    15 比喩 (ひゆ) の意を表す。
        「逢坂をうち出でて見れば近江の海白木綿花 (しらゆふはな) ―波立ち渡る」〈万・三二三八〉

    ［接助］活用語の連体形に付く。

    １ あとの叙述の前置きとして続ける意を表す。…と。…ところ。「考えてみる―庶民のための政治は当分望めそうにない」「こともあろう―警官にけんかを売るとは」
        「あやしがりて寄りて見る―、筒の中光りたり」〈竹取〉

    ２ 理由・原因を表す。…ので。…だから。
        「渡し守、はや舟に乗れ、日も暮れぬと言ふ―、乗りて渡らむとするに」〈伊勢・九〉

    ３ 逆接の確定条件を表す。…けれども。…のに。…だが。
        「日中の照りに乾いて、きょうは道が好かった―、小庭の苔はまだ濡れている」〈鴎外・蛇〉

「よろしうよみたりと思ふ歌を人のもとにやりたる―、返しせぬ」〈枕・二五〉

    ４ 添加・並列を表す。…のに加えて。…の上にさらに。
        「旅の空を思ひやるだにいとあはれなる―、人の心もいと頼もしげには見えずなむありける」〈かげろふ・上〉

    [補説]接続助詞「に」は、用言の連体形に付く格助詞「に」から転じたもので、1は口語では多く「要するに」「こともあろうに」などの慣用的表現として用いられる。

    ［終助］

    １ 《上代語》活用語の未然形に付く。他に対してあつらえ望む意を表す。…てほしい。
        「ひさかたの天路 (あまぢ) は遠しなほなほに家に帰りて業 (なり) をしまさ―」〈万・八〇一〉

    ２ 《近世語》活用語の終止形に付く。軽く注意を促したり、とがめたりする意を表す。…のにな。…のだぜ。
        「飯をたいたら、かゆになってしまうわな。米をたくといへばいい―」〈滑・膝栗毛・初〉

    ［並助］並列・列挙・添加・取り合わせを表す。「バター―チーズ―牛乳」「月―むら雲、花―嵐」
        「有識 (いうそく) ―公事 (くじ) のかた、人の鏡ならんこそいみじかるべけれ」〈徒然・一〉


To say that all of that can be summed up in a single English word is unrealistic. Just because it happens to be the same in Japanese doesn't mean it's the same in English. There are tons of examples like this going both J-E and E-J. 痩せる means to lose weight in English, but it also means to be infertile. "to lose weight" in English does not have that definition. It translates to different things in English even though it's just one word. It's pretty common. Something like に has way more than 2 definitions.

(2016-02-08, 3:05 pm)Digix Wrote: My point was exactly to prove that japanese sentence lacks information which is mandatory for English sentence.
it is not about what should be correct translation and interpretation.

My japanese knowledge is not that good to make my own sentences.
I can only understand them.
now I cant provide you example you ask, but according to my experience de usually menas inside.

I have to push it is not English definition because I cant learn ir so easily and I need to know it all to understand japanese text. of course eventually those approximations will be replaced with something better but it takes lots of time to get used to foreign language style.

The Japanese sentence lacks just as much information for the kind of English sentence(s) are you thinking, so you're not really proving your point.

I'll give you a very small, basic breakdown about に and で. This will not be comprehensive nor will it cover every possible usage. Only where it's relevant to the "on"/"in"/"at" for this discussion.

に is a location marker. It marks the location of what is being discussed.
（私は）学校に行きました。　-> (I) went to school.
（私は）図書館にいます。 -> (I'm) in the library. OR (I'm) at the library.

で marks the location of an action. It marks the location of where the action is happening.
（私は）図書館で勉強しました。 -> (I) studied at the library.
（私は）映画館で映画を見ました -> (I) saw a movie at the movie theater.

All of those sentences use "to", "at", or "in", but they convey very different information and are not the same.

Some more examples:
（私は）図書館に勉強しました (ungrammatical) is not the same as （私は）図書館で勉強しました (grammatical).
（私は）図書館にいます (grammatical) is not the same as　（私は）図書館でいます　(ungrammatical).

Those are both very simple sentences that you would probably try to translate as "I studied in/at the library" or "I am in/at the library", but that does not mean that it's right.

Using my examples, one thing I can think of that you *might* be trying to is what's happening with the 図書館にいます sentence. There might be some ambiguity if you are unsure of whether the person is inside the library or somewhere in front of the entrance or something along those lines. However, English can be just as ambiguous if you were to only say "I'm at the library". So, if it needs to be clear that they are inside the library, then the person would say 図書館の中にいます (I'm inside the library OR I'm in the library). However, that does not really make the Japanese sentence ambiguous in my opinion because something like that can usually be figured out by context (just as it could be figured out in English).

You really need to pick up a Japanese grammar book instead of trying to make decks of small words for Anki. It will explain a lot things much better than a list of words. You need to learn to associate the grammar with concepts and not words if you plan on actually trying to understand Japanese. Trust me.

@zx573 the main problem I think isn't his choice of words for that particular usage, it's ignoring the fact that に and で have completely different definitions that have nothing to do with location at all as well.

で is the te-form for nouns, で marks a means of doing something, etc.

に marks the subject in a passive sentence, に changes a na-adjective into a adverb, etc.

And yet for these examples he seems to still be trying to make "in" or "at" work even though they are 100% incorrect.

(2016-02-08, 4:17 pm)kameden Wrote: @zx573 the main problem I think isn't his choice of words for that particular usage, it's ignoring the fact that に and で have completely different definitions that have nothing to do with location at all as well.

で is the te-form for nouns, で marks a means of doing something, etc.

に marks the subject in a passive sentence, に changes a na-adjective into a adverb, etc.

And yet for these examples he seems to still be trying to make "in" or "at" work even though they are 100% incorrect.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. However, I was trying to point out how "in"/"at"/"on" does not convey the exact meanings even if they "work" in the English sentence using the fact that the usages of に and で I explained are two completely different particles and convey different information even if he can translate them as "in"/"at"/"on". That's ignoring all of the other usages I can think of, which would be even further from what he's thinking.

For what it's worth, I remember struggling with に and で, and still struggle a lot with は and が when I'm writing something (reading is fine) because they can be pretty confusing. It just feels like he's really stubborn in trying to fit everything into "in"/"at"/"on" instead of trying to grasp the actual information being conveyed using the particles.

(2016-02-08, 4:17 pm)kameden Wrote: で is the te-form for nouns, で marks a means of doing something, etc.

に marks the subject in a passive sentence, に changes a na-adjective into a adverb, etc.

で isn't the て form for nouns, it's the て form of the copula. In any case, that's a totally different word. I hope nobody is trying to mix that up with で the particle. Every language has homonyms, and this is just one of those.

For what it's worth, な is also a connective form of the copula, so な and で(the copula) are really just different conjugations of the same word.

I want to clarify situation, because I see that some do not understand what is going on:
and it gets in wrong direction.

I do not argue that "at" is perfect equivalent of "ni" it is just closes what english language has.

It is completely different topic how ambiguous is japanese language, since word "ni" does not provide exact information about location like English equivalents. what I claim is that japanese language can use more ambiguous sentences that cannot be translated into English without obtaining additional information.
"ni" just one of examples
as japanese language allows you to use sentence like "hot." which is not possible to translate into English
because  English demands you to specify what is hot and Japanese sentence lacks that information.

this has nothing to do with sticking japanese to English grammar it is more about how to stick English grammar to japanese sentence. 

Quote:You really need to pick up a Japanese grammar book instead of trying to make decks of small words for Anki. It will explain a lot things much better than a list of words. You need to learn to associate the grammar with concepts and not words if you plan on actually trying to understand Japanese. Trust me.

I am not going to put ni or de on anki, but I need other words like "demo" "kara" "nani" "desu" "tte"
this just turned into side discussion.

Quote:Some more examples:
（私は）図書館に勉強しました (ungrammatical) is not the same as （私は）図書館で勉強しました (grammatical).
（私は）図書館にいます (grammatical) is not the same as　（私は）図書館でいます　(ungrammatical

Those are both very simple sentences that you would probably try to translate as "I studied in/at the library" or "I am in/at the library", but that does not mean that it's right.

From my current updated understanding I woud not translate like that 
but reading articles about grammar gave me wrong impression.

図書館に勉強しました If I do literal translation I woud it woud be approximately "I am doing study at library"  what means that library is somehow related to study but I don't know how exactly. maybe I am studying on the roof of the library maybe in the bus station near the library or even when am coming home from the library. word "at" fits this situation best but not 100%
I do not see anything wrong with that sentence, except that it is very vague.
図書館で勉強しました  means that  I do studying using library as function, but it does not mean that I am inside of the library. I may be doing it online.

図書館でいます  is illogical because it implies library as means of existing.

Quote:However, that does not really make the Japanese sentence ambiguous in my opinion because something like that can usually be figured out by context (just as it could be figured out in English).

Requirement to use context is precisely what I mean that sentence is ambiguous by itself.
It does not mean that it cannot be understood, it just means that  you need to make guess guess or use context , statistic or even body language or intonation.

I usually like to try helping people, but I don't think it's very productive to carry on trying to explain anything to you anymore. You should really study Japanese grammar before trying to argue things like this. Your explanations of my example sentences just aren't right at all. You even say you see nothing wrong with a sentence that is not grammatically correct and would not be said by a Japanese person, and then go on to incorrectly interpret the correct version of the sentence.

Just pick up a grammar book and study for a year or two and then you'll see that you're misunderstanding very simple sentences because you don't understand the different usages of particles.

(2016-02-09, 5:56 pm)zx573 Wrote: I usually like to try helping people, but I don't think it's very productive to carry on trying to explain anything to you anymore. You should really study Japanese grammar before trying to argue things like this. Your explanations of my example sentences just aren't right at all. You even say you see nothing wrong with a sentence that is not grammatically correct and would not be said by a Japanese person, and then go on to incorrectly interpret the correct version of the sentence.

Just pick up a grammar book and study for a year or two and then you'll see that you're misunderstanding very simple sentences because you don't understand the different usages of particles.

then please explain what exactly is incorrect in that sentence, because I do not believe that there can be such thing as incorrect sentence in any language any word mix will have certain meaning and if it has meaning it is correct but in some situations it can be contradictory.

grammar books do not provide me explanations they only provide example of how you are supposed to express predefined constructs instead of explaining how to make your own constructs. or how to interpret some ridiculous sentences.

like for example grammar bok about ni particles lists many rules of where it can be used but no explanation of logic behind that use or what happens if you do something diffrent

(2016-02-09, 6:07 pm)Digix Wrote: then please explain what exactly is incorrect in that sentence

zx573 already did that clearly in a previous post. 図書館に勉強しました is simply using the wrong particle.

Quote:I do not believe that there can be such thing as incorrect sentence in any language any word mix will have certain meaning

This is just not correct, and seems like a large part of where your misconceptions are coming from. Some combinations of words are not grammatical (ie, no fluent speaker of the language would ever say them). You might be understood if you stack words together with no regard for grammar or usage, but that doesn't mean you're speaking the language correctly in any useful sense.

Quote:like for example grammar bok about ni particles lists many rules of where it can be used but no explanation of logic behind that use

This is because natural language grammar is not an artificially logically constructed system. You can examine it and try to summarise it with rules of varying degrees of complexity and generality, but in the end it is what it is. If native speakers all say something one way and never say it the other way, then the one way is right and the other way is wrong. Sometimes things are just arbitrary, and turned out the way they did by historical accident, or random chance. In two hundred years it's possible they might flip and go the other way.

Quote:or what happens if you do something diffrent

Listeners will conclude that you don't know the language very well because you're making mistakes in its use.

(This is all tilting at windmills, but never mind.)

(2016-02-09, 6:07 pm)Digix Wrote: I do not believe that there can be such thing as incorrect sentence in any language any word mix will have certain meaning and if it has meaning it is correct but in some situations it can be contradictory.

Are you for real?

Have meaning language if sentence meaning and it has it can be contradictory it is correct  incorrect some situations mix word any thing I in any believe that there can be such but in as will do not certain.

That's just the same words rearranged.  What do they mean?  Nothing.  Because they aren't grammatical.

(2016-02-09, 6:43 pm)pm215 Wrote: This is because natural language grammar is not an artificially logically constructed system. You can examine it and try to summarise it with rules of varying degrees of complexity and generality, but in the end it is what it is. If native speakers all say something one way and never say it the other way, then the one way is right and the other way is wrong. Sometimes things are just arbitrary, and turned out the way they did by historical accident, or random chance. In two hundred years it's possible they might flip and go the other way.

what matter is what effect my sentence produces on the listener even if it is grammatically wrong I may decide to do it just because I know how I will be understood and this is my intent to cause that kind of understanding/confusion/ambiguity
this is also especially important if you are talking/reading someone who is doing same thing because I can understand grammatically incorrect/uncommon English far better than native English person.

Quote:Are you for real?

Have meaning language if sentence meaning and it has it can be contradictory it is correct  incorrect some situations mix word any thing I in any believe that there can be such but in as will do not certain.

That's just the same words rearranged.  What do they mean?  Nothing.  Because they aren't grammatical.

I am sure I could come up with some nonsensical meaning for this but it is too longs and pointless.

(2016-02-09, 10:00 pm)Digix Wrote: I am sure I could come up with some nonsensical meaning for this but it is too longs and pointless.

Of course it would be pointless unless you came up with the same meaning as other people you intend to communicate with.  Otherwise it is not language.  Which was precisely my point.

If you know everything so well, to the point where you contradict people who have been studying much longer as well as relatively authoritative materials on the subject like dictionaries and grammars, why are you here asking questions?

Anyway to actually answer your question, you can find a list of particles here:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E