Manske Wrote:Is 妙ちきりんな some kind of casual expression? Are they two different words? I'm a bit confused here.

From EDICT:
妙ちきりん 【みょうちきりん】 (adj-na) (See 妙ちくりん) weird; odd; bizarre; curious
(Also four of the top 5 google hits for 妙ちきりん are definitions of it.)

Quote:I've seen this being used right after quotes, but I'm not really sure what it means.
とやら

「。。。」とやらのＤＶＤケースの中に。。。 for example

Google brings up the sentence:

Quote:『星くず☆うぃっちメルル』とやらのDVDケースの中に、『妹と恋しよっ?』と題された怪《あや》しさ抜群のブツが入っていた事実。

This is quotative と plus the non-exhaustive/example-giving listing marker やら. The と is because the thing we're listing is a title, not a plain noun. Look up やら in your favourite grammar reference (compare とか and や). You might translate this example something like "In amongst the cases of DVDs like '[TITLE]', ".

nest0r Wrote:For the sentence, hard to know without context

Actually, googling for it will find you the context, but it didn't leave me a great deal wiser... (I guess it ruled out a reading where the 決意 wasn't the speaker's.)

Couple of more questions:

First another ばかりquestion, I think this is just means "nothing but", but I'd like to have someone check.

この人は間違いなくある種の狂気の中にいる、と青豆は思った。しかし頭が狂っているのではない。精神を病んでいるのでもない。いや、その精神はむしろ冷徹なばかりに揺らぎなく安定している。

"This person is unmistakably is in some sort of madness" thought Aomame. However it's not that [she's] insane. She is not mentally ill. Rather she is nothing but cool in her unshakable determination."

And in this sentence, does なり mean something like 様子? I know that it can be used as Xなりに (in X's way), but it's weird how it becomes the direct object. So does the highlighted bit mean something like "Maddening prejudice?"

今彼女が求めているのは、私がその狂気なり偏見なりを彼女と共有することなのだ。

I think なり there means ‘either’. Here's an example sentence from DOIJG:

私なり山田なりが空港に迎えに参ります。
Either I or Yamada will go to the airport to pick you up.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SszxbMt...er&f=false

In that other sentence, could it be:

That mentality is more merely hard-bitten/hard-nosed than unwaveringly determined.

or

As for that spirit, it's more that she's unwaveringly determined just because she's so hard-bitten/hard-nosed.

I'm guessing the latter is not the cause, since むしろ～ばかり seems to be a common construction, rather than the ばかりに from DOAJG being the one used here.

I think yours is probably right. Or perhaps reverse it, ‘unwaveringly determined in her cool-headedness’?

Edit: Oops, I wasn't paying attention. Can 安定 really be translated as determination? In this context of mental instability I feel like ‘steadfast’ might not be the best sense to use.

How come a n00b like me is posting here anyways? For my own edification, I think. ;p

Thanks nest0r, I never seen that usage of なり. As far as ばかりに, I also initially thought it might be a "just because" kind of thing, but after looking at various resources, I found out that that meaning only applies to sentences where something negative happens.

You are also right about the 安定 part, I don't know "determination" popped into my head, I blame the second character

FooSoft Wrote:Thanks nest0r, I never seen that usage of なり. As far as ばかりに, I also initially thought it might be a "just because" kind of thing, but after looking at various resources, I found out that that meaning only applies to sentences where something negative happens.

You are also right about the 安定 part, I don't know "determination" popped into my head, I blame the second character

Okay! I think I got it. Maybe. Probably not, actually. I translated the whole thing per my n00b skills.

“This person exists undoubtedly within a certain species of madness, considered Aomame. But they haven't completely lost their mind. Nor are they sick in spirit. No, on the contrary, their mind is unwaveringly stable, as if cool-headed.”

Source? http://www.imabijapaneselearningcenter.com/lesson70.htm (#3)

I kept translating 冷徹 as hard-nosed, because I thought it made more sense than hard-headed (stubborn) or hard-boiled (which isn't usually used to describe people), but looking at the French translation (words related to tranquil and calm), plus that first character, I'm thinking cool-headed makes more sense.

Edit: Oh damn it, I guess it would have to be a verb before ばかりに in that case.

Perhaps just think of it as saying they're on the contrary just cool and implacable and leave it at that? ;p

Blast, that sentence is driving me crazy. Anyone who knows Japanese want to break it down?

This one, that is, from FooSoft's inquiry: その精神はむしろ冷徹なばかりに揺らぎなく安定している。

Somehow that whole thing, especially the に, is just really throwing me for a loop. I feel like I'm missing something simple yet essential.

‘No, if anything their mind/spirit has an unfaltering steadiness through pure cool-headedness.’ ? I keep wanting to make the している attributive or whatever the term is. And perhaps に like ‘from’?

寿司と食べようと言うから行ったら作れと言われる、お茶飲もう、だから緑茶持ってきてくれと言う、パーティするからカレー作れないか、と言う。

What does this sentence mean?

does anyone know what this means? i come across it quite a lot in the blogs i read its
そーゆー or sometimes こーゆー　

Zon70 Wrote:does anyone know what this means? i come across it quite a lot in the blogs i read its
そーゆー or sometimes こーゆー　

そういう
こういう

jettyke Wrote:寿司と食べようと言うから行ったら作れと言われる、お茶飲もう、だから緑茶持ってきてくれと言う、パーティするからカレー作れないか、と言う。

What does this sentence mean?

You tend to get better responses if you post your attempt or at least say which part of the sentence you don't understand.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

jettyke Wrote:寿司と食べようと言うから行ったら作れと言われる、お茶飲もう、だから緑茶持ってきてくれと言う、パーティするからカレー作れないか、と言う。

What does this sentence mean?

You tend to get better responses if you post your attempt or at least say which part of the sentence you don't understand.

Yeah thanks, already got the answer!

Some context: Division manager Tanaka made a robot to serve him tea, after the women in his company got fed up with him asking them for tea all the time. Anyway, after Robo-chan is created, Tanaka is out one day, and all the company women ask him to make tea for them. So Tanaka comes back in and asks the Robo-chan for tea, and Robo-chan tells him to wait until after he serves the women. Then Tanaka replies:

a) 何！お前の主人はこの僕なんだぞ。何のためにお前を作ったと思っているんだ。

After this, the "narrator" of the story finishes things off:

b) 田中氏はかんかんに怒って、こう思った。（やっぱり、あいつを男に作るんじゃなかった。）

I have two questions:
1. At the end of (a), I translated it as: "I am thinking for what purpose I constructed you!" Is this correct, or is it actually a question, "do you think about the purpose of why I constructed you?", directed at Robo-chan. It's just that there was no "?" or "か" at the end of the sentence to indicate a question, but then again, sometimes neither of these things have to be there for it to be a question.

2. At the end of (b), does it mean "I didn't make that fellow into a man"? I just don't really understand what he's trying to say there.

3. With こう思った, is that just like saying "this is what he thought", leading into the thought which is presented in ( ) ?

Thanks if you can help!

vinniram Wrote:a) 何！お前の主人はこの僕なんだぞ。何のためにお前を作ったと思っているんだ。

After this, the "narrator" of the story finishes things off:

b) 田中氏はかんかんに怒って、こう思った。（やっぱり、あいつを男に作るんじゃなかった。）

I have two questions:
1. At the end of (a), I translated it as: "I am thinking for what purpose I constructed you!" Is this correct, or is it actually a question, "do you think about the purpose of why I constructed you?", directed at Robo-chan. It's just that there was no "?" or "か" at the end of the sentence to indicate a question, but then again, sometimes neither of these things have to be there for it to be a question.

It's a (rhetorical) question: "What do you think I made you for?!"

Quote:2. At the end of (b), does it mean "I didn't make that fellow into a man"? I just don't really understand what he's trying to say there.

"I shouldn't have made him a man" [ie a female robot would have been a better idea].
Volitional verb + んじゃなかった == "I shouldn't have done V", expressing regret; I did something and it was a mistake.

Quote:3. With こう思った, is that just like saying "this is what he thought", leading into the thought which is presented in ( ) ?

That's how I read it, yes.

Thanks for that help, pm215. I'm just wondering, is there an entry for "Volitional verb + んじゃなかった" in the DOJG series? Thanks if you know.

pm215 Wrote:"I shouldn't have made him a man" [ie a female robot would have been a better idea].
Volitional verb + んじゃなかった == "I shouldn't have done V", expressing regret; I did something and it was a mistake.

Do you mean something other than "a verb in volitional form" here? Because this isn't in volitional form

fakewookie Wrote:

pm215 Wrote:"I shouldn't have made him a man" [ie a female robot would have been a better idea].
Volitional verb + んじゃなかった == "I shouldn't have done V", expressing regret; I did something and it was a mistake.

Do you mean something other than "a verb in volitional form" here? Because this isn't in volitional form

A volitional verb is one that you can choose whether or not to do. (The distinction between volitional and non-volitional verbs is often made when talking about Japanese even early on in learning, because as a general rule non-volitional verbs don't take を. Hence why a word like わかる takes が--you can't just choose whether or not you understand something.)

The volitional form is unrelated. (For those who don't use that terminology, often the よう form used in something like 「食べよう」 is called the volitional form.)

Tzadeck Wrote:A volitional verb is one that you can choose whether or not to do. (The distinction between volitional and non-volitional verbs is often made when talking about Japanese even early on in learning, because as a general rule non-volitional verbs don't take を. Hence why a word like わかる takes が--you can't just choose whether or not you understand something.)

I'm pretty sure that in most cases that has little to do with being volitional or non volitional, and much to do with transitivity. 分かる is an intransitive verb, so it generally takes a が marked subject, not an を marked object. When わかる does take を it carries a different nuance and can be thought of as a separate word from the usual わかる. For example requesting:
私の気持ちを分かってください
but you'd never say 日本語をわかりますか, you'd use the other わかる, and ask:
日本語がわかりますか
Is Japanese clear (to you)?

The volitional/non-volitional difference is used by JSL, and it's pretty accurate at describing the issue. There are intransitive verbs like 行く, 来る, and 帰る that can still have causative forms and other features of volitional verbs.

Quote:but you'd never say 日本語をわかりますか

Native speakers do say this sometimes, although it's generally taught as wrong (or at least not preferred) in textbooks. Potentials, -tai forms, and 好き all show a tendency to take either が or を -- native speakers probably feel that these predicates do have some level of volition involved in them.

vinniram Wrote:Thanks for that help, pm215. I'm just wondering, is there an entry for "Volitional verb + んじゃなかった" in the DOJG series? Thanks if you know.

I couldn't find anything relevant looking in the index, no.

Tzadeck and yudantaiteki are right about what I meant by "volitional verb"; sorry for any confusion.

Ah not at all, I knew what you were talking about. I just usually take "Vvol" to mean volitional form, and "volitional verb" to mean a verb representing a volitional action.

nadiatims Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:A volitional verb is one that you can choose whether or not to do. (The distinction between volitional and non-volitional verbs is often made when talking about Japanese even early on in learning, because as a general rule non-volitional verbs don't take を. Hence why a word like わかる takes が--you can't just choose whether or not you understand something.)

I'm pretty sure that in most cases that has little to do with being volitional or non volitional, and much to do with transitivity. 分かる is an intransitive verb, so it generally takes a が marked subject, not an を marked object. When わかる does take を it carries a different nuance and can be thought of as a separate word from the usual わかる. For example requesting:
私の気持ちを分かってください
but you'd never say 日本語をわかりますか, you'd use the other わかる, and ask:
日本語がわかりますか
Is Japanese clear (to you)?

Often there are a lot of different ways to look at grammatical rules--the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs and volitional and non-volitional verbs are both fairly good ways at looking at what's going on.

Even in the example you give, volitional and non-volitional would distinguish between the two. You can choose, pretty much, to try to understand someone's feelings. But you can't simply choose to understand Japanese. Likewise, you could also just view わかる as a intransitive verb meaning 'to become clear', in which case what is clear would be the subject rather than the object, and hence take が.

One way the volitional/non-volitional way of looking at things works a bit better is sentences with verbs that take two が. You can view one が as marking the subject, and the other as marking the object.

When is it even useful to consider the volitionality of a verb though? Just that fact alone doesn't really tell you anything. Look at the following four verbs:
行く intransitive, volitional
死ぬ intransitive, (presumedly) not volitional
食べる transitive, (presumedly) volitional
間違える transitive, not volitional

Knowing volitionality doesn't actually tell you anything useful about understanding it or how to use it that isn't obvious from its definition. Volitionality isn't listed in Japanese dictionaries for this reason. Even transitivity is only a useful concept to learn about because it helps us notice the difference of meaning between pairs such as 集める and 集まる, which can often be expressed with the same verb in English. Whether a verb is volitional or transitive or not, the object will always take を and the subject will always take が.

Tzadeck Wrote:One way the volitional/non-volitional way of looking at things works a bit better is sentences with verbs that take two が. You can view one が as marking the subject, and the other as marking the object.

Please show me one such example.
A sentence such as 彼が日本語がわかる。is really 彼が(subject) 日本語がわかる(predicate), just the predicate can be broken down again to 日本語が(subject)わかる(predicate). So irrespective of how many がs there are, they still just mark subjects.

nadiatims Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:One way the volitional/non-volitional way of looking at things works a bit better is sentences with verbs that take two が. You can view one が as marking the subject, and the other as marking the object.

Please show me one such example.
A sentence such as 彼が日本語がわかる。is really 彼が(subject) 日本語がわかる(predicate), just the predicate can be broken down again to 日本語が(subject)わかる(predicate). So irrespective of how many がs there are, they still just mark subjects.

You could look at it both ways, you've provided no reason why you couldn't look at that second が as marking the object. You could just say "With non-volitional verbs, the object can be marked by が"

Nor have you showed the concept of the transitive to be more useful than the concept of volitional (Both concepts divide the verbs up in exactly the same way, as you've written. That means you can use either to distinguish).

I'm not saying that the system with which you look at it doesn't work, I'm saying that BOTH systems are actually exactly the same. They both adequately explain the vast majority of cases you'll come across in the language. Pragmatically, there's no difference. The only argument you could make in favor of one is that you personally find it easier, or it resonates with you more. But not everyone is the same. I regularly look at it both ways, since I've used resources that look at it in different ways.

Anyway, I'm done with the argument though, at least in this thread. If you want to keep talking about it make a new thread.

Well I wasn't aware I was arguing with you, but my point was that volitionality has no bearing on が or を. And actually neither does transitivity, but it is a slightly useful concept to be aware of for other reasons.

Tzadeck Wrote:You could look at it both ways, you've provided no reason why you couldn't look at that second が as marking the object. You could just say "With non-volitional verbs, the object can be marked by が"

except that then the sentence would magically translate to "he is clear japanese" which doesn't make sense. Here japanese should be placed after the verb in the translation because as you say it's the object.
None of this confusion would even exist if textbooks and so on would stop translating intransitive verbs into transitive or passive into active and so on. When they do so they are lying about the meaning of those words and have to then introduce all sorts of complicated explanations to explain the otherwise easy to understand mechanics of the language.