Back

The "What's this word/phrase?" thread

ryanjmack Wrote:I still do wonder why なっています isn't used
Because it's the present moment that the time-lapse reaches half a year since his/her arrival.
Edit: In the first place the direct subject of the verb なります in that sentence is 'time-lapse' or 'days', not 私, which is the subject of the clause "(月日が)半年になります".
Edited: 2013-10-26, 2:07 am
Reply
Does this sentence make sense?

元気な時、公園を走ります
I jog in the park when I feel lit(energetic)

Why is the park taking the を particle, wouldn't be で?

Edit:
Someone break this sentence up for me please.

宿題を忘れた時、泣いてしまいました.
I cried when I have forgotten my homework.

I understand everything except the しまいました.
Edited: 2013-10-28, 11:00 am
Reply
1) See http://www.imabi.net/l12theparticlewo.htm , the part about motion verbs.
2) Your translation is ungrammatical. Anyway, -てしまう form, polite past tense. http://www.imabi.net/l66teformphrasesi.htm
Edited: 2013-10-28, 11:39 am
Reply
May 16 - 30 : Pretty Big Deal: Save 31% on all Premium Subscriptions! - Sign up here
JapanesePod101
question:

this is about José Mourinho the football manager,

ロブソンがバルセロナを去った後、監督に就いたルイス・ファン・ハールのアシスタントコーチも経験した。

I'm wondering about this part: 監督に就いた did a google search, it pops out from time to time, the whole thing. I guess the whole sentence means something like: After Bobby Robson went from Barcelona, he (Mourihno), continued to gain experience as Louis Van Gaal's assistant.... roughly, but anyway, it's ignoring the 監督に就いた part which I'm having a hard time understanding.
Edited: 2013-10-28, 11:55 am
Reply
Vempele Wrote:1) See http://www.imabi.net/l12theparticlewo.htm , the part about motion verbs.
2) Your translation is ungrammatical. Anyway, -てしまう form, polite past tense. http://www.imabi.net/l66teformphrasesi.htm
I realize that the translation is ungrammatical. However, I'm not learning English grammar, I'm just translating like that so it makes more sense to me in Japanese . Thank you for the links.
Reply
Srdjan Wrote:監督に就いた
Hired as manager. According to Wikipedia,

Bobby Robson 1996–1997 FC Barcelona
Louis van Gaal 1997–2000 Barcelona
Edited: 2013-10-28, 12:14 pm
Reply
ah, makes sense. thanks!
Reply
I'm learning grammar using Tae Kim's guide and I have a kind of stupid question (probably):

In the lesson on relative clause and sentence order (http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/clause) he says that you can directly modify nouns with past, negative or past-negative verbs OR nous, giving an example:

子供だったアリスが立派な大人になった。
The Alice that was a child became a fine adult.

Which, as I understand, means that:
Child(past form) + Alice => "Alice (that was a child)"

However, he says that you cannot modify nouns with nouns using だ, and that modifying nouns with nouns is done by the use of の particle, which, he says, is to be explained in a later article. But all the examples he gives for that particle are about posession, and so I wonder, can you actually do it with の or is there another way?

If 子供だったアリス means roughly "Alice (that was a child)", does 子供のアリス mean "Alice (that is a child)"? Is の situational, meaning, you derive from context wether "BのA" means "B's A" of "A of B", as in "Bob's Book" or "University of America", or if it means "A (that is B)", as in "Alice (that is a child)"?

PS: As a side question, Tae Kim usually explains everything to bits, but he doesn't touch on janai/kunai/datta/nakatta (or did I miss it?). He only says that when you apply past, negative or both to a noun, it functions like an i-adjective and can be used as such.

Can someone give me a link (or explain if it's simple) about this in depth? Like, why can't you attach だ, and so on and so forth?

I understood from his lessons that だ is an explicit and affirming declaration, and です is not a polite version of だ, because you can say ですか? for a polite question but だか? would make no sense because you make an authoritive declaration while at the same time being unsure of what you say (asking). But that's as far as he's gone.

But can someone explain everything else related to those?

1) Why cannot you attach だ to a i-adjective or negative form of a noun? You can only declare positives, you cannot ever declare something is not something in japanese? And why can you delcare something is 好き(likeable, na-adj) but not かわいい(cute, i-adj)? What is the property difference that prevents i-adj to be declared?
2) Can you attach だ to past form (だった/かった)? Can you attach か? Why?
3) What actually is 子供だった or 学生じゃない? I mean, in terms of japanese language? Is it a "participle"? Do they even have such a thing as participles? Or is it treated absolutely equal to an i-adjective, for all means and purposes, and even considered to be one - like, same as attaching かわいい to 人 applies features of "belonging-to-a-set-of-things-that-are-considered-cute" to a human, attaching 学生じゃない to 人 applies features of "not-belonging-to-set-of-students" to a human?

Thanks!
Edited: 2013-11-08, 10:04 am
Reply
Without trying to sound like a snob, I suggest you either pick up a real grammar book by someone who is not an amateur like Tae Kim, if you want a decent explanation. An Introduction to Japanese Syntax, Grammar and Language, by Michiel Kamermans, is a nice grammar book in that the language is both easy going and detailed. Or Japanese the Manga Way.

However, you might be interested in giving this online series a watch through:

http://www.gwu.edu/~eall/vjg/vjghomepage/vjghome.htm
Visualizing Japanese Grammar. An audio-visual introduction with animations and a native speaker.
Reply
Honestly, after doing some lessons of Genki, and some other "professional" books, I was absolutely sure that 私は犬です always means "I am a dog", that です is a polite form of だ and is an equivalent of english word "to be", and that ございます at the end of ありがとう has a similar meaning as "very much" in "thank you very much" (or "большое" in "спасибо большое" of Russian), and that が is a subject marking particle. And God knows what other bogus stuff.

Not to mention "real" books (like Genki) start off by teaching you verbs in their -ます form (I hope you understand why starting with verbs in their dictionary form is much better).

Tae Kim's is like the first grammar guide I found that actually explained to me the inner workings of the grammar, not based on english point of view, but based on how the grammar itself works (as he says, "Japanese way").

If you have a better grammar guide that explains everything Tae Kim does, and makes it without these mistakes, then I'm all ears!
Edited: 2013-11-08, 1:44 pm
Reply
Three such guides explain it more accurately, from a Japanese perspective:

An Introduction to Japanese Syntax, Grammar and Language, by Michiel Kamermans.
Japanese the Manga Way, by Wayne P. Lammers.
Visualizing Japanese Grammar


These are not like Genki.
Reply
Istrebitel Wrote:Honestly, after doing some lessons of Genki, and some other "professional" books, I was absolutely sure that 私は犬です always means "I am a dog", that です is a polite form of だ and is an equivalent of english word "to be"
I know it's not much. But try not to think so much that だ is the polite form of です。There are situations where です would be polite though.
Reply
Istrebitel Wrote:I'm learning grammar using Tae Kim's guide and I have a kind of stupid question (probably):
This is not a stupid question. However, there is a limit to how far you can press "Why does it work this way" questions before you start having to get into complicated historical linguistics that may not be of much help at the beginning stage. Sometimes the explanations are simple, but sometimes you just have to accept that's the way it works.

Quote:However, he says that you cannot modify nouns with nouns using だ, and that modifying nouns with nouns is done by the use of の particle, which, he says, is to be explained in a later article. But all the examples he gives for that particle are about posession, and so I wonder, can you actually do it with の or is there another way?

If 子供だったアリス means roughly "Alice (that was a child)", does 子供のアリス mean "Alice (that is a child)"? Is の situational, meaning, you derive from context wether "BのA" means "B's A" of "A of B", as in "Bob's Book" or "University of America", or if it means "A (that is B)", as in "Alice (that is a child)"?
You are correct, it's all up to context. 日本人の友だち could mean "A friend who is Japanese" or "A friend of the Japanese person" depending on whether this is possessive or descriptive.

Quote:1) Why cannot you attach だ to a i-adjective or negative form of a noun? You can only declare positives, you cannot ever declare something is not something in japanese? And why can you delcare something is 好き(likeable, na-adj) but not かわいい(cute, i-adj)? What is the property difference that prevents i-adj to be declared?
だ is the "copula", meaning "to be". かわいい already means "(Something) is cute" so the だ is not necessary. There's not much deeper reason for this, that's just the way it works in Japanese.

Quote:2) Can you attach だ to past form (だった/かった)? Can you attach か? Why?
No, because だった is already a form of だ. かった is a contraction of くあった, and だ does not go after verbs.

Quote:3) What actually is 子供だった or 学生じゃない? I mean, in terms of japanese language? Is it a "participle"? Do they even have such a thing as participles? Or is it treated absolutely equal to an i-adjective, for all means and purposes, and even considered to be one - like, same as attaching かわいい to 人 applies features of "belonging-to-a-set-of-things-that-are-considered-cute" to a human, attaching 学生じゃない to 人 applies features of "not-belonging-to-set-of-students" to a human?
だった is a conjugation of だ, and じゃない is a contraction of ではない, which is で (a form of だ) plus the particle は, plus the i-adjective ない. 学生じゃない人 does indeed mean "The person/people who is not a student."
Edited: 2013-11-08, 2:31 pm
Reply
yudantaiteki Wrote:
Istrebitel Wrote:And why can you delcare something is 好き(likeable, na-adj) but not かわいい(cute, i-adj)? What is the property difference that prevents i-adj to be declared?
だ is the "copula", meaning "to be". かわいい already means "(Something) is cute" so the だ is not necessary. There's not much deeper reason for this, that's just the way it works in Japanese.
Grammatically, い-adjectives function as descriptive verbs, and so sensibly you can't put the copula after them any more than you can after any other verb. (That you can put です there for politeness even though です also acts as a form of the copula is an oddity and accident of history.)

な adjectives function as descriptive nouns - な is a form of the copula that is preserved just to add to select descriptive nouns to make an adjectival form. That those descriptive nouns can appear at the end of a sentence with other forms of the copula as well as in a modifying positions with な is perfectly consistent. Except for the otherwise antiquated な form of the copula being preserved just for adjectival forms, it's a perfectly dull and consistent grammar form. (Of course some descriptive nouns form の adjectives instead of な adjectives just to make life difficult.)

(As a side note, な adjectives are sometimes called 'true adjectives' by people who take い-adjectives verb-like nature seriously. People who take い-adjectives verb-like nature -very- seriously refer to them as descriptive verbs and only acknowledge な-adjectives as adjectives at all. They're all 形容詞 to me though Smile)
Reply
Thanks for replies everybody, and for the links (uisukii)

I guess it never hurts to use different sources - for some things, Tae Kim's guide explains details very well, for others I found "An Introduction to Japanese Syntax, Grammar and Language, by Michiel Kamermans" to be very good too - for example, the whole thing about の and じゃない|だった|etc.
Reply
Question: in formal context (a video game developer commenting something on a forum) the bolded verb is used a lot: (セットの引っ越しが必要なため、ご面倒をおかけします…).

What does it mean? Rikaichan does not help me much here.
Reply
@Betelgeuzah: It stands for ご面倒をかける like in ご迷惑をかける. It was simply formalised by saying おかけします Smile

Regards from Hungary btw lol
Reply
Makes perfect sense, thanks Tori-kun Smile
Reply
Betelgeuzah Wrote:Makes perfect sense, thanks Tori-kun Smile
Just to give a little extra info, it's actually the same pattern as おねがいします. お+masu stem+する is a humble construction. So ねがう in masu form is ねがいます. You take the masu off to get the masu stem, ねがい, and then plug it in and it becomes おねがいします. Do the same with かける and it becomes おかけします.
Reply
Yeah, I had a feeling it had to do with the humble construction. Too bad I had never come across ご面倒をかける until now, as rikaichan has even a set expression for it. かける is used in so many ways...
Reply
EDIT: Internal 500 error followed by a double post. Spooky.
Reply
A quick question in relation to this sentence, and it's translation:

Quote:二年に交通事故を起こしてから、ミラーさんは車に乗らない用にしています。

Since he caused a traffic accident two years ago, Mr. Miller has been trying not to drive a car.
My question is that while I understand it simple enough, I was wondering if Mr. Miller's involvement as in said accident can be also read as simply since being involved in an accident, has refrained from driving so much?

Where exactly does Miller being the person who caused said accident come from? It is implied by context, or does から, in this instance, carry a meaning of causality not only 「from event X, change Y」, but also 「since Z caused event X, X has caused Y」? Y being the change in behaviour: less driving.

Not sure if I explained that sensibly.
Reply
uisukii Wrote:二年に交通事故を起こしてから、ミラーさんは車に乗らない用にしています。

Since he caused a traffic accident two years ago, Mr. Miller has been trying not to drive a car.
ミラーさん caused the accident because he's the subject of 事故を起こす ... 'cause an accident'. If he were not the cause, it would be 事故に遭う or 事故に巻き込まる or some such verb.

And, yes, it reads like he avoids driving. (Actually it reads that he tries not to go by car, 乗る includes riding.) It doesn't mean that he doesn't when he has to - but that he avoids it.

Assuming of course that 用 is meant to be よう or 様, it doesn't actually make sense at all as written.

(It's remotely possible that there's actually another subject of 事故を起こす from earlier context and that ミラーさん avoids go by car any more because that's who would drive him.)

~てから only states a temporal relationship, the causal relationship of not driving after the accident is only implied because the two events are linked by a temporal relationship in the same sentence.
Reply
I've been trying to translate Sword art online and I ran into this passage:
ナーヴギアは真の仮想世界を作る。
なのに、その世界が百メートル歩いたら壁に突き当たるような狭苦しいものでは、本末転倒もいいところではないか。

My translation of this is:

NerveGear creates a true virtual world.
Even, so by being so cramped that if you walk a hundred meters you run into a wall...

I know that 本末転倒 is to put the cart before the horse, but I can't seem to wrap my brain around the もいいところではないか part.I did a google search on it as 本末転倒もいいところではないか and 本末転倒もいいところ, they seem like a common expression but the best I can come up with for the もいいところではないか part is "isn't it a good place?" and that doesn't make any sense to me.

Is anyone familiar with this? Is it just a long winded way to say 本末転倒だ or am I misunderstanding it entirely?
Reply
いいところ (n) (1) good thing; strong point

ではないか (exp) (1) questioning (something)
Reply