RandomQuotes Wrote:"さえいとおしい" and "さえ愛しい mean nothing. さえ is a postfix not a prefix.
If you google "さえ高い" you get 67K hits, and if you google "さえ難しい" you get 176K hits.

Most of those come from (ただで)さえ高い though. I probably phrased my question wrong. The person above said:

Quote:""さえいとおしい" and "さえ愛しい mean nothing. さえ is a postfix not a prefix."

Which implied to me that the term I came across was completely invalid and then he came up with a different example to show me how it was used normally. I understand that it has to be preceded by something (all of my examples had something preceding it), in this case it was usually something negative. Maybe I was wrong about that it has to be a set expression, but <something> さえ愛しい clearly means something, and that was what I wanted confirmed.

Take a random Google title for example, "無防備な涙さえ愛しい", how would you generally take this? "Even your unrestrained tears are precious to me"?

Basically what rubbed me wrong was that I ran into something and gave an example, and I just wanted a confirmation or explanation what was wrong about my guess, and someone else just answered with something that was not the question at hand.

Maybe in your eyes it looked like "the guy got an answer and won't accept it", but that wasn't my intention at all.

I think that what he meant was that さえ愛しい is not a phrase by itself anymore than が高い or に行く are. He was trying to show that さえ was used in other contexts and that it was just a general particle meaning "even", not something that was part of a set phrase.

お酒さえ飲まなければ、何を飲んでも食べてもいいですよ。

That one is a sentence that I stumbled upon on Tobira. I've been studying for almost a year, but I still feel like my basic grammar is lacking a lot. Is the following translation correct?

"As long as you don't drink sake, you may drink or eat anything".

I don't get the meaning of that sentence. Does it mean that one can eat and drink anything but alcohol? I'm a little confused. Also, is 何を the object of both 飲む and 食べる?

klloud Wrote:お酒さえ飲まなければ、何を飲んでも食べてもいいですよ。

That one is a sentence that I stumbled upon on Tobira. I've been studying for almost a year, but I still feel like my basic grammar is lacking a lot. Is the following translation correct?

"As long as you don't drink sake, you may drink or eat anything".

I don't get the meaning of that sentence. Does it mean that one can eat and drink anything but alcohol? I'm a little confused. Also, is 何を the object of both 飲む and 食べる?

Your translation and interpretation are correct! Probably! It's also possible that the 何を isn't being used for both verbs and it means, "As long as you don't drink liquor, you're allowed to eat no matter what you drink." Which is really weird. So it PROBABLY means what you think it means.

As for not really understanding it despite being able to translate it, maybe it would make more sense with a concrete hypothetical example...
Let's say a young kid has come to stay with his relative and the relative says this sentence, meaning the kid can eat or drink whatever he finds in the kitchen so long as it's not liquor!

Oh, now it makes sense! I don't know if that has something to do with the fact that English is not my first language and I'm learning Japanese through it, but my interpretation skills are not as good as I'd like them to be.

Thank you for the huge help. I'm using Tobira to study and I'm stumbling upon relatively difficult sentences all the time. Self-studying is really convenient, but it surely has some downsides.

Hey everyone, having trouble understanding this
学校が学校なのと年が年なので、生活の程度は私とそう変りもしなかった

In context: 友達は中国のある資産家の息子で金に不自由のない男であったけれども、学校が学校なのと年が年なので、生活の程度は私とそう変りもしなかった

学校が学校なのと年が年なので　in particular is throwing me off. The なのと

Thanks

sparky14 Wrote:Hey everyone, having trouble understanding this
学校が学校なのと年が年なので、生活の程度は私とそう変りもしなかった

In context: 友達は中国のある資産家の息子で金に不自由のない男であったけれども、学校が学校なのと年が年なので、生活の程度は私とそう変りもしなかった

学校が学校なのと年が年なので　in particular is throwing me off. The なのと

Thanks

In なのと, the と is just combining the two statements.

"School is school and age (?) is age, so there wasn't much of a difference in our lifestyles."

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. And sorry, I'm not really good at explaining why something is what it is. Hopefully I helped.

In this instance, I believe な is being used as a form of the copula だ (definition #1) and the の, therefore, is nominalizing the verb and turning it into a verb phrase.

It would be like saying "学校が学校であるのと年が年であるので."

The second "な" is the same as the first (a form of だ), but it actually makes sense to most learners of Japanese when used in the phrase "なので" because they are taught that as a construction. This is actually just the same as saying であるので. (This is also why だので is weird and doesn't work-- because the correct form of だ in that instance is な).

The speaker is just saying, as TheVinster pointed out, that because their school and age was as it was (presumably the same) there wasn't a big difference in their way of life despite their (presumably) different upbringings.


豆知識EDIT #1: Also, by the way, (in general, nothing to do with this question..!) the な attached to the end of "な-adjectives" and the な as a form of だ are grammatically different.

EDIT #2: Please ignore Edit #1

oh wow thanks, makes perfect sense!

drdunlap Wrote:豆知識EDIT: Also, by the way, the な attached to the end of "な-adjectives" and the な as a form of だ are grammatically different.

Is it referring to difference between, let's say, （自分が）お母さんなことが大事 (it's important that you are their mother) and お母さんな人 (motherly person)?

drdunlap Wrote:豆知識EDIT: Also, by the way, the な attached to the end of "な-adjectives" and the な as a form of だ are grammatically different.

How?　の is just a noun there, so the な should be the same.

Ah, that Edit was just an "in general" (and also "technically" with a large helping of "splitting hairs" and "totally unnecessary and needlessly confusing information") with no real relevance to the problem at hand. TMI moment. Both な's in the question asked are attached to nouns and are the same. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't really matter.

TMI moments. Blame the beers. That's what I do.



Edit: (yet again TMI time. feel free to ignore.) I couldn't remember where I'd heard that and I've been digging around trying to find it but I can't. Anyway, it has no bearing on the question at hand and probably doesn't even matter. Please ignore. The closest thing I could find is in the definition of なので in the goo.ne.jp dictionary in which な as a form of だ and な as it is attached to 形容動詞 are treated as two different things. Or at least brought up as two separate entities. At least in modern grammar they seem to work the same so none of this really matters. Probably. Maybe. Hopefully. (High levels of certainty abound).

Sorry everyone, I seem to have a lot of questions this week...
「あっぱれ！」天使はそういうと、稲妻が走るもやもやの煙の中へ消えていった。

The translation given is "Done!" says the angel, and disappears in a cloud of smoke and a bolt of lightning."

is が being defined as "and" here?

Thanks.

sparky14 Wrote:Sorry everyone, I seem to have a lot of questions this week...
「あっぱれ！」天使はそういうと、稲妻が走るもやもやの煙の中へ消えていった。

The translation given is "Done!" says the angel, and disappears in a cloud of smoke and a bolt of lightning."

is が being defined as "and" here?

Thanks.

The slightly slant translation may be throwing you off. It's not a bad translation, but...

This が is marking the subject (稲妻) that is performing the action of 走る.

So, in the Japanese, 稲妻が走るもやもやの is all describing the smoke. It's a hazy cloud of smoke IN WHICH lightning is "running."

Thanks, I thought it was the subject but the translation was odd

漢字は読み方が分からなくても意味が分かるので、とても便利な表記なのです。

Can someone help me with the translation for that sentence?

What I got from is that even if you don't know the reading of a kanji, knowing their meaning makes them very convenient expressions. I'm somewhat familiar with the construction ので, but I'm having a little trouble in that particular case.

klloud Wrote:漢字は読み方が分からなくても意味が分かるので、とても便利な表記なのです。

Can someone help me with the translation for that sentence?

What I got from is that even if you don't know the reading of a kanji, knowing their meaning makes them very convenient expressions. I'm somewhat familiar with the construction ので, but I'm having a little trouble in that particular case.

"Even if you don't know the reading of a kanji you can still surmise the meaning, which is very convenient."

Honestly not sure how to translate 表記 even though I think I get what they mean. Basically they're trying to say that due to the nature of kanji, even if you don't know the reading you can assume the meaning from the kanji present and how the word is constructed.

ので is just a more formal version of から in this case.

Edit: Maybe in my translation "surmise" wasn't the best word choice on my part. Can probably just replace it with a simple "understand".

TheVinster Wrote:"Even if you don't know the reading of a kanji you can still surmise the meaning, which is very convenient."

Honestly not sure how to translate 表記 even though I think I get what they mean. Basically they're trying to say that due to the nature of kanji, even if you don't know the reading you can assume the meaning from the kanji present and how the word is constructed.

ので is just a more formal version of から in this case.

Edit: Maybe in my translation "surmise" wasn't the best word choice on my part. Can probably just replace it with a simple "understand".

Thank you for the help!

I failed miserably to include the official translation of 表記 from tobira. In that context, the word means "ortography". What I'm a little unsecure about is the 意味が分かるので. Does it being on dictionary form mean that the verb will surely happen? That even if you don't know the reading, you "will" know the reading?

" Even if you don't know the reading of kanji, since you will know the meaning, they are a very conveninent ortography".

I'm going through the chapters i Kanzen N3 grammar that I didn't manage to finish before the July test. There is a section about the use of ている and use of tense and there are some excercises I can't wrap my head around. Hopefully somebody here can help

母は動物の世話にとっても興味を持っていたが、これらの動物にえさをやるのは私の仕事だった。 Why is やる in the present tense here? I think it would be something that was done is the past so it should be やった?

わたしの母が入れ物に入れたえさを自分の手で動物たちに与えた。 Why isn't it 入れていた instead of 入れた? I would think that the food has been put there and stays there so it is a continuing state.

だから動物園に就職できたときは、本当にうれしかった。 Basically the same issue. Why isn't 就職できた to be seen as a continous state and thus described with 就職できていた?

Hinsudesu Wrote:I'm going through the chapters i Kanzen N3 grammar that I didn't manage to finish before the July test. There is a section about the use of ている and use of tense and there are some excercises I can't wrap my head around. Hopefully somebody here can help

母は動物の世話にとっても興味を持っていたが、これらの動物にえさをやるのは私の仕事だった。 Why is やる in the present tense here? I think it would be something that was done is the past so it should be やった?

わたしの母が入れ物に入れたえさを自分の手で動物たちに与えた。 Why isn't it 入れていた instead of 入れた? I would think that the food has been put there and stays there so it is a continuing state.

だから動物園に就職できたときは、本当にうれしかった。 Basically the same issue. Why isn't 就職できた to be seen as a continous state and thus described with 就職できていた?

It seems to me that you are confusing, the use of tense in English and the perfective in japanese. The た isn't really the past tense, rather it marks the completion of an action. So looking at one of these:
わたしの母が入れ物に入れたえさを自分の手で動物たちに与えた。

We get
わたしの母が My mother[subject]
入れ物に In the container
入れた to put in (the action of being put in is competed)
えさを animal food
自分の reflexive pronoun
手で by hand
動物たちに to plural animals
与えた。give (the action of being given is competed)

So, as you see here, both 与えた and 入れた here are talking about completed actions, not states. Whether ている refers to a state or a continuous action is highly dependent of the verbs itself.

The other sentence function similarly, and the やる functions in the opposite, in that it marks an uncompleted action.

Hey everyone, having trouble with this one
狂気が作り上げたような柱の列と数々の回廊、階段、尖塔、神殿

I get the gist of it, but can't come up with a nice sounding translation.

Thanks

Hello everybody I don't really get the meaning of this word: 菜々, I came across it while reading a dialogue about two people discussing what to do during the holidays, here is the sentence:

(about an 温泉旅行)
安いんだもん。２食付きで、３歳以下は無料だから菜々の分はかからないし。

Kuroro Wrote:Hello everybody I don't really get the meaning of this word: 菜々, I came across it while reading a dialogue about two people discussing what to do during the holidays, here is the sentence:

(about an 温泉旅行)
安いんだもん。２食付きで、３歳以下は無料だから菜々の分はかからないし。

It's a name. Nana.

Lol now i get it It was driving me crazy, thanks a lot

Sorry for the double post, I'm a bit bothered by this sentence:

夏休みに書いたレポートを先生に見せてから、もう一度よく読んだ

I learned the (A)~て+から+(B) construction as B after A, so I interpreted the sentence as 'After showing my teacher the essay I wrote during the summer holidays, I read it carefully once again'

But the sentence makes more sense to me if I think of it as B since A with a nuance of causality 'Since I will show my teacher the essay I wrote during the summer holidays, I read it carefully once again'

Which one is correct? Is the second interpretation even possible or is it just wrong?