Thanks Magamo!!! That clears that up then...

and thanks for posting the doAJG thing Inny Jan. it's restored my confidence in them a bit...

Thanks Magamo!!!

じつは、誰でもそんな風に会話を運べる、ちょっとしたテクニックがあるんです。
会話をしていて安心できる人とは逆に、何を話してもこちらが批判されているようで辛くなってしまう人っていますよね。本人に悪意はないのかもしれませんが、相手からするとたまったものではありません。

"The person in queston [the said person] might not mean to harm the listener, but judging from the listener [partner], some "evilness" has stored up [collected], right?"

That's a very literal translation and I can understand the content of that sentence in context with the other given sentence, but I have a question concerning the たまった here. Is the (悪意は)たまった part omitted here?

たまったものではない　is a set expression meaning

Quote:intolerable;  unbearable;  unendurable; —Usually written using kana alone. Emphatic form of 堪らない. → たまらない【堪らない】[1]
cannot help (doing);  cannot but do;  anxious to do; —Usually written using kana alone. → たまらない【堪らない】[2]
tremendous;  out of this world;  irresistible; —Usually written using kana alone. → たまらない【堪らない】[3]

"The person in question might not have meant any harm, but from the standpoint of the other person, it's unbearable [because he always feels like he's being judged]"

リブートというのは、パソコンをさいき再起どう動するということです。

This is a sentence in Tae Kim`s guide used to describe how to use use という to describe anything. I`m trying to wrap my head around the second one in particular. Surely it`s entirely unneccesary?

I also have my doubts as to whether it`s a grammatically correct sentence anyway, ignoring the fact that it`s a ridiculous thing to be saying in the first place.

callmedodge Wrote:リブートというのは、パソコンをさいき再起どう動するということです。

This is a sentence in Tae Kim`s guide used to describe how to use use という to describe anything. I`m trying to wrap my head around the second one in particular. Surely it`s entirely unneccesary?

I also have my doubts as to whether it`s a grammatically correct sentence anyway, ignoring the fact that it`s a ridiculous thing to be saying in the first place.

The sentence is fine. I don't see why it's "ridiculous" since 再起動 is the normal word for "reboot", not リブート. If you wanted to get rid of one of the という's, the first one would be better, but there's no problem having them both in there.

What makes you suspect it's grammatically incorrect?

yudantaiteki Wrote:

callmedodge Wrote:リブートというのは、パソコンをさいき再起どう動するということです。

This is a sentence in Tae Kim`s guide used to describe how to use use という to describe anything. I`m trying to wrap my head around the second one in particular. Surely it`s entirely unneccesary?

I also have my doubts as to whether it`s a grammatically correct sentence anyway, ignoring the fact that it`s a ridiculous thing to be saying in the first place.

The sentence is fine. I don't see why it's "ridiculous" since 再起動 is the normal word for "reboot", not リブート. If you wanted to get rid of one of the という's, the first one would be better, but there's no problem having them both in there.

What makes you suspect it's grammatically incorrect?

I`m not going to claim proficiency at all so I believe you. I don`t think there was any particular reason beyond feeling that one of the という`s were unneccessary is all.

I was just wondering as to their exact purpose in this sentence just so I can replicate it in my own sentences when needed.

callmedodge Wrote:I`m not going to claim proficiency at all so I believe you. I don`t think there was any particular reason beyond feeling that one of the という`s were unneccessary is all.

I was just wondering as to their exact purpose in this sentence just so I can replicate it in my own sentences when needed.

From DOIJG, p. 490:

"In X to iu no wa Y to iu koto da, the presence of the second to iu depends on the relationship between X and Y. If Y is the unshortened word of, a definition of, or a synonym for X, to iu is not used."

"If Y is an interpretation or explanation of X, to iu should be present."

"If Y can be interpreted either way, to iu is optional."

In Norwegian Wood he just used the kanji 頰 which I am guessing is an outdated usage for cheek? At the end of the same sentence 頰をつけた was used. I figure it's a kiss on the cheek or something.

Since 頬 was not on the Joyo list when NW was written, some publishers would use the old form.

On Facebook today somebody has used 呑む - does it indicate some nuance of 飲む or does it just tell me something about that person? (I see the dictionary has 飲む 呑む [服む 飮む])

chie bukuro says 飲むis liquid, and 呑む solid

http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/...1312052823

I'll try and check my dictionaries later.

As you can see here 呑む has also other figurative meanings. I'm not sure if 飲む can mean that too though.

That's interesting, thanks for looking. @Rayath, the sense of all those meanings seems to be "swallow" - i.e. you could insert the word 'swallow' in each sentence and it would figuratively make sense.

The complete text was 呑んでます。演奏会にお越しのみなさま、ありがとうございました。And a picture of a restaurant or similar with several glasses on their table. "45 people like this", not bad, and the first comment uses 飲む.

@mizunooto: Just for your reference A nice example that makes me remember the difference between 飲む／呑む is the following phrase: 鵜呑み（うのみ）にする -- swallowing (concrete: food, but also abstract: story).

Noob question incoming:

does わかりました literally mean "[you are] understood" rather than "[i] understood."?

Denshi Jisho tells me that the verb わかる means "to be understood". It would mean alot if you helped me out here

This is just based on how it seems to me, rather than a reliable grammar source, but I think it could be either "That is understood (by me)" or "I understood (that)", but not "You are understood".

I think the difference between the first two is just a matter of emphasis, and without context I'd say that it's neither/both.

The third one seems to mean something different to me, and would only be appropriate if the "you" was also the "it" that was being discussed. I.e. "We've lived together for ten years so I think I understand you", not "I heard what said and I understand you", which sounds okay in English but actually means "I heard what you said and I understand it."

I think what underlies this is how you deal with so-called "double ga predicates" -- that is, verbs where the object is marked by が instead of を. Because you say 日本語が分かる (rather than を), some people like to preserve が's subject marking function by explaining this as "Japanese is understood". I don't like this explanation and I simply say that some verbs (especially non-volitional ones) have their objects marked by が instead of を.

This is a huge debate over multiple topics in the past, though, and I'm not going to go into it any more than this.

I think a technically correct translation of 分かりました is something like:
It(omitted subject: what you were saying) became clear (to me (who else?). > It's clear now.

in other words "(I) got it." "Understood." "Okay." "certainly" depending on the context.

Thank you guys.
If I understood right, "わかりまして" means "[What you were saying] was understood [by me]."

Came across the word 「ほげ」 and cant get a clear idea of what it means other than it references a dummy variable in code, which isnt the meaning I am looking for

ちょっとだけ休憩するか
ほげ～

There seem to be a lot of variations like ほげ～、ほげえ、ほげえええ

I think it's onomatopoeia for yawning. Or maybe just being sleepy and drowsy.

See for example the second comment on this page:

http://yukainanakama2.blog17.fc2.com/blo...y-320.html

「*something*」っていうとき困る。

I'm sorry for the censorship , basically I was asked how to say *something* in English, and this was the next line. I can understand up to the いう, but I'm not sure about the exact meaning of 困る and I don't understand the とき at all.

That Japanese looks off to me as if some words have been dropped or misinterpreted -- if I had to put a meaning to that I guess it would mean "When you say that, it causes problems." But I'm very shaky on that.

Given the context, how about: when the writer wants/tries to say [Japanese expression] in English, it's a problem for them (b/c they don't know how, it's awkward or sensitive, etc.)?

(I'm assuming the content of [something] can't be interpreted as a description/type of とき.)

とき　is presumably 時 (used here a bit like conjunctive と)

困る is one of those very common, useful, vague words. It has a few different senses depending on context: troubled, embarrassed, don't know, inconvenienced, annoyed, at a loss, etc. It can be used as an indirect way to tell someone else not to do something ("If that were to happen, I'd be inconvenienced..." lol) or simply a description of the (mildly to strongly) negative predicament or reaction to some event or circumstance (I lost my passport and didn't know what to do.) If you read through some dictionary example sentences, you should have a good feel for its use.

From my cold medicine: 次の一回量を１日３回、食後なるべく３０分以内に服用してください。

What is 次の一回量を ?

EDIT: Ah, I got it, "the following dose…"