Many languages have that; Japanese has native Japanese words, Chinese loans, and Western loans -- sometimes three words for the same thing, although like usual they're sometimes used with slightly different meanings or in different situations.

hoshitachi Wrote:Just to add to this discussion I completely can see why using SRS maybe counter productive after a while; it doesn't make sense to me to carry on reading and re-reading the same sentences expecting to improve.

SRS is more about review and maintenance. You improve through the act of learning and reviewing, "together." Once something is no longer of use it can simply be discarded.

hoshitachi Wrote:a bit off topic but, that's the only reason English has SO many words, divide it by 1/3 and you probably have the correct number of ideas, objects, etc which exist

Probably not. Especially since there is a seemingly never ending list of specialized terms that stem from Latin but are unique to English.

hoshitachi Wrote:English derived from 3 seperate languages, therefore most of our words are interchangable, and can have 3 or more words for the EXACTLY same thing, idea or concept eg damp, moist.

Woah, wait, are you seriously trying to argue that damp and most mean exactly the same thing? I think this is a sign you should seriously reexamine your grasp of English.

"Her lips glistened damply"
"A damp towelette"
"His eyes dampened"
"Dampen up"
"A moist cavern"

~J

woodwojr Wrote:

hoshitachi Wrote:English derived from 3 seperate languages, therefore most of our words are interchangable, and can have 3 or more words for the EXACTLY same thing, idea or concept eg damp, moist.

Woah, wait, are you seriously trying to argue that damp and most mean exactly the same thing? I think this is a sign you should seriously reexamine your grasp of English.

"Her lips glistened damply"
"A damp towelette"
"His eyes dampened"
"Dampen up"
"A moist cavern"

~J

Has the difference in usage come from people saying the same thing over and over to the extent that it becomes common usage? His eyes moistened may be more common than his eyes dampened, but the meaning is the same. Nothing at all wrong with a damp towelette- moist is just more common as that is what is branded on towelettes at the store.

A moist cavern sounds funny, but I've seen it used before, but in reference to... umm... well I'll let you figure it out.

How about this: a moist cake sounds appealing. A damp cake just sounds nasty.

captal Wrote:A moist cavern sounds funny, but I've seen it used before, but in reference to... umm... well I'll let you figure it out.

That's the point. It has a meaning, and that meaning is completely different from "a damp cavern". Consequently, they can't be the same "thing, idea or concept".

~J

captal Wrote:Has the difference in usage come from people saying the same thing over and over to the extent that it becomes common usage?

That's generally how language works.

Gotcha. And a damp cake does sound pretty gross.

Yup, I think damp usually has a lightly negative connotation while moist has a slightly positive one.

Off topic:

Damp:
–adjective
1. slightly wet; !!!moist!!!: damp weather; a damp towel.

Moist:
1. moderately or slightly wet; !!!damp!!!.

On Topic:

In making the notes, then throwing them away ... would you remake the notes again if you revisited the area, or are you supposed to learn by heart the notes before you ditch them?

Maybe I missed the point or became confused along the way

moist pussy OR damp pussy.....hmmm.....

hoshitachi Wrote:Off topic:

Damp:
–adjective
1. slightly wet; !!!moist!!!: damp weather; a damp towel.

Moist:
1. moderately or slightly wet; !!!damp!!!.

That's why even monolingual dictionaries don't give you the complete picture -- they often fail to describe the full connotations of the word or give collocations.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's why even monolingual dictionaries don't give you the complete picture -- they often fail to describe the full connotations of the word or give collocations.

The OED does manage to nail this particular case, though:

OED entry for moist Wrote:In many contexts now differing from damp by having a neutral (sometimes, esp. with reference to the texture of food, good) rather than a negative sense, and in connoting a lesser degree of wetness. In early use the word had a wider application.

I'd hate to use a Japanese equivalent of the OED as my primary dictionary, though...just too big and too hard to locate the common modern uses amongst the archaic and the rare if you're not a totally fluent reader.

pm215 Wrote:I'd hate to use a Japanese equivalent of the OED as my primary dictionary, though...just too big and too hard to locate the common modern uses amongst the archaic and the rare if you're not a totally fluent reader.

Okay, I'm away from my books so I can't check, but if I remember correctly Daijirin has the most modern definition first, and the most archaic definition last. I think it's the other way around for Koujien, but I don't have one. So I don't think it's actually that much trouble to sift out the archaic usages. (I still use my Daijirin only as a really last resort though--it seems like too much trouble to get a 15-pound book off the shelf when I could just look it up on the computer.)

Fillanzea Wrote:Okay, I'm away from my books so I can't check, but if I remember correctly Daijirin has the most modern definition first, and the most archaic definition last. I think it's the other way around for Koujien, but I don't have one. So I don't think it's actually that much trouble to sift out the archaic usages. (I still use my Daijirin only as a really last resort though--it seems like too much trouble to get a 15-pound book off the shelf when I could just look it up on the computer.)

So, Wikipedia tells me Koujien and Daijirin are both single-volume dictionaries. The OED is twenty volumes... It's that order of magnitude size difference that (a) makes it more likely that the OED (or any similar multi-volume historically minded dictionary) will correctly define nuances and differences and (b) makes it harder to use for a non-native.

Why are some common words marked "archaic" in EDICT?
国 - くに - noun, obsolete, archaic
And then they give it the [priority] mark too. What is going on here?
Archaic, really? I have an extremely limited Japanese vocabulary, yet I know this word. How can that be? Is a different word usually used?

Do damp and moist not mean exactly the same thing? The dictionary says so. They are not substitutes, but the meaning is the same.

jcdietz03 Wrote:Why are some common words marked "archaic" in EDICT?
国 - くに - noun, obsolete, archaic
And then they give it the [priority] mark too. What is going on here?

It's only archaic in certain senses (3, 5):

edict Wrote:国(P); 邦 【くに】 (n) (1) country; (the) state; (2) region; (3) (See 国郡里制) (obs) province (of Japan); (4) home (i.e. hometown, home country); (5) (arch) land; earth; (P)

If whatever viewer you're seeing EDICT through isn't showing you the full entry with split senses, get a better viewer :-)

Where is that entry from? This is what I got for くに:

国(P); 邦 【くに】 (n) (1) country; (the) state; (2) region; (3) (See 国郡里制) (obs) province (of Japan); (4) home (i.e. hometown, home country); (5) (arch) land; earth; (P)

Two definitions are marked archaic and obsolete, not the whole word (the P at the end applies to the word as a whole, not just definition 5)