@ssb i gave you downvote because I believe your answer is not useful (the criteria of a downvote). it's too literal, and i think we both know that it is the idiomatic meaning that needs translation. i know downvotes can get personal, but it's judgement on your answer, not a judgement on you.
@ssb it's not that it's too simple, it's that your answer, at least I believe, is answer which misinterprets the question. since I can't tell if it was a deliberate misinterpretation (ie an answer to simply score points and earn rep) all I can do to communicate to you that it is not an accurate interpretation of the question is to downvote.
@taylor It is a literal translation but only because the idiom literally exists in Japanese
you can use it in the same way and people will understand. I assumed that based on his question he was looking for an equivalently idiomatic way of saying something. My error might have been assuming that he had the level of Japanese necessary to express this in other ways and that he was looking for a more advanced interpretation. If he was just looking for a way to express that via idiom or not then yeah my answer would have been less helpful, so I added a little.
@Flaw In English, you can say "another" or "a whole nother", even though it doesn't consist of "a" and "nother", and the tmesis doesn't cause you to reanalyze "another" as two words when you see it on its own
Even though etymologically it is two words, "an" and "other"
So just because something has become one word doesn't mean it can't be split, and just because it can be split doesn't mean it isn't one word :-)
Hmm... no expansion... anyways... criticism is welcome
BTW... it's HIGHLY annoying that the edit box for that FAQ entry is a regular markdown box. It makes you think you can do things like normal markdown-style links. You can't... the box is raw HTML only.
hmm lol, the problem with chat (at least for me) is that there's too many messages flying arnd too quickly, it gets messy and it's hard to have any real discussion (because by the time i can reply, there's another 3 or 4 messages to reply lols)
hmm ok, anyway what i wanted to say is that the kanji 路 is not a morpheme because it can be furthur subdivided into smaller semantic units in the japanese written language (as demonstrated at http://goo.gl/0MwXl). This is the same for the kanji 宮. Also, "きゅう" is made up of 3 morphemes "き", "ゅ", and "う". And "ろ" itself is a morpheme in the Japanese w…
@Pacerier I apologize for all the messages flying around! :-)
Morphemes are not synonymous with graphemes in written language nor with phonemes in spoken language, because individual phonemes do not necessarily contribute meaning on their own (meaning = semantics) and therefore the smallest semantic unit is often larger than a phoneme; and because individual graphemes can correspond to a different level of organization either larger or smaller than a morpheme (particularly in Japanese, where you can write something more than one way)
That is, /r/ can combine with other sounds including /o/, but they won't have any shared meaning carried by /r/. /r/ by itself is meaningless, so it must be smaller than the smallest semantic unit.
sry for the delay, anyway just in case we start discussing about different things I'd like to say that when I say "meaning" I mean the "semantic meaning" and thus leaving pragmatics out of the window.
anyway, in japanese spoken language, the sound /r/ does not carry meaning *by itself*, but it definitely **contributes** to meaning and hence is a semantic unit. The native speaker will perceive different meanings depending on its presence. The sound /ro/ is made up of the consonant /r/ and the vowel /o/. The consonant contributes to meaning, because /ro/ is perceived to have a different mean…
@Flaw, the sound "きゅう" is made up of /k/ + /y/ + /u/ + /u/. We can prove that all four of these has meaning in the japanese spoken language by removing any one of them. If the semantic meaning doesn't change, it does not contribute to the semantic meaning and thus is not a semantic unit. However, removing any one of them would change the semantic meaning, and hence the units /k/ + /y/ + /u/ + /u/ are semantic.
A morpheme is the smallest semantic unit in a language, a grapheme is the smallest semantic unit in a written language, a phoneme is the smallest semantic unit in a spoken language, …
@Flaw, I know where you are coming from. We agree on the orthodox definition of a morpheme as *"the smallest semantic unit in a language"* but we disagree on the definition of a *"semantic unit"*. Your definition (orthodox) of a *"semantic unit"* is "a unit that has stand-alone semantic meaning", while my definition (unorthodox) is "a unit that *contributes* to semantic meaning".
I have provided points backing up that argument (simply, as opposed to the orthodox definition of "semantic meaning", I regard it more rational to consider a unit semantic if the native speaker will perceive diffe…
Whenever we add a unit, the meaning changes. Whenever we subtract a unit, the meaning changes. I consider this *systematic* and thus one can perceive a different meaning *systematically* (addition / subtraction).
Also, /n/ + /a/ + /n/ + /a/ is 4 units and /s/ + /a/ + /n/ is 3 units. The "semantic unit" is a language-independent device that has nothing to do with *mora*.
Ah, carry on, then. I thought you simply didn't know what a morpheme was. I didn't realize you rejected the usual definition and decided to make an argument for your own, knowing that it was something different than what people usually meant by the term.
I still don't agree with your argument, but I've already explained why, so repeating myself won't help anything, and I'll just leave it at that.
I'm always surprised at people who think they can ignore formal conjugations and understand Japanese "just fine". If you're included on any cross-company emails, they're incredibly thick with the stuff.
(particularly when we're the customer for a multi-billion dollar contract... holy crap is this stuff hard to read)
@snailplane How informative are you finding it? as opposed to just 'formalizing' your knowledge a bit?