Japanese Language

Anonymous

00:01

> この辞典はNHKの放送で漢字をどのように表記するかを示す辞典である。

Anonymous

00:23

I guess the alternative would be treating the verb before か as 連体形

Anonymous

> 今このときにも、それらの窓のどこからか、刑事が望遠鏡だか双眼鏡だかあるいはもっと性能のいいスコープだかを使って、第二幸荘の前で立ち話をする自転車の男と中学生を、‌子細に観察しているのかもしれなかった。

Anonymous

But だ isn't a 連体形 form

Anonymous

> しかも三年間、自分が誰だかを知られずにすめば、いかなる恋もかない、どのような願いも達せられるといわれる。

Anonymous

01:43

> さまざまなことが積み重なる時期があって、どうしてだかその積み重なりを侮辱であるかのように感じてしまうのです。

ssb

is it insufficient just to call it an embedded question marker?

Anonymous

@ssb Well, it's an embedded question marker, sure.

Anonymous

But if it's not a nominalizer, why can you use it where you could use a noun?

Anonymous

You can't do that with other embedded clauses

ssb

Doesn't your だか example kind of rule that out?

Anonymous

01:49

What?

ssb

Does make me think of the particle だの but that's probably just a coincidence

Anonymous

> [ どの学生を推薦すべきか ] が話し合われた。
> 警察は [ 誰が犯行現場にいたか ] を調べている。

ssb

I mean, you're saying that か can be used where a noun would be?

sorry I'm confusing myself now with things that might not make sense

Anonymous

Yeah, embedded question clauses get used like nouns

ssb

Well.. if it makes questions into nouns then sure, why not

Anonymous

01:51

Yeah, that's where I was going with the "nominalizer" thing :-)

Anonymous

But I suppose you don't have to say it's か, just that embedded question clauses can be treated as nominal

Anonymous

02:12

So I suppose another question is whether ＶなりＶなりを is grammatical

Anonymous

02:31

Oh! How about a yes-no verb pair?

Anonymous

> 行く行かないを決める

Anonymous

There's no か there

ogicu8abruok

that's cool

Anonymous

So is that evidence of an embedded question being treated as nominal, nothing to do with か?

Anonymous

> 行くか行かないかを決める

ogicu8abruok

02:35

maybe

i feel like they can get away with dropping the か in that case because the meaning is so obvious

Anonymous

I think か just wasn't added in the first place

Anonymous

Anyway, you can't usually omit a nominalizer, so if it were a nominalizer, that would be a little weird

ogicu8abruok

well maybe they can get away with "not adding" the か because the meaning is obvious

you ever wonder if these questions REALLY have answers? i mean, maybe it's different for each person

maybe each person has their own way of thinking about the language

Anonymous

Well, you can analyze stuff lots of ways, but not every way is equally good

Anonymous

If it fits the evidence, it's fine

ogicu8abruok

02:42

maybe some of those ways that aren't quite as good, are actually used by some native speakers

Anonymous

Yeah, I know native speakers use imperfect analyses

Anonymous

Most of the native speakers of English I know couldn't grammar their way out of a paper bag

ogicu8abruok

those native speakers would have more "exceptions" in their heads than the speakers who use better analyses

i mean their subconscious grammar, not what they actually learned through study

Anonymous

Heh.

Anonymous

Yes, of course, every native speaker's English or Japanese or anything is a little different.

Anonymous

02:44

In terms of evidence, different speakers permit or generate different utterances

Anonymous

So in some cases, different theory follows

ogicu8abruok

i'm actually saying that despite different speakers having basically the same language at the surface level, they may have different subconscious grammars that generate it

Anonymous

That's like saying "these two black boxes are different on the inside". So?

Anonymous

You don't have access to your mind's internal representation of language.

ogicu8abruok

i just think it's interesting

Anonymous

02:45

It is. We don't know how language really works inside the brain.

ogicu8abruok

like for example, one person might think the ka's are removed

one might think you fail to add them

Anonymous

Well, what they think is probably different from how the language actually works for them.

ogicu8abruok

think subconsciously

i just think language acquisition is so crazy

the subconscious mind is almost scary

to think that there's a secret you that you can't see

ok i'm getting weird now, i should go to bed

Anonymous

Haha.

Anonymous

There's lots of cognitive processes you don't have conscious access to.

Anonymous

02:48

Have you read Nisbett & Wilson?

ogicu8abruok

yeah, it's freaky

um

no i haven't

Anonymous

quarplet.com/nisbett&wilson.pdf

Anonymous

Good stuff.

Anonymous

It's a seminal paper on the introspection illusion

ogicu8abruok

yup, i read about two paragraphs and i am already totally on board with this

Anonymous

02:53

They cover a lot of different experiments

Anonymous

In one, they asked people to evaluate articles of clothing on a rack and decide which was best

Anonymous

There was a strong preference for clothes on the right, regardless of which clothes those were

Anonymous

If you asked people why they picked, nobody said "Well, I liked these because they were on the right"

Anonymous

If you gave that reason to people, they'd be like "Uh, no, are you crazy? I picked the one that was the best"

ogicu8abruok

yup, totally buying it

good stuff

makes me wonder if there's any point at all to introspection... haha

it can certainly be counterproductive sometimes, in my experience

Anonymous

02:56

Yeah, introspection is funny. It's really easy to convince yourself that your introspection is accurate. Sometimes it might be, too. But you often have no way of knowing whether it is

Anonymous

I've talked to people about the introspection illusion before and been met with a curious reaction: people assert that it doesn't happen to them, their introspection is accurate ;-)

Anonymous

Sometimes people feel threatened by the very concept

ogicu8abruok

it's probably important to a sense of identity or of self or something

Anonymous

Yeah. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm not especially good at understanding people :-)

ogicu8abruok

and now i'm speculating about people's subconscious reasons for doing things, which we just said is a pointless thing to do

Anonymous

03:00

But I do find the subject fascinating

kinyo

03:36

Why can't the "# of returned pages" in a google search be a proxy for the comparative frequency of the use of words in written Japan? A question from earlier today was discredited and deleted because of this. So, I'm asking a follow-up question I guess.

ssb

I believe they can be inaccurate, can't they?

Plus better sources exist for checking word frequency

kinyo

what bette source?

what is a better source? (must be accessible via net, and must have access to the raw data)

Anonymous

The question was fine IMO.

Anonymous

The numbers weren't central to your question

Anonymous

We have a question about this in meta

kinyo

03:43

well, do you agree with using google searches to discover comparative frequencies of vocab / kanji?

Anonymous

(It's hard for me to grab the link since I'm on my phone

Anonymous

No, Google doesn't give you result counts, only estimates

Anonymous

The estimates aren't intended to be particularly accurate

kinyo

i just am thinking about discovering how native speakers use their language by comparative frequencies.

i've struggles so much with okurigana.

Anonymous

Try BCCWJ

kinyo

03:45

(1) my native speaker friends say that meaning does not change with okurigana.

Anonymous

Right

kinyo

(2) i am happy with just settling on 1 okurigana. the okurigana that is most frequently used.

(3) i don't care about all "possible" okurigana.

Anonymous

Did you get my comments on your Q?

kinyo

i just want to copy how native speakers use japanese. nothing more.

which question? do you mean the link about the rules for okurigana?

Anonymous

On your deleted Q.

Anonymous

03:48

Here's BCCWJ: kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/search_form

kinyo

no. i am sorry. i never saw it.

Anonymous

Search for 現れ and 現わ

kinyo

ok. i see the page.

Anonymous

14

Q: Google counts may not be as reliable as you imagine

Some people even claim that Google result counts are a meaningless metric. Well, “meaningless” might be an overstatement, but as a matter of fact, Google counts can be incorrect by the order of several digits or more. I think that many people trust Google counts without knowing their inaccuracy...

discussion

Anonymous

Google results aren't completely useless, but they're a better indicator of negatives than positives

Anonymous

03:55

So use the resources you've got, but keep their limitations in mind when drawing conclusions

Anonymous

Google is a rich resource for linguistic data if you use it right

Anonymous

Just not in that particular way

kinyo

ok. that reference site you sent me is way beyond my ability to understand tonight. i'm going to need some native's to help me.

you know, but native speakers don't look at reference sites like that one you sent me. they copy what the people around them do. they copy what the newspapers that they read do. they copy each other.

so, how can you discover what the japanese natives do (if you can't live in japan). google?

how do you acquire that data?

jkerian

@kinyo You're thinking a bit backwards here. A corpus is a reflection of what native speakers do... not an instruction to them. (But it's useful for testing linguistic theories)

@kinyo The answer to this question is literally the link snailboat gave you

It's a large and interesting question though... because as you can imagine you get a different definition of "how native speakers write", by looking at twitter vs facebook vs romance novels vs philosophy papers vs The Wall Street Journal

kinyo

@jkerian really? Where is the raw data? The 100,000,000+ documents written by native speakers from which the reference book is derived is out there on the net.

Anonymous

04:14

Turns out, I can use Stack Exchange while I'm on a treadmill! Yippee!

Anonymous

I'm like a hamster with a wheel, except more addicted to Stack Exchange

ssb

04:32

get one of those treadmill desks!

jkerian

04:47

@kinyo I'm not sure exactly what the confusion is. Google results are a terrible way of comparing usages, particularly for Japanese. Oddly, they can't even answer the question of "does this construction exist in Japanese", due to typos. snailboat linked you to a reasonable thing to use instead.

@kinyo Please do not try to argue for the sanctity of google result counts until you understand everything on this page

ssb

@snailboat The link in this question no longer works

11

Q: Is there a list of kanji ordered by usage in novels?

I have found many lists of kanji ordered by their usage in newspapers, but are there any lists that order by their usage in novels and other fictional material? This might be useful to have because if someone wanted to be able to read Japanese novels well, they could study the kanji in the list.

kanji resources

Or rather, the link in your answer

Anonymous

05:24

@ssb Updated!

jkerian

05:42

Hmm... I appear to have done things in reverse order

Chocolate

@snailboat こんなの

agaliving.com

Lady Aga だって

ssb

05:57

@Chocolate what happened to your picture!?

jkerian

06:13

I need another weekend right about now

Chocolate

@ssb 新しいの考え中～

I used to の否定って I didn't used to ? 変だなあ

ssb

Didn't used to is OK

Chocolate

ええそうなのおｗｗｗ

なんで過去形が二回・・・

ssb

Well coming here has made me realize I'm not nearly as good at grammar as I ever thought I was so

I'll just say I have no idea, but it sounds fine to me anyway!

Chocolate

"your initial Japanese sentence" って「朝に作文を買ったの時、質問になります。」だったみたいだけど

@ssb まぢｗｗｗ

It was corrected into「朝に作文を書いた時、質問になりました。」

そういう意味？

I don't understand「質問になる」

ssb

06:22

should just be someone mistakenly trying to say 質問がありました

desho

Chocolate

oh

naruhodo

jackopen

07:34

grammargamble.com/gameover.php this is a nice link to learen english grammer; are there any other interactive/live/chat site/application/software for english learning ?

gibbon

08:39

What's a kview?

ssb

as in "thousand views"?

gibbon

09:00

really?

I just noticed some questions saying kviews rather than views..

ssb

Yeah, when they have a lot of views it just gets abbreviated

Anonymous

13:29

Just the SI prefix k

Anonymous

@Chocolate didn't used to is okay (a lot of native speakers say it informally), but some people may feel it's nonstandard. You can work around the problem by saying never used to

gibbon

Yeah I was just confused seeing it attached to the word views rather than the number..

Anonymous

I think it'd be more natural on the number too

Anonymous

But it's at least understandable either way :-)

Anonymous

13:48

12

Q: "kviews" should be "k views"

I just noticed this, and I don't think it used to display this way. It seems to make more sense as "k views". Can we change it (back)?

feature-request status-bydesign views si-prefix

ogicu8abruok

16:06

oh man, the person who posed that question came so close to using "didn't used to"

Anonymous

19:39

Hehe!

Anonymous

By the way, there's spelling variation on that: "didn't use to" / "didn't used to"

Earthliŋ

I've always had the intention to say "didn't use to", although I guess that'd be almost indistinguishable from "didn't used to"

Anonymous

Yeah, it's pronounced the same either way

Anonymous

This to is special: lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/pullum97.pdf

Earthliŋ

I guess I might be more tempted to voice the S in "use to", but maybe that's just because I'm German and used to voicing Ss.

Earthliŋ

20:35

@snailboat Do you understand this question at all?

0

Q: how is the translation for - no - spelled with english letters

how is the translation for - no - spelled with english letters

translation spelling

Anonymous

21:01

I think they want someone to type "iie" though I can't say I'm certain

Anonymous

Good ol' English letters.

Anonymous

No, I'm really not certain.

Anonymous

When I closed it a few minutes ago, I had to choose between "not clear what you're asking" and "translation question with no effort shown"

Earthliŋ

21:18

@snailboat I thought they want someone to type "of", though I can't say I'm certain

Anonymous

@Earthliŋ Yeah, it's a mystery.

Earthliŋ

I guess the chance that it's a "finer point of the Japanese language" is quite low in any case...

Anonymous

Although I closed this as "asking for a translation without showing any research effort", I could have also closed it as "unclear what you're asking". You'll have to fix both problems if you'd like the question reopened. — snailboat ♦ 23 secs ago

Earthliŋ

Looks fine.

I sometimes feel that the questions we allow are much more basic than what is in the site's description...

Anonymous

@jkerian Hey, do you think you could approve the custom close reason I linked you to? You said it looked fine, but you didn't approve it

Anonymous

21:25

@Earthliŋ Yeah.

Anonymous

Honestly, I think basic questions are fine. But that doesn't mean our site should be a dictionary substitute

Earthliŋ

Hm...

Anonymous

I know the site has some blemishes, and it probably always will, but I like it here :-)

Earthliŋ

I didn't say I didn't like it, but I think there's room for improvement

Anonymous

I agree

Earthliŋ

21:33

It'd be nice to have more users who are fluent speakers, native or otherwise

Anonymous

It would be good to have more expertise

Anonymous

21:45

@jkerian The close reason is based on this meta discussion. The wording is based on Szymon's, which is in turn based on one of SO's custom close reasons

Earthliŋ

@snailboat Well, fluency is more or less a prerequisite of expertise

Anonymous

@Earthliŋ I was trying to agree with you in different words :-)

Anonymous

Sorry, sometimes I'm not very clear

Earthliŋ

I thought you tried to be more precise...

Anonymous

I think it would be good if we had more users who were fluent speakers, native or otherwise :-)

ogicu8abruok

22:04

you guys ever look at the english language learners stack exchange?

Anonymous

Yeah, li'l bit.

ogicu8abruok

people seem to answer really formally

using big words

Anonymous

Oh, no! :-)

ogicu8abruok

i'm afraid they're driving away the people who would actually find it useful

Anonymous

Damn those... those linguists!

Anonymous

22:05

And/or grammarians.

Anonymous

If only they said stuff all simple-like. :-(

ogicu8abruok

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not xD

Anonymous

Me either!

ogicu8abruok

lol.... ooookay then!

Transcript for