Kansai vs. Kantou?
Warren.J.Eckels
Here in the U.S., I hear stories of a sort of rivalry between
the Kansai (Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe and surrounding areas) and Kantou
(Tokyo and surrounding areas) regions of Japan. For what it's worth,
in Itami's "Taxing Woman 2," a group of rather stupid toughs were
described as "kansai."
Is there a serious rivalry between the two areas?
Warren Eckels
Schererville, IN
macska
i know this is off-topic, but i like tantou style "udon" noodles than
kansai one. :)
"macska"
...the best shoyu ramen noodle in japan is near shin-osaka station though...
TANAKA Tomoyuki
sometimes, when i hear bad fake Southern accent in American TV
shows and movies, i think of bad fake Kansai accent (kansai-ben)
in Japanese TV shows and movies.
you can hear examples of fake Kansai accent in the movie
"Makioka sisters" (sasame yuki).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <stanaka-0805...@comserv-d-31.usc.edu>,
Shinji Tanaka <sta...@scf.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <macska-0805...@slip31.ts-f-merrill.caps.maine.edu>,
>Hi, Kathlyn
>
>What is "tantou"??? You mean "kanto"? I do not know that the best shoyu
>ramen is near shin-osaka. I believe that shoyu taste is originated from
>kanto area. Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>You can think of Kansai vs Kanto as California vs New York. New Yorkers
>speak relatively fast and have a dry humor while Los Angelinos do not care
>about business, and are more passionate about entertainment. Yes, you can
>get a picture in this way.
>
>BTW, why you are so passionate about Japan??? You did not marry to
>Japanese man because of your fat and pierce in your nose. (Hee he he!!!)
>Most men posted here are posting for the purpose of Japanese women
>hunting. Why did you go to Japan ? What makes you so facinating about
>Nippon??? I am just curious!!!
>
>--
>Shinji Tanaka
>E-Mail: sta...@scf.usc.edu
>Web Page: http://www-scf.usc.edu/~stanaka
>Los Angeles, CA USA
>If you find grammatical mistakes in my posting, please correct me. Thanks.
Naruhisa Takashima
Shinji wrote:
BTW, why you are so passionate about Japan??? You did not marry to
Japanese man because of your fat and pierce in your nose. (Hee he he!!!)
Most men posted here are posting for the purpose of Japanese women
hunting. Why did you go to Japan ? What makes you so facinating about
Nippon??? I am just curious!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an ass-hole...
Answering the original question, yes I think you can say that there's
a rivalry between the two region. Not only are there differences in
shiru (sauce/soup) in food but I think the way people behave is also
quite different.
In contrast to people in kantou/tokyo who tend to be quiet and passive
(i.e., the most common perception of the Japanese), the people
in kansai/osaka can be quite agressive and loud.
Yeah, it's stereo-typing but I think most people in Japan would agree.
Naruhisa Takashima
--
College Park Bicycle Club: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~naru/cpbc.html
.. __o __o __o __o __o __o __o __o ..
.. -\<, -\<, -\<, -\<, -\<, -\<, -\<, -\<, ..
..(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)(_)/(_)..
Phil C.J. Lin
Kantou people would just stand on it. It seemed fit with what you said
that kaisai people are more of "go get" type.
Business-wise, both side seemed to be equally successful though.
This also conforms to the theory that outrovert people are not having
better share of success.
Phil
Kenji Adzuma
In article <4motn5$8...@news.structured.net>, wec...@mercury.jorsm.com
(Warren.J.Eckels) wrote:
> Here in the U.S., I hear stories of a sort of rivalry between
> the Kansai (Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe and surrounding areas) and Kantou
> (Tokyo and surrounding areas) regions of Japan. For what it's worth,
> in Itami's "Taxing Woman 2," a group of rather stupid toughs were
> described as "kansai."
>
> Is there a serious rivalry between the two areas?
Tokyo represents, for better or worse, the "center." Tokyo is a part of
the Kantou, but the image of Kantou per se is a bit different from that of
Tokyo.
Kansai (Osaka/Kobe and to a certain extent, Kyoto) represents the "rebel"
or antithesis.
A classic example of this rivalry would be the rivalry of two professional
baseball teams, Hanshin Tigers (franchised at Osaka/Kobe) vs Tokyo Stupid
Yomiuri Giants Ass-holes (Tokyo).
As a person who'd lived in Osaka for 10 years, I am allergic to the Tokyo
dialect. I simply do not like it; it just sounds awfully snobbish to my
ears.
Many Tokyo people think, however, that people who speak Kansai-dialect are
either 'Yakuza' or 'comedians.' In other words, "they" either fear or
look down on "us."
--
Kenji Adzuma
Takuo Henmi
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) writes:
>In article <4motn5$8...@news.structured.net>, wec...@mercury.jorsm.com
>(Warren.J.Eckels) wrote:
>> Is there a serious rivalry between the two areas?
>Tokyo represents, for better or worse, the "center." Tokyo is a part of
>the Kantou, but the image of Kantou per se is a bit different from that of
>Tokyo.
>Kansai (Osaka/Kobe and to a certain extent, Kyoto) represents the "rebel"
>or antithesis.
Interesting theory..
>A classic example of this rivalry would be the rivalry of two professional
>baseball teams, Hanshin Tigers (franchised at Osaka/Kobe) vs Tokyo Stupid
>Yomiuri Giants Ass-holes (Tokyo).
What happened to Nishinomiya??????????? Well I know it's a minor town, and most of non kansai residents think Koshien stadium is in Osaka, but it's in Nishinomiya!!!!! and you've guessed right, I'm from there.
>As a person who'd lived in Osaka for 10 years, I am allergic to the Tokyo
>dialect. I simply do not like it; it just sounds awfully snobbish to my
>ears.
One thing I can't stand is that most of the people (especially those who live in Tokyo) think Tokyo accent (or Tokyo language or whatever) is the standard Japanese. No, it's not!! It's just a dialect, not much different from Tohoku or any other dialects, but just popular. For those of you who think the Tokyo accent is the standard Japanese, please realize it's not. The standard Japanese is what they use in reading news etc..
I appologize if I offended anyone, nothing personal, I have a lot of friends in Tokyo area too. I just wanted to point out a couple of common misconception.
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-0905962312580001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>,
Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu) wrote:
Tokyo represents, for better or worse, the "center."
Tokyo is a part of the Kantou, but the image of Kantou
per se is a bit different from that of Tokyo.... Kansai
(Osaka/Kobe and to a certain extent, Kyoto) represents
the "rebel" or antithesis.
Actually there're no more remained many Tokyo natives in a strict
sense (i.e. Edokko), who anyway can never constitute the majority of the
residents of the Japan's capital ever since the modern period. Tokyo is,
as usual the case with any capitals of large countries, characterless as a
whole compared to Osaka and the other local big cities. Thus the rivalry
is more of one-sided kind, and the people of Tokyo in fact don't give any
**** about what the **** Osaka or Nagoya guys are claiming about.
A classic example of this rivalry would be the rivalry
of two professional baseball teams, Hanshin Tigers
(franchised at Osaka/Kobe) vs Tokyo Stupid Yomiuri Giants
Ass-holes (Tokyo).
It is said that the most Japanese baseball fans in prefectures
without local teams of their own are Giants fans. Even in sport, the
team's being Tokyo-based is more "Japanese" than Tokyo or Kanto in
nature. Same thing may be said of colleges. Whereas the reputation of
Tokyo U., Keio U. and Waseda U. is nationwide, the Osaka/Kansai
counterparts are usually considered not "much" (if not at all) more than
good local institutions. This is an inevitable result of Japan's being
heavily centralized country.
As a person who'd lived in Osaka for 10 years, I am
allergic to the Tokyo dialect. I simply do not like
it; it just sounds awfully snobbish to my ears....
Many Tokyo people think, however, that people who speak
Kansai-dialect are either 'Yakuza' or 'comedians.' In
other words, "they" either fear or look down on "us."
It is doubtful that solid "Naniwakko" would recognize a man who's
lived in Osaka for mere 10 years to be among "us." Osaka localism is so
strong that they tend to look down the people of the other prefectures
save Tokyo and the other big cities, against whom too exist a certain
hostile sentiment but of a different kind. It was those who were called
"Niwaka" Hanshin fans Osaka natives of generations hated the most when the
team won the last national championship a thousand years ago.
___________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is also
emailed to: Mr. Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu)
Shuichi Saito
In article <4mvbhh$7...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
One thing I can't stand is that most of the people
(especially those who live in Tokyo) think Tokyo accent
(or Tokyo language or whatever) is the standard Japanese.
No, it's not!! It's just a dialect, not much different
from Tohoku or any other dialects, but just popular.
For those of you who think the Tokyo accent is the
standard Japanese, please realize it's not. The standard
Japanese is what they use in reading news etc.
Since the standard language of Japan is largely modeled upon
Tokyo/Edo dialect, that's not really a big misconception, is it not? If
the standard language is any different from the original, it may be just
that it has been modified to serve the need as a national normative.
Besides, what can you tell of the difference between "today's" Tokyo
dialect (of the official/standoffish version, not the ones spoken by the
youngsters full of slangs) and "Hyojun-go"?
___________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is also
emailed to: Mr. Takuo Henmi (ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au)
Reuben Muns
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
>As a person who'd lived in Osaka for 10 years, I am allergic to the Tokyo
>dialect. I simply do not like it; it just sounds awfully snobbish to my
>ears.
I have spent far more time in Tokyo than in Osaka, so Tokyo
dialect sounds "normal" to me. My personal opinion is that the
speech of the Osaka female is much softer and more feminine than
that of the Tokyo female.
Reuben
Reuben Muns
ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
>One thing I can't stand is that most of the people (especially those who live
> in Tokyo) think Tokyo accent (or Tokyo language or whatever) is the
>standard Japanese. No, it's not!! It's just a dialect, not much different from
>Tohoku or any other dialects, but just popular. For those of you who think
>the Tokyo accent is the standard Japanese, please realize it's not. The
> standard Japanese is what they use in reading news etc..
I agree, the language of the "Edoko" is not standard Kanto-ben. I
think perhaps the language spoken in Yokohama is nearer to
"standard". I also suspect that the language of the "Naniwako" is
not standard Kansai-ben, but I don't have enough experience to
know if this is true.
Reuben
Takuo Henmi
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) writes:
> Since the standard language of Japan is largely modeled upon
>Tokyo/Edo dialect, that's not really a big misconception, is it not? If
>>the standard language is any different from the original, it may be just
in
>that it has been modified to serve the need as a national normative.
>Besides, what can you tell of the difference between "today's" Tokyo
>dialect (of the official/standoffish version, not the ones spoken by the
>youngsters full of slangs) and "Hyojun-go"?
You have a point there. I admit if you speak polite/keigo Tokyo-ben, it'll be very close to Hyojun-go. But more or less (I can't possibly speak for all because I only know kansai-ben and little bit of Tokyo-ben, but) if you speak politely/keigo, it'll be close to Hyojun-go in any dialect, will it not?
My point is that if you don't conut those youngsters' spoken language as Tokyo-ben, then what are they speaking?? More generally/common use words(??) like
'jyan' as in 'iijyan (it's OK, etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as 'omae (you)', they can't be considered as Hyojun-go.
Then what are they???? I simply can't help thinkng they are "Tokyo-ben", not
standard Japanese.
Besides, why the word 'tokyo-ben' exists, if it were truly 'hyojun-go'.
One more (not so good) example, what does Tora-san speak? Hyojun-go? I think not.
Once again, I apologize if I offend anyone, it's nothing personal.
Takuo Henmi.
Takuo Henmi
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) writes:
> A classic example of this rivalry would be the rivalry
> of two professional baseball teams, Hanshin Tigers
> (franchised at Osaka/Kobe) vs Tokyo Stupid Yomiuri Giants
> Ass-holes (Tokyo).
> It is said that the most Japanese baseball fans in prefectures
>without local teams of their own are Giants fans.
It's true. But it's mostly due to the fact they only broadcast Giants' games
in local prefs (such as all pref. in Kyushu, I lived in Miyazaki for 6 years),
By the way, why is that when we call prof. baseball teams we usually call them
in their first names(???) like Hanshin, or Chu^nichi, or Orix, so on, but not
Kyogin (their first name (once again ???) is supposed to be Yomiuri)?????
If anyone can explain this, please let me know.....
> Even in sport, the
>team's being Tokyo-based is more "Japanese" than Tokyo or Kanto in
>nature.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
> Same thing may be said of colleges. Whereas the reputation of
>Tokyo U., Keio U. and Waseda U. is nationwide, the Osaka/Kansai
>counterparts are usually considered not "much" (if not at all) more than
>good local institutions.
What about Osaka/Kyoto Univs?
> This is an inevitable result of Japan's being
>heavily centralized country.
I don't know if they are 'inevitable' , but it is true that Japan is a heavily
centralized country.
> As a person who'd lived in Osaka for 10 years, I am
> allergic to the Tokyo dialect. I simply do not like
> it; it just sounds awfully snobbish to my ears....
> Many Tokyo people think, however, that people who speak
> Kansai-dialect are either 'Yakuza' or 'comedians.' In
> other words, "they" either fear or look down on "us."
> It is doubtful that solid "Naniwakko" would recognize a man who's
>lived in Osaka for mere 10 years to be among "us." Osaka localism is so
>strong that they tend to look down the people of the other prefectures
>save Tokyo and the other big cities, against whom too exist a certain
>hostile sentiment but of a different kind.
Once again, I can't quite understand what you're trying to say here (the last 2 lines), maybe it's due to my English. Are you saying people in Osaka are genarally hostile to people in any other prefs? Does this include like Hyogo and Kyoto, too??
> It was those who were called
>"Niwaka" Hanshin fans Osaka natives of generations hated the most when the
>team won the last national championship a thousand years ago.
I've been thinking you are from Kanto area, but you sound like you are from
Osaka(not any other prefs. in Kinki area) and true Hanshin fan by reading
above 8 lines. Where are you from, anyway??
Kosuke Saeki
Emoto Takenori said, when he retired, that "those who are in bench are
so stupid that i cannot stand it".
Q: Which team did he play for at that time?
A: Hanshin Tigers!!!!
Most people think the Japanese language widely spoken in Tokyo area is
the standard Japanese.....
just because it's *true*.
Q: Which accent the news people use ?
A: "Tokyo's accent"
'coz it's standard accent, and i never found news reader
who use kansai accent or whatever other than Tokyo's.
Check out NHK news readers! As Recieved Pronunciation or BBC english
is Standard English in Britain,
NHK Japanese must be standard pronunciation in Japan.
Kosuke
Takuo Henmi
Kosuke Saeki <ks...@ukc.ac.uk> writes:
>Most people think the Japanese language widely spoken in Tokyo area is
>the standard Japanese.....
> just because it's *true*.
Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it mind
that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would be very
close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in 'iijyan
(it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are they?
Hyojun-go? Have you ever heard an NHK news anchorman reads news with those
words(?)?? I don't think they can be considered as Hyojun-go. So what are they?Why, it's Tokyo-ben, is it not?
I don't intend to start a regional war or anything (the orignal post of this subject wasn't made by me either). So please put a hostile attitude aside and
simply try to convince me that Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, if you wish.
Takuo Henmi
Kosuke Saeki
On 14 May 1996, Takuo Henmi wrote:
> Kosuke Saeki <ks...@ukc.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >Most people think the Japanese language widely spoken in Tokyo area is
> >the standard Japanese.....
> > just because it's *true*.
>
>
> Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it mind
> that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would be very
> close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in 'iijyan
> (it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
> 'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are they?
> Hyojun-go? Have you ever heard an NHK news anchorman reads news with those
> words(?)?? I don't think they can be considered as Hyojun-go.
So what are they? Why, it's Tokyo-ben, is it not?
>
>
> Takuo Henmi
"jyan" was firstly used in Yokohama area, i suppose. Other words you
showed could be Tokyo born.... but those are better trated as dialectal
(also, sub-cultural) words rather than as Tokyo-ben, i think. And accent we
useally use in Tokyo area is the basic pattern of accent for Hyojyun-go'
and obviously Hyo-jyun-go doesn't sound like kansai-ben. In this
sense, Tokyo-ben is Hyojyun-go. See? Don't get confuesed with dialectal
words and accent.
Kosuke
Takuo Henmi
>> Kosuke Saeki <ks...@ukc.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> >Most people think the Japanese language widely spoken in Tokyo area is
>> >the standard Japanese.....
>> > just because it's *true*.
>>
>> Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it mind
>> that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would be very
>> close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in 'iijyan
>> (it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
>> 'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are they?
>>
>"jyan" was firstly used in Yokohama area, i suppose. Other words you
>showed could be Tokyo born.... but those are better trated as dialectal
>(also, sub-cultural) words rather than as Tokyo-ben, i think. And accent we
>useally use in Tokyo area is the basic pattern of accent for Hyojyun-go'
>and obviously Hyo-jyun-go doesn't sound like kansai-ben. In this
>sense, Tokyo-ben is Hyojyun-go. See? Don't get confuesed with dialectal
>words and accent.
>Kosuke
Based on your argument, speaking with Kansai-ben words like 'hen' as in
'shirahen (don't know, much like'nee')' etc. with Hyojun-go intonation would
make it Hyojun-go??? It's quite possible to speak Kansai-ben with Hyojun-go
intonation (like me speaking keigo).
I thought, and I still think, each dialect consists of not only their regional
intonation, but also, in your words, dialectal also sub-cultural words.
Am I dead wrong on this one?
Takuo
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <4n6nsb$o...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
You have a point there. I admit if you speak
polite/keigo Tokyo-ben, it'll be very close
to Hyojun-go. But more or less (I can't possibly
speak for all because I only know kansai-ben and
little bit of Tokyo-ben, but) if you speak
politely/keigo, it'll be close to Hyojun-go in
any dialect, will it not?
If the "keigo" is of the textbook standard/Hyojun-go version, Yes.
If not, No. Too simple a truism, isn't it? Kansai-ben does have its own
genuine "keigo" vocabulary. So do any other local dialects.
My point is that if you don't conut those
youngsters' spoken language as Tokyo-ben,
then what are they speaking??
They are still immature to be fully incorporated into the established
Tokyo-ben, if still alive at all. Japanese Hyojun-go is created after the
model of Tokyo-ben of some decades ago, not of today. If modification
will be made to hyojun-go in the future, there's no need to follow the
transformation of the original, Tokyo-ben, in doing so. It's already been
an independent language for a long time. Conversely, the traditional
Tokyo-ben has been heavily contaminated by its alter ego.
More generally/common use words(??) like 'jyan'
as in 'iijyan (it's OK, etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as
in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
'omae (you)', they can't be considered as
Hyojun-go. Then what are they???? I simply
can't help thinkng they are "Tokyo-ben", not
standard Japanese.
There is no need to have a national standard for slangs. Tokyo-ben,
based on which was created hyojun-go, is not perfectly identical with
hyojun-go, much less so regarding the today's version. And "-jyan" is not
a part of Tokyo dialect.
Besides, why the word 'tokyo-ben' exists,
if it were truly 'hyojun-go'.
I never said it's "truly" hyojun-go.
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <4n6qen$i...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
By the way, why is that when we call prof.
baseball teams we usually call them in their
first names(???) like Hanshin, or Chu^nichi,
or Orix, so on, but not Kyogin (their first
name (once again ???) is supposed to be
Yomiuri)?????
Because the owners of the Japanese baseball teams are so economically
minded, i.e. have been greedy, too much obsessed with the selfish profit
seeking of their own. The owner companies of J-league teams are not
allowed to publicize the names of the teams with their companies' names
(but the names of the hometowns). Similar argument can be made of TV
baseball/ soccer broadcasting.
S: "Even in sport, the team's being Tokyo-based is
more "Japanese" than Tokyo or Kanto in nature."
T: 'I don't know what you're trying to say here.'
I just wildly analogized Tokyo-ben and "Tokyo" Giants.
S: "Same thing may be said of colleges. Whereas
the reputation of Tokyo U., Keio U. and
Waseda U. is nationwide, the Osaka/Kansai
counterparts are usually considered not "much"
(if not at all) more than good local
institutions.
T: 'What about Osaka/Kyoto Univs?'
They may not be merely good institutions of Osaka-fu and Kyoto-fu but
of the broader Kansai-area, or of nishi-nippon at most, if you prefer.
The reputation of Kyoto U. may be more nation-wide; however, compared to
it's counterpart, i.e. Tokyo U., it is so but to less extent. I doubt
Han-dai is "still" any comparable even with some top-lank private colleges
in Tokyo area in terms of reputation.
Are you saying people in Osaka are genarally
hostile to people in any other prefs? Does
this include like Hyogo and Kyoto, too??
It's just that they are proud of themselves, being at the center of
the Kansai area, and of Japan some hundreds years ago. For example, Osaka
version of Kansai-ben is somehow priviledged in relation to those of the
neighboring local/inaka prefectures' versions, of Okayama-ken or
whatsoever save of equally large cities. I heard there exist bullying
among kids due to the difference of kansai-ben. Osaka-ben is regarded as
a language of Tokai-kko over there.
I've been thinking you are from Kanto area,
but you sound like you are from Osaka(not any
other prefs. in Kinki area) and true Hanshin
fan by reading above 8 lines. Where are you
from, anyway??
Me? I'm from Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo. From Tenno-heika no
ohizamotooo.... Heck, I don't give any shit about my lineage or alma
mater or hometown or nation or race or whatsoever identity but me myself.
I'm a solid individualist. If the humble localists of Osaka and the rest
were "antithesis," I would be the synthesis! (Not to mention, I'm much
more a Kantian than a Hegelian in this respect.) Well, the lack of
loyalty to hometown may be an very attribute of today's Edokko, though.
Satomi Kobayashi
> Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it
mind
> that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would
be very
> close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in
'iijyan
> (it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or
'omee' as
> 'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are
they?
I would like to ask you why your idia is absolutly the same as my
hasband's.
(My hasband is from Kansai area, and I am from Kanto erea.)
Your examples 'jyan' ,'nee' are the same as my hasband's. And also he
spoke about an NHK news anchorman.
I just wonder why your idear is very similar. Have you ever learned it at
school?
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-1705...@f181-066.net.wisc.edu>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
> In article <4n6qen$i...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
> ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
>
> By the way, why is that when we call prof.
> baseball teams we usually call them in their
> first names(???) like Hanshin, or Chu^nichi,
> or Orix, so on, but not Kyogin (their first
> name (once again ???) is supposed to be
> Yomiuri)?????
>
> Because the owners of the Japanese baseball teams are so economically
> minded, i.e. have been greedy, too much obsessed with the selfish profit
> seeking of their own.... [snip]
Right, and the original question from Mr. Henmi was: then why only the
baseball team owned by Yomiuri, which is a private company as "selfish" as
any other companies, was called "Giants" instead of just "Yomiuri"?
[cut]
> S: "Same thing may be said of colleges. Whereas
> the reputation of Tokyo U., Keio U. and
> Waseda U. is nationwide, the Osaka/Kansai
> counterparts are usually considered not "much"
> (if not at all) more than good local
> institutions.
>
> T: 'What about Osaka/Kyoto Univs?'
>
> They may not be merely good institutions of Osaka-fu and Kyoto-fu but
> of the broader Kansai-area, or of nishi-nippon at most, if you prefer.
> The reputation of Kyoto U. may be more nation-wide; however, compared to
> it's counterpart, i.e. Tokyo U., it is so but to less extent. I doubt
> Han-dai is "still" any comparable even with some top-lank private colleges
> in Tokyo area in terms of reputation.
You inadvertantly revealed an under-substantiated conception commonly held
among Tokyo residents. It is just meaningless to compare one University
to another as a whole. Osaka/Kyoto U., for example, have their own weak
points and strong points, and so do the University of Tokyo, Waseda, Keio,
etc. For example, partly because of its large size, I know U. of Tokyo
has been suffering in many categories, including, but not limited to,
so-called "productivity per capita." In biomedical science, which I happen
to be familiar with, the most recent results I remember has ranked "local
Universities" like Kobe, Kyushu, Tottori, and Osaka among the top
universities in Japan.
> Are you saying people in Osaka are genarally
> hostile to people in any other prefs? Does
> this include like Hyogo and Kyoto, too??
>
> It's just that they are proud of themselves, being at the center of
> the Kansai area, and of Japan some hundreds years ago. For example, Osaka
> version of Kansai-ben is somehow priviledged in relation to those of the
> neighboring local/inaka prefectures' versions, of Okayama-ken or
> whatsoever save of equally large cities.
I think you are simply wrong here. I came to Osaka when I was 18; I spoke
only Hiroshima dialect at that time (I grew up in Hiroshima). I never
felt, however, Kansai people "looked down on" people like me as an
outsider. It is often the Tokyo people who asks a stupid question like
"Which University did you graduate? XYZ? Hmm... I've never heard of it."
:-( Perhaps, "they" are simply obsessed with the "label" rather than the
"substance" of each University... I don't know...
> I heard there exist bullying
> among kids due to the difference of kansai-ben. Osaka-ben is regarded as
> a language of Tokai-kko over there.
I've never heard of this type of bullying. Also, I don't think Osaka-ben
is regarded as a "language of Tokaikko (city-boys)." It is a pride of
Osaka residents, but not the show of arrogance.
> I've been thinking you are from Kanto area,
> but you sound like you are from Osaka(not any
> other prefs. in Kinki area) and true Hanshin
> fan by reading above 8 lines. Where are you
> from, anyway??
>
> Me? I'm from Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo. From Tenno-heika no
> ohizamotooo.... Heck, I don't give any shit about my lineage or alma
> mater or hometown or nation or race or whatsoever identity but me myself.
> I'm a solid individualist. If the humble localists of Osaka and the rest
> were "antithesis," I would be the synthesis! (Not to mention, I'm much
> more a Kantian than a Hegelian in this respect.) Well, the lack of
> loyalty to hometown may be an very attribute of today's Edokko, though.
I think everyone understands your pride of being "Edokko" as well as an
individualist simultaneously. You could be the first person who
criticized a particular locality on the one hand and claimed that s/he is
a solid individualist on the other.
>My part of the above message is also
> emailed to: Mr. Takuo Henmi (ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au)
Sending to a copy of your reply to my e-mail address is not necessary.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Daisuke Terasawa
Takuo Henmi <ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it mind
>that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would be very
>close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in 'iijyan
>(it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
>'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are they?
>words(?)?? I don't think they can be considered as Hyojun-go.
>I don't intend to start a regional war or anything (the orignal post of this subject wasn't made by me either). So please put a hostile attitude aside and
>simply try to convince me that Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, if you wish.
>
>Takuo Henmi
>
If I give an NHK news script to a Tokyo-ben speaker and ask him to
'translate' it to Tokyo-ben taking into consideration both word usage
and intonation, most likely he will not make any changes to the original
text and tell me that it's already in Tokyo-ben. I don't speak any other
regional dialects so I don't know for sure but I imagine this cannot
be said about Osaka-ben, Hiroshima-ben, or any other dialects.
So if it's too strong a statement to say Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, then it
certainly seems a safe thing to say that Tokyo-ben, (and Tokyo-ben alone
among all Japanese dialects, as far as I know) is a superset of Hyojun-go.
That is to say, Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which never
appear in NHK news, textbooks, or official documents so that no
one knows or cares if they are Hyojun or not.)
just my two cents..
Daisuke Terasawa
Kenji Adzuma
In article <adzuma-2005961514010001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>,
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
> In article <ssaito-1705...@f181-066.net.wisc.edu>,
> ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
>
> > In article <4n6qen$i...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
> > ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo Henmi) wrote:
[cut]
> > T: 'What about Osaka/Kyoto Univs?'
> >
> > They may not be merely good institutions of Osaka-fu and Kyoto-fu but
> > of the broader Kansai-area, or of nishi-nippon at most, if you prefer.
> > The reputation of Kyoto U. may be more nation-wide; however, compared to
> > it's counterpart, i.e. Tokyo U., it is so but to less extent. I doubt
> > Han-dai is "still" any comparable even with some top-lank private colleges
> > in Tokyo area in terms of reputation.
>
> .... In biomedical science, which I happen
> to be familiar with, the most recent results I remember has ranked "local
> Universities" like Kobe, Kyushu, Tottori, and Osaka among the top
> universities in Japan.
Let me just back up my own claim above.
[Ref: "Ranking Japan's life science research" by S. Yamazaki, Jikei
University of School of Medicine: Nature vol.372, 125-126]
Table 2: Rankings of Universities/medical schools
*** No. of papers ***
Rank Name No.
---------------------
1 Osaka 244
2 Kyoto 233
3 Kyushu 226
4 Tokyo 218
5 Tohoku 172
6 Nagoya 138
7 Keio 130
8 Tokyo
Med & Dent. 102
9 Kumamoto 96
10 Kanazawa 91
*** Output of Faculty ***
Rank Name Per head (annual)
-----------------------------------
1 Kyushu 2.42
2 Osaka 1.95
3 Kyoto 1.89
4 Nagoya 1.67
5 Tohoku 1.54
6 Kumamoto 1.36
7 Kobe 1.34
8 Shimane 1.33
9 Keio 1.31
10 Gifu 1.19
.
13 Tokyo 1.14
*** Output of Lab-members (incl. grad students)
Rank Name Per head (annual)
-----------------------------------
1 Kyushu 0.94
2 Shimane 0.75
3 Tohoku 0.66
4 Osaka 0.55
5 Gifu 0.55
6 Gunma 0.53
7 Shinshu 0.50
8 Kyoto 0.50
9 Nagoya 0.47
10 Kyoto pref 0.47
.
14 Tokyo 0.41
---------------------------------------------------
A ceveat of this Tanazaki report is, of course, that the *number* of
papers published is not necessarily equal to the *productivity* per se.
At the same time, however, the common conception that Tokyo U = #1 is
evidently not supported at least by this study.
P.S. I mentioned in the original post that Tottori U. ranked high; I was
wrong. It was Shimane U. Sorry, Shimane/Tottori people, no offense
intended... :-)
--
Kenji Adzuma
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-2005961514010001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu) wrote:
You inadvertantly revealed an under-substantiated
conception commonly held among Tokyo residents. It
is just meaningless to compare one University to
another as a whole. Osaka/Kyoto U., for example,...
Excuse me but who the **** is gonna give any **** about your alleged
TRUE college ranking of Japan? What does practically matter is the
"conception commonly held" among the Japanese people, i.e. those important
persons with whom you live (willy-nilly) and who judge you in terms of
your alma mater, no matter how stupid it is. For there're ranked no
Japanese colleges within the top 50 of world institutions in the first
place, what's the big deal anyway? (see _The Gourman Report: A Rating of
American and International Universities_. "The frog in the well knows
nothing of the great ocean," ha?). Yes, if you want to study Japanese
history, Japanese literature, Japanese what-so-ever, or want to do a
doctor or a lawyer or a public servant in the country, Japanese college
would be a good choice. Also in order to succeed in a big Japanese
company, you may need to be a graduate of a certain well-known college to
join the strongest school clique there. In either case, your sound
critique of the Japanese education system is an irrelevant nonsense to my
post. I do appreciate that it's bull (that's why I'm here) and needs to
be changed. I would sure vote for the reformation. Nonetheless, colleges
just can't be valued by their academic quality proper these days. That's
life.
I think you are simply wrong here. I came to Osaka when
I was 18; I spoke only Hiroshima dialect at that time
(I grew up in Hiroshima). I never felt, however, Kansai
people "looked down on" people like me as an outsider.
It is often the Tokyo people who asks a stupid question
like "Which University did you graduate? XYZ? Hmm...
I've never heard of it." :-( Perhaps, "they" are simply
obsessed with the "label" rather than the "substance" of
each University... I don't know...
What I know about Osaka and the rest is all from some articles and
hearsay. To how much extent your personal experience described above can
be generalized and trustworthy, I don't know. Anyway, you say the people
of Tokyo suck more than those of Osaka, la? However I said Osaka guys are
proud and the rest, I don't really believe in it since my doing so was
just to counterclaim your sayings and I do know it's d*** too simple a
stereotyping. (Not to mention, some of them ARE proud of themselves,
whether more or less than the rest of the Japanese.) And you believe that
the Japanese colleges, at least some of them, have any "substance" so
ever. My ideas about them are not much different from the public
conception (that they are "leisure land" staffs) and their descriptions in
_Shiroi Kyotou_, _Bungakubu Tadano Kyoju_ &c. But I'm afraid that if the
"substance" is of any worth at all, the people should have cared about it
more. Which is to blame, you think? What you call "substance" may be
just not the substance for the rest of the pragmatic Japanese people.
I think everyone understands your pride of being "Edokko"
as well as an individualist simultaneously.
If anyone "mis"understood me like Mr. Azuma, I say it here again,
that I don't give any **** about my being "Edokko." Tokyo may be a good
place or a bad place, who knows?; but it is at least certain that it's non
of my business to be proud of or ashamed of her, so far as I merely used
to be a resident of there.
You could be the first person who criticized a particular
locality on the one hand and claimed that s/he is a solid
individualist on the other.
??? I am opposed to any WICKED versions of localism, which is
inconsistent with my version of individualism. European atheists crticize
a particular religion, viz. Christianity, the most, however they claim any
like faith in the Being is false.
And you must be the 100,000th person to have written "antithesis" on
the Usenet having never read anything about Hegel, must you not?
Sending to a copy of your reply to my e-mail address
is not necessary.
I see.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is NOT
Don Kirkman
.Previously on Usenet, tera...@qualcomm.com (Daisuke Terasawa) wrote:
>Takuo Henmi <ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>Let me ask you one more time. (From my previous post, you also keep it mind
>>that I have stated (admitted) polite/keigo version of Tokyo-ben would be very
>>close to Hyojun-go) what do you consider the words(?) like 'jyan' in 'iijyan
>>(it's OK etc.)' etc. or 'nee' as in 'shiranee (don't know)' etc. or 'omee' as
>>'omae (you)' to be? They are widely used in Tokyo area, but what are they?
>>Hyojun-go? Have you ever heard an NHK news anchorman reads news with those
>>words(?)?? I don't think they can be considered as Hyojun-go.
>>So what are they?Why, it's Tokyo-ben, is it not?
[snip]
>If I give an NHK news script to a Tokyo-ben speaker and ask him to
>'translate' it to Tokyo-ben taking into consideration both word usage
>and intonation, most likely he will not make any changes to the original
>text and tell me that it's already in Tokyo-ben. I don't speak any other
>regional dialects so I don't know for sure but I imagine this cannot
>be said about Osaka-ben, Hiroshima-ben, or any other dialects.
>So if it's too strong a statement to say Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, then it
>certainly seems a safe thing to say that Tokyo-ben, (and Tokyo-ben alone
>among all Japanese dialects, as far as I know) is a superset of Hyojun-go.
>That is to say, Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which never
>appear in NHK news, textbooks, or official documents so that no
>one knows or cares if they are Hyojun or not.)
I came to this thread late, so forgive me if this has already been
discussed. When I was studying Japanese in Tokyo over 30 years ago, our
teachers told us that Hyojun-go was the Tokyo speech of the Yamanote
area, not Asakusa or Nihonbashi or other sections of Tokyo. Is this no
longer considered correct? This would certainly explain why there can
be Tokyo-ben that is different from Hyojun-go, wouldn't it?
---
Don Kirkman
"I know of no rights of race superior to the rights of man"
Frederick Douglass
Reuben Muns
do...@a.crl.com (Don Kirkman) wrote:
>I came to this thread late, so forgive me if this has already been
>discussed. When I was studying Japanese in Tokyo over 30 years ago, our
>teachers told us that Hyojun-go was the Tokyo speech of the Yamanote
>area, not Asakusa or Nihonbashi or other sections of Tokyo. Is this no
>longer considered correct? This would certainly explain why there can
>be Tokyo-ben that is different from Hyojun-go, wouldn't it?
>---
I always thought the language spoken in Yokohama was fairly close
to "pure" hyojun-go.
Reuben
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-2105...@f180-198.net.wisc.edu>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
> In article <adzuma-2005961514010001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
> Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu) wrote:
>
> You inadvertantly revealed an under-substantiated
> conception commonly held among Tokyo residents. It
> is just meaningless to compare one University to
> another as a whole. Osaka/Kyoto U., for example,...
>
> Excuse me but who the **** is gonna give any **** about your alleged
> TRUE college ranking of Japan?
It's not only alleged but also happens to be true. See [Nature vol.372,
125-126]
> What does practically matter is the
> "conception commonly held" among the Japanese people, i.e. those important
> persons with whom you live (willy-nilly) and who judge you in terms of
> your alma mater, no matter how stupid it is.
Once the idea was proven to be factually wrong, the idea no longer matters
in practice, except those who want to believe the wrong idea.
> For there're ranked no
> Japanese colleges within the top 50 of world institutions in the first
> place, what's the big deal anyway? (see _The Gourman Report: A Rating of
> American and International Universities_. "The frog in the well knows
> nothing of the great ocean," ha?).
We weren't talking about the ranking of Japanese universities in the
world. As to "big deal"; I just don't understand what you are saying
here. All I did was to point out the factual errors in your post. If
pointing out others' errors constitutes a "big deal", then what I did
might be called a big deal.
> Yes, if you want to study Japanese
> history, Japanese literature, Japanese what-so-ever, or want to do a
> doctor or a lawyer or a public servant in the country, Japanese college
> would be a good choice. Also in order to succeed in a big Japanese
> company, you may need to be a graduate of a certain well-known college to
> join the strongest school clique there. In either case, your sound
> critique of the Japanese education system is an irrelevant nonsense to my
> post.
Man of straw. I don't recall I criticized Japanese education system in my
post. I simply said what you wrote about Osaka/Kyoto U. was erroneous.
> I do appreciate that it's bull (that's why I'm here) and needs to
> be changed. I would sure vote for the reformation. Nonetheless, colleges
> just can't be valued by their academic quality proper these days. That's
> life.
...whatever.
> I think you are simply wrong here. I came to Osaka when
> I was 18; I spoke only Hiroshima dialect at that time
> (I grew up in Hiroshima). I never felt, however, Kansai
> people "looked down on" people like me as an outsider.
> It is often the Tokyo people who asks a stupid question
> like "Which University did you graduate? XYZ? Hmm...
> I've never heard of it." :-( Perhaps, "they" are simply
> obsessed with the "label" rather than the "substance" of
> each University... I don't know...
>
> What I know about Osaka and the rest is all from some articles and
> hearsay. To how much extent your personal experience described above can
> be generalized and trustworthy, I don't know.
This is easy. It can't be generalized. Its efficacy was that your
comment "Osaka people are..., Osaka people ..." is not substantiated by my
experience.
> Anyway, you say the people
> of Tokyo suck more than those of Osaka, la?
To me, yes. For example, you sound very arrogant, snobbish, and stupid to
me, thus enforcing my belief that "Tokyo people suck more than Osaka
people." :-) Needless to say, Hiroshima people are the best in Japan...
to me, of course.
> However I said Osaka guys are
> proud and the rest, I don't really believe in it since my doing so was
> just to counterclaim your sayings and I do know it's d*** too simple a
> stereotyping. (Not to mention, some of them ARE proud of themselves,
> whether more or less than the rest of the Japanese.)
So you retract your prev remark about Osaka locals, good.
> And you believe that
> the Japanese colleges, at least some of them, have any "substance" so
> ever.
It is hard to prove there is NO substance at all.
> My ideas about them are not much different from the public
> conception (that they are "leisure land" staffs) and their descriptions in
> _Shiroi Kyotou_, _Bungakubu Tadano Kyoju_ &c. But I'm afraid that if the
> "substance" is of any worth at all, the people should have cared about it
> more. Which is to blame, you think? What you call "substance" may be
> just not the substance for the rest of the pragmatic Japanese people.
I wasn't discussing about the education system.
> I think everyone understands your pride of being "Edokko"
> as well as an individualist simultaneously.
>
> If anyone "mis"understood me like Mr. Azuma, I say it here again,
> that I don't give any **** about my being "Edokko." Tokyo may be a good
> place or a bad place, who knows?; but it is at least certain that it's non
> of my business to be proud of or ashamed of her, so far as I merely used
> to be a resident of there.
Because you self-claimed you are an "Edokko", I thought you were giving
some feces to being "Edokko." Sorry.
> You could be the first person who criticized a particular
> locality on the one hand and claimed that s/he is a solid
> individualist on the other.
>
> ??? I am opposed to any WICKED versions of localism, which is
> inconsistent with my version of individualism. European atheists crticize
> a particular religion, viz. Christianity, the most, however they claim any
> like faith in the Being is false.
Not sure about this, but I know that the faith in the Being wasn't
necessarily what I had in my mind when I wrote something about Hanshin
Tigers and universities in Kansai area.
> And you must be the 100,000th person to have written "antithesis" on
> the Usenet having never read anything about Hegel, must you not?
I read, but very little. But the word "antithesis", I thought, is a
concept generic enough to be understood; i.e., I thought [Tokyo = center,
Kansai = rebel or antithesis] is one good way of looking at this rivalry.
But of course if the careless use of this technical word somehow offended
your professional pride, then I humbly apologize.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Kenji Adzuma
In article <4nrf2q$n...@buffalo.qualcomm.com>, tera...@qualcomm.com
(Daisuke Terasawa) wrote:
> If I give an NHK news script to a Tokyo-ben speaker and ask him to
> 'translate' it to Tokyo-ben taking into consideration both word usage
> and intonation, most likely he will not make any changes to the original
> text and tell me that it's already in Tokyo-ben. I don't speak any other
> regional dialects so I don't know for sure but I imagine this cannot
> be said about Osaka-ben, Hiroshima-ben, or any other dialects.
>
> So if it's too strong a statement to say Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, then it
> certainly seems a safe thing to say that Tokyo-ben, (and Tokyo-ben alone
> among all Japanese dialects, as far as I know) is a superset of Hyojun-go.
> That is to say, Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which never
> appear in NHK news, textbooks, or official documents so that no
> one knows or cares if they are Hyojun or not.)
I don't believe the Hyojun-go ("stanbdard" Japanese) exists. -- What NHK
people are uttering is a version of Tokyo-ben, i.e., just one of the local
dialects. It now claims itself as "standard" Japanese for the reason not
quite obvious to non-Tokyo residents.
Case to the point: at a scientific meeting held in Tokyo, I was pointing
at the graph and said:
"This [peke] indicates the value of ..." (note: [peke] = x, a cross).
After the talk, a Tokyo-U guy (hey you, Takagi, I'm talking about you)
came up to me and said:
"That is not [peke], it is called [batsu] in *Hyojun-go*." and laughed.
I was deeply offended (to the extent that I still remeber this incident 20
year later :-)). What an ushi-kuso! It may be called [batsu] in Tokyo &
some other areas, but called [peke] in Osaka. What's wrong with it?
A common denominator of all these debating points is this: Why should
anything related to Tokyo be considered to be "standard", "nation-wide",
etc, while most of them are technically just LOCAL to Tokyo-area?
Why should (a version of) the Tokyo-ben be called "standard" Japanese?
Why should only the Tokyo Yomiuri Giants be called "Kyojin (= Giants)"
instead of just "Tokyo" (locality name) or "Yomiuri" (comapany name)?
Why do many Tokyo residents believe, quite wrongly, that academic
institutions in Kansai (especially Osaka area) area are not up to the
level of Tokyo counter-parts?
etc, etc.
Finally, why do many Tokyo residents believe that their local belief or
misconception is nation-wide?
--
Kenji Adzuma
Takuo Henmi
tera...@qualcomm.com (Daisuke Terasawa) writes:
>So if it's too strong a statement to say Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, then it
>certainly seems a safe thing to say that Tokyo-ben, (and Tokyo-ben alone
>among all Japanese dialects, as far as I know) is a superset of Hyojun-go.
>That is to say, Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which never
>appear in NHK news, textbooks, or official documents so that no
>one knows or cares if they are Hyojun or not.)
>
>Daisuke Terasawa
An opinion I received from Mr Saito, that is;
Japanese Hyojun-go is created after the model of Tokyo-ben of some
decades ago, not of today.
naturally leads to a couple of questions.
When and who created the Hyojun-go? How was it like before the creation of the Hyojun-go?
Mr. Terasawa states that
Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which
never appear in NHK news....)
Both are basically saying that
let P be the set of the language defined as "Tokyo-ben",
let Q be the set of the language defined as "Hyojun-go", and
let R be the set of the language which is not in Q but in P
(such as slang etc.).
then the relationship is expressed as, with a help of the venn diagram;
* * P* *
* *
* * Q * *
* * * R *
* * * *
* *
**************
(Sorry for a terrible diagram).
If the above statement is correct, one big question occurs.
Is a person speaking Hyojun-go actually speaking Tokyo-ben? Then why is it
that we can't tell where a person is from by listening to him/her speaking
Hyojun-go, but we can tell that a person is from the Tokyo area by having a
simple everyday conversation? Confused?
Think of this way---
Original statement: I live in Osaka and I speak Hyojun-go;
Hyojun-go is a subset of Tokyo-ben and
Tokyo-ben is used by people who live in the Tokyo area
Therefore I live around Tokyo.
It's clearly a false statement, but why? The contradiction came from the
assumption that Hyojun-go is a subset of Tokyo-ben. Historically, it may be
true (I can't prove otherwise) that the model of Hyojun-go is Tokyo-ben.
But we can't make Hyojun-go as a subset of Tokyo-ben (otherwise above
contradiction will occur).
So my original statement:
"People who live in Tokyo speaks Tokyo-ben not Hyojun-go,
and Tokyo-ben is a kind of dialect."
seems to be true.
Takuo Henmi
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-2105962237160001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.eduwrote):
As to "big deal"; I just don't understand what
you are saying here. All I did was to point out the factual
errors in your post. If pointing out others' errors constitutes
a "big deal", then what I did might be called a big deal....
Totally off the point. My post was not to argue about what you
alledge "the fact" about Osaka/Kyoto U. but the very public evaluation of
them among the ordinary Japanese people, erroneous or not according to
your book. Tokyo-ben was the model after which the Japanese national
standad language was formed 100 years ago or so; thus today's hyojun-go
inevitably resembles Tokyo-ben (if not identical any longer) than no other
dialects. Then I wildly analogized it to the other staffs such as
baseball and colleges. That celebrated schools in Tokyo area are so at
more national level (in a conventional sense) than those of the other
places and the like because Japan is a state of centralism. I have NEVER
contended that Tokyo-ben, Tokyo Giants and Tokyo U are better
qualitatively or whatever than the local/inaka counterparts. Say, Lions
may be a stronger baseball team than Giants, for the over-all ability of
the individual players is better. Nonetheless, the number of Giants fans
far surpasses that of Lions in the country at large; i.e. its popularity
is more nationwide. The status of Giants players has been somewhat
unfairly priviledged than that of the other teams. Ask this question to
the high school baseball players of prefectures without their local teams:
"Which team do you want to join?" I bet, at least until some ten years
ago, a good many should have answered "Giants," whether the team was rich
and strong then or not, but because Giants was so nationally popular.
Needless to say, Hiroshima people are the best in Japan...
to me, of course.
And what do YOU as an individual have anything to do with the
integrity of your right honorable Hiroshima-ken at all? The respectable
people of Hiroshima are statistically the best according to your indexes.
So what?
I wasn't discussing about the education system.
It was you who first mentioned "the facts" about Japanese colleges.
Again, your "facts" are completely irrelevant as a counter-exidence to my
post. I don't want to talk about it either anyway. Already sick of the
standard craps that Japanese education system is bad because such and
such. Start a new thread if you want to discuss it.
Not sure about this, but I know that the faith in
the Being wasn't necessarily what I had in my mind
when I wrote something about Hanshin Tigers and
universities in Kansai area.
??? Localism is a faith in the pride of your hometown, not the
Being, of course. Wherever the hometown is, I am opposed to any wicked
version of localism which creates nothing but hostility among the
localists of different places (e.g. one which makes one to cry "Tokyo
'stupid' Giants" and starts a flame on the net).
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <4nuobm$k...@styx.uwa.edu.au>
Takuo Henmi (ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
let P be the set of the language defined as "Tokyo-ben",
let Q be the set of the language defined as "Hyojun-go", and
let R be the set of the language which is not in Q but in P
(such as slang etc.).
then the relationship is expressed as, with a help of the venn
diagram:
* * P* *
* *
* * Q * *
* * * R *
* * * *
* *
**************
If the above statement is correct, one big question occurs.
Is a person speaking Hyojun-go actually speaking Tokyo-ben?
Then why is it that we can't tell where a person is from by
listening to him/her speaking Hyojun-go, but we can tell that
a person is from the Tokyo area by having a simple everyday
conversation? Confused?
Think of this way---
1) Original statement: I live in Osaka and I speak Hyojun-go;
2) Hyojun-go is a subset of Tokyo-ben and
3) Tokyo-ben is used by people who live in the Tokyo area
4) Therefore I live around Tokyo.
It's clearly a false statement, but why? The contradiction
came from the assumption that Hyojun-go is a subset of Tokyo-ben.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above demonstration by Mr. Henmi is invalid not because the
proposition 2 is false but 4, whether 2 were true or not in reality.
Think this way:
2') Some elements of Tokyo-ben constitute hyojun-go (i.e. set Q).
And 3 does not follow 4 because:
3') Hyojun-go (i.e. Q) is used by people who live in the Tokyo
area as well as in the other part of Japan. Tokyo-ben which
is not a part of hyojungo (i.e. R) is used only by people who
live in the Tokyo area.
4') If you speak Q but R; then you are not a Tokyo resident.
If you speak Q and R (viz. P); then you are a Tokyo resident.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takuo Henmi (ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
So my original statement: "People who live in Tokyo speaks
Tokyo-ben not Hyojun-go, and Tokyo-ben is a kind of dialect."
seems to be true.
Tokyo residents speak Q & R, whereas the residents of the other part
of Japan speak Q, Q' (the counterpart of Q in their local dialect) and R'
(the counterpart of R in their local dialect). The good old Q' for the
tokyo residents is so contaminated by Q as to be little independent from Q
anymore.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is also
Daisuke Terasawa
In article <4nuobm$k...@styx.uwa.edu.au>,
Takuo Henmi <ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>tera...@qualcomm.com (Daisuke Terasawa) writes:
>
>
>>So if it's too strong a statement to say Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go, then it
>>certainly seems a safe thing to say that Tokyo-ben, (and Tokyo-ben alone
>>among all Japanese dialects, as far as I know) is a superset of Hyojun-go.
>>That is to say, Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which never
>>appear in NHK news, textbooks, or official documents so that no
>>one knows or cares if they are Hyojun or not.)
>>
>
>>Daisuke Terasawa
>
>
>
> Tokyo-ben = Hyojun-go + (colloquial usages which
> never appear in NHK news....)
>
>
> Is a person speaking Hyojun-go actually speaking Tokyo-ben? Then why is it
>that we can't tell where a person is from by listening to him/her speaking
>Hyojun-go, but we can tell that a person is from the Tokyo area by having a
>simple everyday conversation? Confused?
>
>Think of this way---
>
>
>It's clearly a false statement, but why? The contradiction came from the
>true (I can't prove otherwise) that the model of Hyojun-go is Tokyo-ben.
>But we can't make Hyojun-go as a subset of Tokyo-ben (otherwise above
>contradiction will occur).
>
I don't know exactly what you are confused about since I don't
seem to be able follow your reasoning in either of your two examples
above, but I do get the feeling that you are reading too much into
what I said about Tokyo-ben being a superset of Hyojun-go. All I
meant was this: a Tokyo-ben speaker is naturally a Hyojun-go speaker, but
a Hyojun-go speaker is not necessarily a Tokyo-ben speaker. I did not
say anything about where the speakers live. *Of course*, Tokyo-ben is
spoken around Tokyo and Hyojun-go all around the nation.
>So my original statement:
>"People who live in Tokyo speaks Tokyo-ben not Hyojun-go,
> and Tokyo-ben is a kind of dialect."
>seems to be true.
I think it's too strong a statement to say that people who live in Tokyo
(by this I assume you mean people who speak what's spoken in the Tokyo
region, regardless of where they live) do not speak Hyojun-go, because,
well, they do. It's just that that's not all they speak. Hyojun-go by
itself is not a complete language, for it lacks, for example, phrases and
expressions that are too colloquial or too vulgar to make it into NHK
news or whatever other media that is supposed to use Hyojun-go. So
Tokyo-ites speak Hyojun-go, but what they speak is not limited to Hyojun-go;
no one can just speak Hyojun-go and express everything they want
all of the time .
So while it may not be fully accurate to say that Hyojun-go
is spoken in Tokyo, I don't think it's incorrect either.
Daisuke Terasawa
Scott Reynolds
>When I was studying Japanese in Tokyo over 30 years ago, our
>teachers told us that Hyojun-go was the Tokyo speech of the Yamanote
>area, not Asakusa or Nihonbashi or other sections of Tokyo. Is this no
>longer considered correct? This would certainly explain why there can
>be Tokyo-ben that is different from Hyojun-go, wouldn't it?
You are correct. Shitamachi dialect is not Hyojun-go. Just ask anyone
from Shitamachi. They will tell you that Shitamachi dialect (or
should that be "Hitamachi dialect"? -- I'm a little confused) is not
Hyojun-go, that it is *better* than Hyojun-go, that Shitamachi is the
best part of Tokyo, that Japan is the best country in the world, etc.,
etc.
Shitamachi people are not known for their modesty.
__________________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@tezcat.com
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-2205...@f181-068.net.wisc.edu>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
> **
> *
> In article <adzuma-2105962237160001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
> Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.eduwrote):
>
> As to "big deal"; I just don't understand what
> you are saying here. All I did was to point out the factual
> errors in your post. If pointing out others' errors constitutes
> a "big deal", then what I did might be called a big deal....
>
> Totally off the point. My post was not to argue about what you
> alledge "the fact" about Osaka/Kyoto U. but the very public evaluation of
> them among the ordinary Japanese people, erroneous or not according to
> your book.
OK. fine, I was off the point. But your sarcastic use of "alleged.. etc"
is really uncalled for, as I provided a reference for it so that you can
check it in the library.
I didn't really read the rest, but you must be right.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Takuo Henmi
OK. My logic with the sets was false. I realized it, and also my colleague
pointed out, right after I posted the article, but I left it as it was because I was curious to hear the argument about the statement anyway.
------------------------------
Mr. Terasawa's statement:
a Tokyo-ben speaker is naturally a Hyojun-go speaker, but a Hyojun-go
speaker is not necessarily a Tokyo-ben speaker.
...
I think it's too strong a statement to say that people who live in
Tokyo do not speak Hyojun-go, because,well, they do.
It's just that that's not all they speak.
...
So Tokyo-ites speak Hyojun-go, but what they speak is not limited to
Hyojun-go;
no one can just speak Hyojun-go and express everything they want
all of the time .
Mr. Saito's statement:
Tokyo residents speak Q [hyojun-go] & R [slang etc. around the
Tokyo area], whereas the residents of the other part of Japan speak Q,
Q' (the counterpart of Q in their local dialect) and R' (the counterpart of R in their local dialect). The good old Q' for the
tokyo residents is so contaminated by Q as to be little independent
from Q
anymore.
Let me summarize what both are saying one more time;
let t, k, h be Tokyo-ben, Kansai-ben, Hiroshima-ben (just for an example)
respectively, and
P, Q, R be regional dialect (i.e. P(t) > Tokyo-ben), standard for the region,
and slang, dialectal words etc respectively, then
P(t) = Q(t) + R(t)
P(k) = Q(k) + R(k)
P(h) =Q(h) + R(h)
and Q(t) is very close to what we now call Hyojun-go (say Q), right?
I'm not trying to prove anything here. I guess the statement I said
"my original statement" in the last post (i.e. "People who live in Tokyo speaks Tokyo-ben not Hyojun-go, and Tokyo-ben is a kind of dialect") is really not what I meant originally. I think I said something like " a lot of people
(especially those who live in Tokyo) think Tokyo-ben is THE standard Japanese. That's not true... " and also "Tokyo-ben is a kind of dialect".
It is irrefutable that Tokyo-ben is a regional dialect (you can generally tell
one's from Tokyo area by just speaking with him or her).
And as for Tokyo-ben being not THE standard Japanese is also obvious by looking at above (sort of) equations.
It's quite unnecessary to add, but above equations weren't derived from me, but based on the opinions of Mr. Terasawa and Mr. Saito.
This whole standard Japanese and Tokyo-ben business started in me because
I have heard (not to me, I'm proud of my Kansai-ben) so many remarks like
Tokyo-jin saying to not Tokyo-jin "Hyojun-go mo shinnai no, baka jyanee?
(you don't even know Hyojun-go, are you an idiot?)" whereas I can't possibly
think they're speaking Hyojun-go (but speaking Tokyo-ben or something).
By the way, Regarding to Mr. Saito's statement:
Say, Lions may be a stronger baseball team than Giants, for the
over-all ability of
the individual players is better. Nonetheless, the number of Giants fans
far surpasses that of Lions in the country at large; i.e. its popularity
is more nationwide.
As far as Giants been the most popular baseball team in Japan (even though I've been a swallows fan of 10 years or so), it is due to the facts that:
1) They are in the Central League (the trend is gradually changing, but still
the Ce-League is far more popular than the Pa-League),
2) The baseball games broadcasted in local/inaka areas are mostly Giants VS
some other teams. Therefore the Giants are more familiar than any other teams
for those local people who are not necessary Giants fans. Also, comics were
more likely to feature characters who play for the Giants (if not a fictional
team) as opposed to any other baseball team (e.g. Kyojin-no hoshi,
Samurai Giants, Little Kyojin-kun, etc.). (note: this broadcasting thing
was true at least like 10-15 years ago, I don't know nowadays), and
3) Giants were once known as "invincible" as their V9 records show as well as
it was the team of *super stars* such as Oh or Nagashima.
If above things happened to some other team, say Tigers, I'd say there is a
great chance that the Tigers would be the most popular team in Japan even though they are in Osaka (Nishinomiya!! to be exact, as far as stadium-wise).
Takuo
Reuben Muns
tera...@qualcomm.com (Daisuke Terasawa) wrote:
>... *Of course*, Tokyo-ben is
>spoken around Tokyo and Hyojun-go all around the nation.
That may be true today, but I know from experience that this was
not 100% true in the past.
In 1964 I had the odd experience of talking to a waitress in
Osaka through an interpreter. The odd part was that she spoke
only Kansai-ben and I spoke only Kanto-ben. The interpreter was a
"bilingual" native of Osaka.
In 1970 I was working for several weeks in Kanazawa. One weekend
an older citizen of that city required several minutes to tell me
that the koi in Kenroku-en had survived a winter in which their
pond had frozen. Here again the problem was primarily dialectual.
Reuben
Kenji Adzuma
In article <4o1h0d$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, rm...@primenet.com
(Reuben Muns) wrote:
Tohoku-ben is also extrememly difficult to understand. If someone spoke
authentic Tohoku-ben to me, I probably wouldn't be able to understand it
at all. At least this was my experience when I traveled to Iwate-ken,
Akka-village in 1980 (?). Kyushu-ben is, to me, slightly easier.
The difficulty of understanding local dialects is not just because of
different intonation. It involves different words (often verbs).
For example in Hiroshima, people say "tau" to mean "todoku" (= reach). I
didn't know this "tau" is just a local dialect until I came to Osaka.
I think that people should respect local dialects.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-2105962237160001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.eduwrote):
As to "big deal"; I just don't understand what
you are saying here. All I did was to point out the factual
errors in your post. If pointing out others' errors constitutes
a "big deal", then what I did might be called a big deal....
Totally off the point. My post was not to argue about what you
alledge "the fact" about Osaka/Kyoto U. but the very public evaluation of
them among the ordinary Japanese people, erroneous or not according to
your book. Tokyo-ben was the model after which the Japanese national
standad language was formed 100 years ago or so; thus today's hyojun-go
inevitably resembles Tokyo-ben (if not identical any longer) than no other
dialects. Then I wildly analogized it to the other staffs such as
baseball and colleges. That celebrated schools in Tokyo area are so at
more national level (in a conventional sense) than those of the other
places and the like because Japan is a state of centralism. I have NEVER
contended that Tokyo-ben, Tokyo Giants and Tokyo U are better
qualitatively or whatever than the local/inaka counterparts. Say, Lions
may be a stronger baseball team than Giants, for the over-all ability of
the individual players is better. Nonetheless, the number of Giants fans
far surpasses that of Lions in the country at large; i.e. its popularity
is more nationwide. The status of Giants players has been somewhat
unfairly priviledged than that of the other teams. Ask this question to
the high school baseball players of prefectures without their local teams:
"Which team do you want to join?" I bet, at least until some ten years
ago, a good many should have answered "Giants," whether the team was rich
and strong then or not, but because Giants was so nationally popular.
Needless to say, Hiroshima people are the best in Japan...
to me, of course.
And what do YOU as an individual have anything to do with the
integrity of your right honorable Hiroshima-ken at all? The respectable
people of Hiroshima are statistically the best according to your indexes.
So what?
I wasn't discussing about the education system.
It was you who first mentioned "the facts" about Japanese colleges.
Again, your "facts" are completely irrelevant as a counter-exidence to my
post. I don't want to talk about it either anyway. Already sick of the
standard craps that Japanese education system is bad because such and
such. Start a new thread if you want to discuss it.
Not sure about this, but I know that the faith in
the Being wasn't necessarily what I had in my mind
when I wrote something about Hanshin Tigers and
universities in Kansai area.
??? Localism is a faith in the pride of your hometown, not the
Being, of course. Wherever the hometown is, I am opposed to any wicked
version of localism which creates nothing but hostility among the
localists of different places (e.g. one which makes one to cry "Tokyo
'stupid' Giants" and starts a flame on the net).
_________________________________________________________________
Kenji Adzuma
In article <4nuobm$k...@styx.uwa.edu.au>, ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Takuo
Henmi) wrote:
[snip]
> Both are basically saying that
>
> let P be the set of the language defined as "Tokyo-ben",
> let Q be the set of the language defined as "Hyojun-go", and
> let R be the set of the language which is not in Q but in P
> (such as slang etc.).
>
> then the relationship is expressed as, with a help of the venn diagram;
>
> * * P* *
> * *
> * * Q * *
> * * * R *
> * * * *
> * *
>
**************
>
> (Sorry for a terrible diagram).
>
>
> If the above statement is correct, one big question occurs.
> Is a person speaking Hyojun-go actually speaking Tokyo-ben? Then why is it
> that we can't tell where a person is from by listening to him/her speaking
> Hyojun-go, but we can tell that a person is from the Tokyo area by having a
> simple everyday conversation? Confused?
>
> Think of this way---
>
> Original statement: I live in Osaka and I speak Hyojun-go;
> Hyojun-go is a subset of Tokyo-ben and
> Tokyo-ben is used by people who live in the Tokyo area
> Therefore I live around Tokyo.
>
> It's clearly a false statement, but why?
Because...
while Tokyo-ben (P) is used exclusively by Tokyo-residents,
a subset of Tokyo-ben (Q) is used by non-Tokyo-residents
as well as by Tokyo-residents.
To conclude someone being a Tokyo-resident just because that person speaks
(Q), would be a fallacy of affirming the consequent; i.e., a
Tokyo-resident speaks (Q) but the reverse is not always the case.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Reuben Muns
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
>The difficulty of understanding local dialects is not just because of
>different intonation. It involves different words (often verbs).
>For example in Hiroshima, people say "tau" to mean "todoku" (= reach). I
>didn't know this "tau" is just a local dialect until I came to Osaka.
>I think that people should respect local dialects.
Sometimes the differences become *really* confusing. First time I
visited Tsukuba university I was startled when the proprietress
of a local restaurant asked me if I was "kowai". In Tokyo, that
would mean "frightened". In Tsuchiura (if I remember the name of
the town correctly) it means "tired".
Reuben
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <4o1bqk$o...@styx.uwa.edu.au>
Mr. Takuo Henmi (ta...@psy.uwa.edu.au wrote):
Let me summarize what both are saying one more time;
let t, k, h be Tokyo-ben, Kansai-ben, Hiroshima-ben
(just for an example) respectively, and P, Q, R be
regional dialect (i.e. P(t) > Tokyo-ben), standard
for the region, and slang, dialectal words etc
respectively, then
P(t) = Q(t) + R(t)
P(k) = Q(k) + R(k)
P(h) = Q(h) + R(h)
and Q(t) is very close to what we now call Hyojun-go
(say Q), right?
That's right.
It is irrefutable that Tokyo-ben is a regional dialect
(you can generally tell one's from Tokyo area by just
speaking with him or her).
Singapore, a successful example of multinational state in Asia,
adopts two official languages (i.e. hyojun-gos): English (the so-called
Singlish) and Singaporean. While the former hyojun-go is of no ethnics'
language in the country, the latter is "also" the regional dialect of, or
rather the native tongue of, Singaporean-Singaporeans, the majority ethnic
there. Tokyo-ben for Japan is, in my book, like Singaporean for
Singapore.
And as for Tokyo-ben being not THE standard Japanese
is also obvious by looking at above (sort of) equations.
It's quite unnecessary to add, but above equations
weren't derived from me, but based on the opinions
of Mr. Terasawa and Mr. Saito.
Be precise, sir. Some, if not all, parts of Tokyo-ben constitute a
great deal of hyojun-go elements, while the other bens do not. This is a
fact, and whether based on it you can say the above statement is another
question of language. I think it is fair to say that Tokyo-ben is the
standard language of Japan based on the fact. For it is "more or less" so
because the Japanese hyojun-go is not like English for Singapore and no
other dialects resemle hyojungo than Tokyo-ben. But it's not really a
big deal for me. I have never felt that I am speaking Tokyo-ben but
Hyojun-go, not from any arrogance but the reality that so many people
speak the dialect. Tokyo residents have much less chance to see that
their dialect is different from some of the others, whereas you may soon
have realized it when you watched TV news or read textbook the first
time. It is in a sense a sad thing that we lack (save the good old
Torasan-like-folks in Asakusa and Kanda area) inaka kotoba by which one
can appreciate the fellow feeling with persons from the same province.
(Say, if you find a man who speak Osaka-ben in Tokyo, you think he is "on
your side," don't you? The less widely your hogen is spoken, the greater
the sense of community be.) If anybody speak Osaka-ben, the dialect will
be no big deal for Naniwakko any longer, I guess.
This whole standard Japanese and Tokyo-ben business
started in me because I have heard (not to me, I'm
proud of my Kansai-ben) so many remarks like Tokyo-jin
saying to not Tokyo-jin "Hyojun-go mo shinnai no, baka
jyanee? (you don't even know Hyojun-go, are you an
idiot?)" whereas I can't possibly think they're speaking
Hyojun-go (but speaking Tokyo-ben or something).
I have never made such a stupid remark. Some idiots may do. So do
little brats. One can speak only zu-zu-ben but also perfect Boston
accented/Queen's English. Or the other way around (e.g. Tokyo-ben +
Southern provincial English). What can you say about him?
As far as Giants been the most popular baseball team
in Japan (even though I've been a swallows fan of 10
years or so), it is due to the facts that:
1) They are in the Central League (the trend is gradually
changing, but still the Ce-League is far more popular
than the Pa-League),
2) The baseball games broadcasted in local/inaka areas
are mostly Giants VS some other teams. Therefore the
Giants are more familiar than any other teams for
those local people who are not necessary Giants fans.
Also, comics were more likely to feature characters
who play for the Giants (if not a fictional team) as
opposed to any other baseball team (e.g. Kyojin-no hoshi,
Samurai Giants, Little Kyojin-kun, etc.). (note: this
broadcasting thing was true at least like 10-15 years ago,
I don't know nowadays), and
3) Giants were once known as "invincible" as their V9 records
show as well as it was the team of *super stars* such as
Oh or Nagashima.
If above things happened to some other team, say Tigers,
I'd say there is a great chance that the Tigers would be
the most popular team in Japan even though they are in
Osaka (Nishinomiya!! to be exact, as far as stadium-wise).
You may wonder why the above staffs are the case only for Giants.
Whatever the reasons why Giants is the most popular baseball team in Japan
might be, I suppose it's being Tokyo based have something to to with the
reasons, or the other way round (i.e. if the above staffs happened to
Tigers, it might have been "Tokyo" Tigers). I think the big reason why
Giants has been so popular is due to the factor 2 of yours, which is
further due to the fact that the team is owned by Yomiuri shinbun-sha.
Also since there's a bunch of colleges in Tokyo, those who jokyo-ed from
local prefectures without their local teams to study there tend to become
Giants fans while satying there, IMHO.
BTW I myself is anti-Kyojin. I don't really have a favorite baseball
team but favorite players in various teams. But as for NBA, I do have a
favorite: Indiana Pacers (not Milwaukee Bucks =).
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is
Yasushi OHYAMA
In article <4o2sul$f...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
rm...@primenet.com says...
>Sometimes the differences become *really* confusing. First time I
>visited Tsukuba university I was startled when the proprietress
>of a local restaurant asked me if I was "kowai". In Tokyo, that
>would mean "frightened". In Tsuchiura (if I remember the name of
>the town correctly) it means "tired".
That's interesting.Tsuchiura is so far from Hokkaido where I live,
the nothern island of Japan and it's quite nearer to Tokyo than us.
We also use "kowai" in meaning of "tired" in general.
I've never known there's a else region where people use
the word like us.
Y.Ohyama
Kenji Adzuma
Why are you posting this twice? I've already answered it. But I can try
one more time.
In article <ssaito-2305...@144.92.184.95>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
> In article <adzuma-2105962237160001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
> Kenji Adzuma (adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.eduwrote):
>
> As to "big deal"; I just don't understand what
> you are saying here. All I did was to point out the factual
> errors in your post. If pointing out others' errors constitutes
> a "big deal", then what I did might be called a big deal....
>
> Totally off the point. My post was not to argue about what you
> alledge "the fact" about Osaka/Kyoto U.
Facts themselves can't be alleged; their truthness may be. But anycase I
don't understand why you keep using the word "allege", since I've already
posted the reference for you three times in the past:
[Ref: "Ranking Japan's life science research" by S. Yamazaki,
Jikei University of School of Medicine: Nature vol.372, 125-126].
> but the very public evaluation of
> them among the ordinary Japanese people,
Care to provide some reference for "the very public evaluation of them
[Osaka/Kyoto U] among the ordinary Japanese people", if any? I normally
do not ask for such a silly thing; but since you keep saying I'm merely
alleging, despite the fact that I gave you a reference, I feel compelled
to request some reference this time from *your* side.
> erroneous or not according to your book.
erroneous. Also, "Nature" is not a book; it is a well-known scientific
journal based in London.
> ... I have NEVER
> contended that Tokyo-ben, Tokyo Giants and Tokyo U are better
> qualitatively or whatever than the local/inaka counterparts.
But you said:
"I doubt Han-dai is "still" any comparable even with some top-lank
private colleges in Tokyo area in terms of reputation."
I understood that, by using the phrase "in terms of reputation", your
intent was to infer that the above is just a general perception, not the
fact. Yet what you intended to infer is not really relevant; what people
understand from your writing is what is relevant.
From the statement above, people unfamiliar with Japanese academia will
think, quite wrongly, that Osaka U. does not have much reputation.
Therefore the misleading statement had to be corrected.
Now, listen, Mr. Saito. You are obviously not a dull person. But I
really hope that you develop a mental maturity to admit your own mistakes
or slip of the tongue. It is unfortunate that, at this moment, your
strong ego is preventing you from doing so.
It is simply cowardly for you to say "I was just talking about
*general* perception, not my own contention" only after your statement was
proven to be quite mis-leading to say the least.
> Needless to say, Hiroshima people are the best in Japan...
> to me, of course.
>
> And what do YOU as an individual have anything to do with the
> integrity of your right honorable Hiroshima-ken at all? The respectable
> people of Hiroshima are statistically the best according to your indexes.
> So what?
My statement you quoted above was a joke. I should have put a smiley.
> I wasn't discussing about the education system.
>
> It was you who first mentioned "the facts" about Japanese colleges.
Right. I was about the life-science research of Japanese medical schools;
not about the *education* system.
> Again, your "facts" are completely irrelevant as a counter-exidence to my
> post. I don't want to talk about it either anyway. Already sick of the
> standard craps that Japanese education system is bad because such and
> such.
I wasn't discussing about the education system.
> Not sure about this, but I know that the faith in
> the Being wasn't necessarily what I had in my mind
> when I wrote something about Hanshin Tigers and
> universities in Kansai area.
>
> ??? Localism is a faith in the pride of your hometown, not the
> Being, of course.
My statement above was a sarcasm, making a little fun of the observation
that you are a kind of individual who just can't hide your knowledge and
intelligence in front of others, a typical net-character.
> Wherever the hometown is, I am opposed to any wicked
> version of localism which creates nothing but hostility among the
> localists of different places (e.g. one which makes one to cry "Tokyo
> 'stupid' Giants" and starts a flame on the net).
I didn't know my use of "stupid Tokyo Giants" could cause such anguish on
an anti-localism person like you. Sorry, it was obviously a joke. But I
still believe Yomiuri Giants are bunch of stupid ass-holes, just because
they are in Tokyo. Hope you don't mind.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Satomi Kobayashi
My husband from Hyogo-pref answerd my question why Kansai people say
Tokyo people don't speak standard Japanese but they speak Tokyo dialect.
He said the idea is from Yoshimoto TV show. Kansai people seem to be
influenced by Yoshimoto TV very much. That makes sense.
As I don't use 'jyan' or 'shiranee', I feel uneasy
when I'm told my Japanese is Tokyo dialect, represented by
impolite expression or children's words.
In Kanto erea some people say my Japanese has Ibaraki or Chiba accent,
and I agree with it because I grew up in Ibaraki-pref.
I think a lot of Tokyo people come from a lot of rural erea
and (try to) speak standard Japanese in business.
Some children say 'jyan' or 'shiranee', but working grown-ups don't.
In business standard Japanese shows respectful attitude toward others.
But Kansai people use Kansai dialect in business.
I think there seems to be culturel diffrences in the idea of dialects.
And from my working experence I could meet some Kansai people who use
standard Japanese and they are even proud of it.
Clearly they said,
"Watashi wa itsumo Hyojun go wo hanashi te imasu."
So probably they know what is the standard Japanese,and why it's widely
spoken in Tokyo...
Satomi Kobayashi
John Lawrence
In my experience, usage of the language is directly related
to the "class" of company one is dealing with. When I was
working in Osaka, my co-workers would invariably use Kansai-ben,
but they would change to standard (read: Tokyo) Japanese and keigo
when talking to a customer. This was the pattern with very few
exceptions.
Naturally, at night, these same people who spoke to each other
so formally during the day would convert to Kansai-ben when they
would go out. It's a real case-by-case call.
I've heard businessmen speak beautiful keigo, and I've heard
them talk like they're at a Hanshin Tigers baseball game in
Koshien.
Regards,
John Lawrence
John Lawrence
grown rathole with an attitude to match. We don't need to go
overboard quoting ancient scholars to prove this. Anyone who's
been there will know ... Tokyo has no reason to live.
Case closed.
--
John
Scott Reynolds
> In my experience, usage of the language is directly related
>to the "class" of company one is dealing with. When I was
>working in Osaka, my co-workers would invariably use Kansai-ben,
>but they would change to standard (read: Tokyo) Japanese and keigo
>when talking to a customer. This was the pattern with very few
>exceptions.
> Naturally, at night, these same people who spoke to each other
>so formally during the day would convert to Kansai-ben when they
>would go out. It's a real case-by-case call.
> I've heard businessmen speak beautiful keigo, and I've heard
>them talk like they're at a Hanshin Tigers baseball game in
You seem to think that keigo is exclusive to "standard" Japanese. It is
not. The reason your co-workers used standard Japanese when speaking to
customers is that they did not know those people. In Switzerland, sales
clerks speak standard German to customers, too. When speaking to, say, an
older relative at a formal occasion such as a funeral or a wedding,
your co-workers would have used polite Kansai-ben (including keigo).
Many Kansai people feel that standard Japanese sounds vulgar and that the
*really* polite form of Japanese is polite Kansai-ben.
__________________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@tezcat.com
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-2505961609120001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>,
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
Why are you posting this twice? I've already answered it.
But I can try one more time.
Oh man, you didn't need to. It was only that my server's got
something wrong in the past days. I've already been badly sick of the
discussion, so was very glad to hear that you said... aaaa... whatever,
something short to end the discussion. Anyway, this will be my last post
to this thread. If you want to continue, email me your reply.
Facts themselves can't be alleged; their truthness may
be. But anycase I don't understand why you keep using
the word "allege", since I've already posted the reference
for you three times in the past: [Ref: "Ranking Japan's
life science research" by S. Yamazaki, Jikei University
of School of Medicine: Nature vol.372, 125-126].
I don't admit there exists any "objective" (in a true sense) standard
of anything. Since that's only what you and some other people "believe to
be the true" evaluation of Japanese colleges, it is but an alleged fact.
So does mine. Truth-claim is to reject any falliability so ever. The
ranking of _Nature_ is only one possible index to assess the worth of
academic institutions, which may be valid for some, but not for anybody
(like IQ test). I have never alleged mine is "the" truth of Japanese
colleges, whereas you have. Science is not omnipotent. Read _The
Mismeasure of Man_ by Stephen Jay Gould (New York: Norton, c1981).
erroneous. Also, "Nature" is not a book; it is a well-known
scientific journal based in London.
Erroneous in "your" book. False as well for those who agree with you
about the validity of the source of your upheld ranking of Japanese
colleges, viz. _Nature_, the authority for many, if not all, scientists.
And "book" is a slang for opinion, Kenji.
I understood that, by using the phrase "in terms of
reputation", your intent was to infer that the above
is just a general perception, not the fact. Yet what
you intended to infer is not really relevant; what
people understand from your writing is what is relevant.
I'm afraid it's not true, sir. You just failed to carefully and
rationally follow the thread in which I and Mr. Henmi were conversing on
the matter so that you self-righteously misunderstood my statement.
From the statement above, people unfamiliar with Japanese
academia will think, quite wrongly, that Osaka U. does not
have much reputation. Therefore the misleading statement
had to be corrected.
If you feel so, it's your business, not mine, so far as it had
nothing to do with the main discussion with Mr. Henmi and any "careful" &
rational persons would not make such a false inference. You should have
better start your own thread entitled like "Edokko Misconception of
Japanese Colleges" rather than confusedly replied to my post.
Now, listen, Mr. Saito. You are obviously not a dull person.
Oh yeah? What I came to realize in the series of discussion on
Kansai and Kanto is that science neards just can't cop with not only such
mundane issues as culture, politics, history &c but also logical
reasoning. Opps, stupid stereotyping again. Let me say you are (if
sciene neard at all) the only exception who is such, so far. Or you just
happened to be such only in the past week or so. OK, this's just a joke.
Don't get mad, sir.
But I really hope that you develop a mental maturity to
admit your own mistakes or slip of the tongue.
I did, and do, admit and correct certain points which would make
"sane" persons "misunderstand" the real intention of my post. What have
you ever proved anything invalid in my post BTW?
It is simply cowardly for you to say "I was just
talking about *general* perception, not my own contention"
only after your statement was proven to be quite mis-leading
to say the least.
I'm sorry but I cannot have a discussion with a madman who cannot
understand "logic." My humble idea about Japanese colleges is, as I said
before, that "the frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean"; that
is, I don't give any **** about whether Tokyo U. or Kyoto U. is better or
worse than the other as much as YOU do. At any rate, if I were to go to a
Japanese college, I would sure have taken various, multiple indices
(including the "*general* perception" and your right honorable _Nature_)
into consideration to judge which is the best college "for me" depending
on "my" purpose, where as you dogmatically believe in the ranking of
_Nature_ no matter what.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-2505961609120001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>,
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
Why are you posting this twice? I've already answered it.
But I can try one more time.
Oh man, you didn't need to. It was only that my server's got
something wrong in the past days. I've already been badly sick of the
discussion, so was very glad to hear that you said... aaaa... whatever,
something short to end the discussion. Anyway, this will be my last post
to this thread. If you want to continue, email me your reply.
Facts themselves can't be alleged; their truthness may
be. But anycase I don't understand why you keep using
the word "allege", since I've already posted the reference
for you three times in the past: [Ref: "Ranking Japan's
life science research" by S. Yamazaki, Jikei University
of School of Medicine: Nature vol.372, 125-126].
I don't admit there exists any "objective" (in a true sense) standard
of anything. Since that's only what you and some other people "believe to
be the true" evaluation of Japanese colleges, it is but an alleged fact.
So is mine. Truth-claim is to reject any falliability so ever. The
ranking of _Nature_ is only one possible index to assess the worth of
academic institutions, which may be valid for some, but not for anybody
(like IQ test). I have never alleged mine is "the" truth of Japanese
colleges, whereas you have. Science is not omnipotent. Read _The
Mismeasure of Man_ by Stephen Jay Gould (New York: Norton, c1981).
erroneous. Also, "Nature" is not a book; it is a well-known
scientific journal based in London.
Erroneous in "your" book. False as well for those who agree with you
about the validity of the source of your upheld ranking of Japanese
colleges, viz. _Nature_, the authority for many, if not all, scientists.
And "book" is a slang for opinion, Kenji.
I understood that, by using the phrase "in terms of
reputation", your intent was to infer that the above
is just a general perception, not the fact. Yet what
you intended to infer is not really relevant; what
people understand from your writing is what is relevant.
I'm afraid it's not true, sir. You just failed to carefully and
rationally follow the thread in which I and Mr. Henmi were conversing on
the matter so that you self-righteously misunderstood my statement.
From the statement above, people unfamiliar with Japanese
academia will think, quite wrongly, that Osaka U. does not
have much reputation. Therefore the misleading statement
had to be corrected.
If you feel so, it's your business, not mine, so far as it had
nothing to do with the main discussion with Mr. Henmi and any "careful" &
rational persons would not make such a false inference. You should have
better start your own thread entitled like "Edokko Misconception of
Japanese Colleges" rather than confusedly replied to my post.
Now, listen, Mr. Saito. You are obviously not a dull person.
Oh yeah? What I came to realize in the series of discussion on
Kansai and Kanto is that science neards just can't cop with not only such
mundane issues as culture, politics, history &c but also logical
reasoning. Opps, stupid stereotyping again. Let me say you are (if
sciene neard at all) the only exception who is such, so far. Or you just
happened to be such only in the past week or so. OK, this's just a joke.
Don't get mad, sir.
But I really hope that you develop a mental maturity to
admit your own mistakes or slip of the tongue.
I did, and do, admit and correct certain points which would make
"sane" persons "misunderstand" the real intention of my post. What have
you ever proved anything invalid in my post BTW?
It is simply cowardly for you to say "I was just
talking about *general* perception, not my own contention"
only after your statement was proven to be quite mis-leading
to say the least.
I'm sorry but I cannot have a discussion with a madman who cannot
understand "logic." My humble idea about Japanese colleges is, as I said
before, that "the frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean"; that
is, I don't give any **** about whether Tokyo U. or Kyoto U. is better or
worse than the other as much as YOU do. At any rate, if I were to go to a
Japanese college, I would sure have taken various, multiple indices
(including the "*general* perception" and your right honorable _Nature_)
into consideration to judge which is the best college "for me" depending
on "my" purpose, where as you dogmatically believe in the ranking of
_Nature_ no matter what.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is
muchan
Follow-up To: <sci.lang.japan>
Subject : REQ! kansai-ben grammer (Re: Kansai vs. Kantou?)
Ichido dareka "kansai-ben bumpoo"-o kaite kure-masenka?
(Would someone write "kansai-ben grammer, please?)
Hyoojungo-o shiranai hito-demo tadashii kansai-ben -ga hanaseru youni...
(So that anyone who even know standard Japansese could speak it right.)
Mae-ni Kyoto-ni sunndeite zuibun kurou shimasita...)
(I lived before in Kyoto and had much proubles...)
Watashi-wa Toukyou-namari-de hanashi-masu-kara...
(cause I speak with Tokyo accent...)
Shuichi Saito
**
*
(Note: this is darn long)
Let me finish this completely so that Mr. Adzuma will be squelched up
and I wonÄ…t be bothered by the thread any longer. Originally, the
argument of mine on the hyojun-go of Japan and Tokyo-ben was as follows:
1) In a heavily centralized country, the norms of the
capital about staffs (e.g. language, baseball & academic
institution) often (if not always, as seen in the
examples of Rome and Mongolia [however they were not
heavily centralized empires in a modern sense]) tend to
be those of the whole country as well, somewhat forcibly,
willy-nilly, fairly or not, whether or not the norms of
the capital are Å‚betterË› (in whatever sense of the word)
than the local counterparts.
2) Japan is a country of centralism
3) Tokyo is the capital of Japan
4) Thus the various norms of Tokyo have enjoyed their
privileged status as the hyojun of Japan without much
effort on their part.
5) Tokyo-ben is one among such TokyoÄ…s norms.
(Note: Whether the above reasoning [esp. the proposition 1, the inductive
premise] is valid or not is not the issue HERE, for what IÄ…m now talking
about is how irrelevant and digressed counter-argument Mr. Adzuma made on
my post and how boldly and ignorantly he condemned that it was due to my
fault.)
In the course of demonstration, I some times stated that the norms of
TokyoÄ…s merely being the Japanese standards is not to automatically assure
that they are Å‚betterË› than the local counterparts. For example, I twice
or so made a remark on two baseball teams, Lions and Giants, in which the
former is argued to be, yet a Å‚better,Ë› i.e. a more competent team in the
sport, much less (unfairly, if you prefer) popular than the latter at
national level. Neither have I ever said that Tokyo-ben is more beautiful
or Å‚ninjo-mi ni afureta kotoba daË› or whatever to indicate that it is a
Å‚betterË› language than any local dialects.
About the above two Mr. Adzuma interestingly enough seems not to have
misunderstood what I meant to say, whereas as for academic institutions
heÄ…s got totally messed up and made that badly off-the-point criticism.
His being miserably obsessed with gakureki-inferiority complex or some
mental deficiency which made him so sensitive to remarks saying that a
Japanese college was better than another against the ranking of his
favorite _Nature_ (whether difficult trauma or simple idiocy) is, not to
mention, HIS problem and not mine.
Also the _Nature_-centrist seems to be confused that the ranking of
Japanese colleges held by the magazine is the One True objective index to
assess any worth of institutions so ever, however he clearly said it was
regarding some fields of science by himself. And he seems to allege that
any evaluation which contradicts with it, such as the Å‚general
perception,Ë› is Å‚erroneousË› and ought to be corrected no matter what, as
if the only thing which counts for colleges and the students on earth is
the academic quality of a kind judged by the English magazine.
But the credibility of his alleged all-reliable source as such is,
again, not really the issue here. What is problem is the Mr. AdzumaÄ…s
invalid claim which is alleged to be based on the authoritative magazine.
His claim that the Å‚general perceptionË› of Japanese college ranking, which
is supposed to be a very comprehensive one IMHO, is wrong because it is
inconsistent with _Nature_ is simply false if not at least what the
Å‚general perceptionË› cares about were only the academic quality of
colleges.
At any rate, the ranking must largely vary depending on what one
wants from college, and nobody can say his evaluation is false unless he
were logically inconsistent in so doing. That is, the manner of reasoning
be same and the premises (what given two persons want from college) be
different, they must inevitably come to different assessments of the same
school if not stupid idiots. And for the premises ultimately do not
depend on the reasoning but their arbitrary tastes, they cannot refute
eitherÄ…s conclusions after all. Let us examine the following case:
1) College A and college B are the only institutions which
offer the program of the study of X. College B is currently
considered a better institution than college A regarding the
study of X according to the most reliable magazine in the
discipline by the name of N.
2) College A used to be ranked higher than college B in the
field of study X by magazine N.
3) Historically, college A has been well-known as a top-level
institution, whereas college B is recently founded and thus
not very well known publicly.
4) High-school student L wants to go to a college whose diploma
will best assure his employment in a major company O. (Not
for the sake of studying.)
5) Company O wants new employees from graduates with BS in the
field of X from the best college in the field.
6) The personnel bureau of company O is still obsessed with
the antiquated idea about the ranking of colleges in the
field of X (viz. 2); so that the personnel responsible for
the decision of student LÄ…s employment wrongly believes
that college A graduate is better than college B graduate.
7) Student L knows not only that 1: Å‚College B is currently
the best institution regarding the study of X according to
magazine NË› but also that 6: Å‚The personnel responsible
for the decision of his employment to company O still
wrongly believes that college A graduate is better than
college B graduate.Ë›
8) Given 4 and 7, student L constructed a ranking of colleges
that college A is the best, college B the second.
What is invalid, if at all, in the above case is the demonstration of
company O (6) and not that of student L (8). Student LÄ…s choosing college
A based on his utilitarian need (4) cannot be refuted but by meddlesomely
insisting that the very premise of his argument, i.e. his need to go to
the best college just for the sake of employment in company O, is simply
wrong, which is established independent of the above reasoning as such.
It will surely end up with mizukake-ron.
In other words, for example, given y = 2x and Mr. P holds x = 1 & Mr.
Q holds x = 2, despite both can accept the same equation, they have to
disagree with each other over the value of y (2 or 4) nothing but on the
basis that the proposed value of x by the other is wrong. ItÄ…s basically
none of Mr. AdzumaÄ…s business to suggest that the value of x held by
student L is wrong. While Mr. Adzuma dogmatically believes in only one
possible value of x, which is _Nature_, I appreciate that there exist
various values for x depending on different circumstances. And it is easy
to find a circumstance in which the Mr. AdzumaÄ…s alleged value of x is
invalid. If he didnÄ…t even share the same equation, i.e. the same
rational manner of thinking as mine, it would be hopeless that I and he
are able to settle down the discussion. For I have no time to waste in
teaching madman how to THINK properly any more.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is NOT
Michael Reid
kansai-ben bumpou to iu no wa betu ni nai n desu kedo, kansai-ben no
tokuchou wo naraitakereba gaikokujin muke no "Kansai Japanese" to iu hon
gavarimasu yo. Yaku ni tatsu ka dou ka wakarimasen ga, ichiyou me wo
tooshita koto ga atte, sonna ni hen na kansai-ben ga notte inai n desu
kara (watashi wa Kobe no hito desu) tukaeru n ja nai desu ka ne.
Maa sou iu koto de, oshitumon ga areba itudemo gokigaru ni renraku wo
kudasai.
Sore dewa shikkei
Reid Masaki
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-2905...@144.92.184.95>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
[cut]
> His being miserably obsessed with gakureki-inferiority complex or some
> mental deficiency which made him so sensitive to remarks saying that a
> Japanese college was better than another against the ranking of his
> favorite _Nature_ (whether difficult trauma or simple idiocy) is, not to
> mention, HIS problem and not mine.
[cut]
Call me at 212-327-7471. I can speak Japanese. Thanks.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-2905...@144.92.184.95>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
[snip]
> His being miserably obsessed with gakureki-inferiority complex or some
> mental deficiency which made him so sensitive to remarks saying that a
> Japanese college was better than another against the ranking of his
> favorite _Nature_ (whether difficult trauma or simple idiocy) is, not to
> mention, HIS problem and not mine.
This part sounds very malicious to my ears; you've never even seen me in
person. I don't know how come many young people appear to believe that
use of provocative language is the norm/standard of the Internet... For
instance, you could have said the same thing simply by:
He seems to be too sensitive to the issue of universtity ranking
in Japan.
By adding unsupported personal attacks on me, such as
"gakureki-inferiority complex", "mental deficiency", etc., you really are
not achieving anything other than alienating the general readers of scj.
> Also the _Nature_-centrist seems to be confused that the ranking of
> Japanese colleges held by the magazine is the One True objective index to
> assess any worth of institutions so ever, however he clearly said it was
> regarding some fields of science by himself.
My point is that, in terms of life-science research, some departments (in
this case, medical schools) of "local" universities such as Kyushu,
Shimane, Osaka have a reputation at least comparable to or even better
than Tokyo counterparts. If I have given the impression that the
Nature-article is the only index to "judge" Japanese universities, then
let me just say there was no such intent in citing the Nature article.
Besides, that same article ranked the U. Tokyo as #1 in Pharmacology
research.
> And he seems to allege that
> any evaluation which contradicts with it, such as the Å‚general
> perception,Ë› is Å‚erroneousË› and ought to be corrected no matter what, as
> if the only thing which counts for colleges and the students on earth is
> the academic quality of a kind judged by the English magazine.
I could discuss the issue of "general perception" vs "Nature article" only
if you provided us a reference for that "general perception."
> But the credibility of his alleged all-reliable source as such is,
> again, not really the issue here.
Oh well... then?
> What is problem is the Mr. AdzumaÄ…s
> invalid claim which is alleged to be based on the authoritative magazine.
> His claim that the Å‚general perceptionË› of Japanese college ranking, which
> is supposed to be a very comprehensive one IMHO, is wrong because it is
> inconsistent with _Nature_ is simply false if not at least what the
> Å‚general perceptionË› cares about were only the academic quality of
> colleges.
I didn't quite understand what you wrote here, but I can repeat what I think.
Am I correct in assuming that you think:
"ordinary Japanese people consider Osaka/Kyoto U. as no
match to even private colleges in Tokyo."
First, I defer the discussion of how "ordinary people" think about
Kyoto/Osaka U., until you provide the reference for it. However,
regardless of what the "general perception" might turn out to be, what
*you* wrote as the "general perception" is simply not supported by the
Nature article --- this is what I wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing
less. You have a tendency to psycho-analyze my mind..., but that's not
really a valid way of arguing things.
> At any rate, the ranking must largely vary depending on what one
> wants from college, and nobody can say his evaluation is false unless he
> were logically inconsistent in so doing.
The assertive statement such as yours:
"I doubt [Osaka U] is... any comparable even with some top-rank
private colleges in Tokyo area in terms of reputation"
can be refuted by presenting a single, only one, example to the contrary.
That example was already presented in this thread.
> That is, the manner of reasoning
> be same and the premises (what given two persons want from college) be
> different, they must inevitably come to different assessments of the same
> school if not stupid idiots. And for the premises ultimately do not
> depend on the reasoning but their arbitrary tastes, they cannot refute
> eitherÄ…s conclusions after all. Let us examine the following case:
Am I correct in assuming that you basically want to say "two different
persons may have two different opinions"?
...whatever... What's the point?
> In other words, for example, given y = 2x and Mr. P holds x = 1 & Mr.
> Q holds x = 2, despite both can accept the same equation, they have to
> disagree with each other over the value of y (2 or 4) nothing but on the
> basis that the proposed value of x by the other is wrong.
...because x is a mathematical variable.
> ItÄ…s basically
> none of Mr. AdzumaÄ…s business to suggest that the value of x held by
> student L is wrong.
If "x" here refers to the opinion or perception of student L about
something (such as reputation of colleage Y), then "x" can be wrong.
> While Mr. Adzuma dogmatically believes in only one
> possible value of x, which is _Nature_, I appreciate that there exist
> various values for x depending on different circumstances.
Not sure what you really want to say by the (y,x) algebra analogy... But
"x" in your former example is a math variable, but "x" in your latter
example is opinion, idea, perception, etc. These are two different
things.
> And it is easy
> to find a circumstance in which the Mr. AdzumaÄ…s alleged value of x is
> invalid.
I think you probably wanted to say "there are other values of x possible
that are as valid as Mr. Adzuma's x" Otherwise, the logic doesn't flow...
> If he didnÄ…t even share the same equation, i.e. the same
> rational manner of thinking as mine, it would be hopeless that I and he
> are able to settle down the discussion. For I have no time to waste in
> teaching madman how to THINK properly any more.
Grow up.
--
Kenji Adzuma
Shuichi Saito
**
*
This is becoming badly endless. I have no time to check s.c.j. out
everyday if Mr. Adzuma has made some absurd counter-argument against mine
and been wrongly satisfied he's right. Besides, the topic has become
irrelevant to be discussed here. Should I neglect Mr. Adzuma as a matured
person? Grow up? I agree, that's one of the few meaningful sayings made
by Mr. Adzuma.
In article <adzuma-0106960448450001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
By adding unsupported personal attacks on me, such as
"gakureki-inferiority complex", "mental deficiency",
etc., you really are not achieving anything other than
alienating the general readers of scj.
Look, who on the earth started it? It was you who started abusing
Tokyo residents on behalf of Osaka and the rest. My first reply to your
first post to the thread, which was however full of slungs, did not
contain anything insulting to Mr. Adzuma "personally" but to the wicked
localism in general depicted in your post (as Mr. Adzuma believes to have
done so regarding the stupid Tokyo centrism). Examples include the making
fun of "niwaka Hanshin fans." Such slangs as "what the hell," "damn ...,"
etc. are only to emphasize the tone of sentences, as they can be replaced
by less rude words. (I've been using * mark for them anyway.)
And in the first or second reply to my reply, as a reason why Tokyo
people are worse than Osaka people, you cited ME as an example of the
stupidity of the former. I had not done that kind of thing before then.
How can you legitimately complain since it was you who were the very
responsible? Confused? Slung, rough criticism and personal vilification
are not the same. My use of the first two seems to have made you feel OK
to do the third one, i.e. to abuse me personally. If you don't like it,
don't start it even a bit in the first place. (The pot should't call the
kettle black, la?) As you would soon realize if looked at my other posts,
I am not using that many slangs if not the opponent is using them as
well. Nor personal offensive language. Here again you threw the blame on
me and self-satisfiedly made off-the-point criticism. I cannot understand
why you cannot see that you are totally clueless. Could be because I've
been using so many aggressive words that you don't feel like admitting you
are wrong, la?
I could discuss the issue of "general perception" vs
"Nature article" only if you provided us a reference
for that "general perception."
That specific topic originally came out in discussion between I and
Mr. Henmi, not Mr. Adzuma. It was YOUR manner to first FROM YOUR OWN
offer RELEVANT reference to support your counter-argument which should be
a RELEVANT opinion to join the discussion, if any reference were needed at
all. And you impudently failed to do so, still admitting little of the
fact. It was you who wanted to talk about the nonsense of Japanese
college ranking and demanded "reference." I told you to start your own
thread, didn't I? Mr., this is really endless, and the reason why is I
suppose your bottomless.... OK, I won't say that again, but is it not too
clear? I still cannot see how come you can keep making this kind of
evidently false claims.
However, regardless of what the "general perception"
might turn out to be, what *you* wrote as the "general
perception" is simply not supported by the Nature article
--- this is what I wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing
less.
Very true. Therefore, you were not supposed to be able to say
anything valid based on _Nature_ about my posts which had nothing to do
with the magazine as such or the way of ranking colleges as the magazine
did. Hence, you were pointless. Finally realized that?
The assertive statement such as yours: "I doubt [Osaka U]
is... any comparable even with some top-rank private colleges
in Tokyo area in terms of reputation" can be refuted by
presenting a single, only one, example to the contrary.
How? It was YOUR argument which could have been refuted in that
manner. Not mine. I have already explicated in the last reply how
shortsightedly you interpreted what I meant by "reputation" of the above
statement of mine, have I not? You clearly made a big mistake there, and
wrongly called me coward and such. I see the abuse, however not supported
by valid evidence, was not a mere personal insulting. But wrong is
wrong.
Anyway, that "I doubt [Osaka U]..." is a loose inductive statement,
which cannot be rejected by one, if not many enough to be statistically
valid, example of a school for a valuer which goes against my proposed
ranking supposedly held by "the general public." It's in a sense
assertive but not regarding perfect objectivity, whereas yours clearly
seemed to claim to be such. If the statement goes into the former
if-clause of "If ---, then it is absolutely the case that the ranking is
right for anybody and in any contexts," it is but subjunctive, not
material. That is, there's no logically valid connection between them,
which I've never alleged to exist.
...whatever... What's the point?
There's a good undergrad course for you: Introductory Logic. It is
offered at any colleges with philosophy department. Very useful,
especailly those who cannot.... Anyway, check it out if you want to have
a valid discussion with me. Otherwise, better quit now.
If "x" here refers to the opinion or perception of
student L about something (such as reputation of
colleage Y), then "x" can be wrong.
Your "'x' can be wrong" ultimately means nothing more than that a
proposed value of x can BE INCONSISTENT WITH or DISAGREES WITH the other
proposed values of x. If one value of x is ALLEGED to be true, then the
others are wrong. Too clear a truism. Hence the argument must end up
with mizukakeron in terms of DEDUCTIVE logic, if not INDUCTIVE.
Not sure what you really want to say by the (y,x) algebra
analogy... But "x" in your former example is a math
variable, but "x" in your latter example is opinion,
idea, perception, etc. These are two different things.
An opinion usually consists of, in easier terms, three factors: data,
logic, and conclusion. "X" in my math analogy corresponds to data,
"(X,Y): Y = 2X" to logic, and "Y" to the conclusion. Consider the
following case:
X1: Mr.1 holds that what _Nature_ says is true (i.e.
consistent with the absolute truth, if exists at all).
X2: Mr.2 holds that what _Nature_ says is wrong (i.e.
consistent with the opposite of the absolute truth).
Fact A: _Nature_ says that Mr. Adzuma is human.
Fact B: Mr.1 and Mr.2 deductively think in the same way.
Y1: Mr.1, given the two facts and X1, concluded that Mr.
Adzuma is human.
Y2: Mr.2, given the two facts and X2, concluded that Mr.
Adzuma is not human.
The truth-values of X1 and X2 do not depend on the above DEDUCTIVE
demonstration. Which value of X (data) is true determins which value of Y
(conclusion) is true. And what I said in the last post was that the
choice of X is ULTIMATELY arbitrary. Understand? Then think of the math
analogy again.
P.S. Don't post a reply before having thought my above article and
the previous ones out very carefully. If the next reply of yours too will
be the same as the last one, I will not respond to it and let you feel you
are the winner or whatever. Congraturation.
You wrote: "Grow up."
You are very true when you said that I need to grow up in that
regard. Maybe I should not even read your reply, if you'll write one at
all.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is NOT
Kenji Adzuma
In article <ssaito-0306...@144.92.184.121>,
ssa...@students.wisc.edu (Shuichi Saito) wrote:
> This is becoming badly endless. I have no time to check s.c.j. out
> everyday if Mr. Adzuma has made some absurd counter-argument against mine
> and been wrongly satisfied he's right.
I thought you declared "this is the last...", etc. a couple of times
already. I knew you can't keep your words... :-)
> In article <adzuma-0106960448450001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
> adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
>
> By adding unsupported personal attacks on me, such as
> "gakureki-inferiority complex", "mental deficiency",
> etc., you really are not achieving anything other than
> alienating the general readers of scj.
>
> Look, who on the earth started it?
Evidently, you (see above).
> And in the first or second reply to my reply, as a reason why Tokyo
> people are worse than Osaka people, you cited ME as an example of the
> stupidity of the former.
Not really. I cited you as an example of arrogance and
self-righteousness, the two attributes common among Tokyo residents as I
see them (somewhat analogous to New-Yorkers). You are a very good
example, indeed.
> I could discuss the issue of "general perception" vs
> "Nature article" only if you provided us a reference
> for that "general perception."
>
> That specific topic originally came out in discussion between I and
> Mr. Henmi, not Mr. Adzuma. It was YOUR manner to first FROM YOUR OWN
> offer RELEVANT reference to support your counter-argument which should be
> a RELEVANT opinion to join the discussion, if any reference were needed at
> all.
Right. So you should thank me for substantiating my point.
> Mr., this is really endless, and the reason why is I
> suppose your bottomless.... OK, I won't say that again, but is it not too
> clear? I still cannot see how come you can keep making this kind of
> evidently false claims.
Care to show me where I made a false claim? The only thing I said is that
you said something you can't substantiate; that's all.
> However, regardless of what the "general perception"
> might turn out to be, what *you* wrote as the "general
> perception" is simply not supported by the Nature article
> --- this is what I wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing
> less.
>
> Very true. Therefore, you were not supposed to be able to say
> anything valid based on _Nature_ about my posts which had nothing to do
> with the magazine as such or the way of ranking colleges as the magazine
> did.
You wrote:
"I doubt [Osaka U] is... any comparable even with some top-rank
private colleges in Tokyo area in terms of reputation"
The Nature article has a lot to do with this claim of yours. It does not
support your claim at least in one area (i.e., life science research in
medical schools). It then follows that the generality of your claim does
not stand. This is what I meant by "nothing more and nothing less."
> The assertive statement such as yours: "I doubt [Osaka U]
> is... any comparable even with some top-rank private colleges
> in Tokyo area in terms of reputation" can be refuted by
> presenting a single, only one, example to the contrary.
>
> How?
Because my argument is limited to the quality of "life-science research",
while your statement (see above) is a general characterization according
to your own words; aka, "general perception of Oksaka/Kyoto academia among
ordinary Japanese people.
> Anyway, that "I doubt [Osaka U]..." is a loose inductive statement,
Inductive statements are the statements that are intended to induce (or
infer in plain English). What you wrote wasn't anything that fancy; it
was simply what you thought, loosely I agree, was generally true. The
keyword here is the *generality* of your statement. And my reference does
not support the generality of your claim.
> which cannot be rejected by one, if not many enough to be statistically
> valid, example of a school for a valuer which goes against my proposed
> ranking supposedly held by "the general public."
I believe you just learned this from a course. :-) Unfortunately, you
got it wrong. What the textbook (or lecturer) is saying is that rebuttal
of one inductive statement does not necessarily refute the idea that is
being induced, because the same idea may also be supported by other
inductive statements as well. Each inductive statement (not the idea
being induced), however, can be refuted by a single example to the
contrary.
> It's in a sense
> assertive but not regarding perfect objectivity, whereas yours clearly
> seemed to claim to be such.
Not "seems", it is objective in a sense that are supported by numbers; at
the same time, however, these numbers can be misleading, and I clearly
pointed out this point. That is, the number of publication on which the
study ranked each University, is known to be not exactly proportional to
the productivity of scientific research. In my opinion, however, the
existence of such caveats does not warrent the immediate dismissal of the
author's claim.
> If the statement goes into the former
> if-clause of "If ---, then it is absolutely the case that the ranking is
> right for anybody and in any contexts," it is but subjunctive, not
> material. That is, there's no logically valid connection between them,
> which I've never alleged to exist.
In other words, you made a wrong statement.
> ...whatever... What's the point?
>
> There's a good undergrad course for you: Introductory Logic.
Thank you. BTW, I would have given you an F in such course, as you
obviously learned the *words* of logic, not the logic itself. It's a bit
like memorizing all the technical terms of chemistry without understanding
the theory behind it.
Anycase, I think the logic, reasoning, whatever, is not something
difficult or complicated; it is simply a means of communicating an idea
from one person to another. Without logic, it would be harder to
express. Logic is nothing but a mere helper in this regard; and the idea
is the master.
In your case, however, use of what you believe as "logic" has been
making the communication of your idea (if any) more difficult, because you
are using the "logic" (note the double quote) only to satisfy
self-indulgence or vanity.
> It is offered at any colleges with philosophy department. Very useful,
Thank you. I teach such a thing.
> If "x" here refers to the opinion or perception of
> student L about something (such as reputation of
> colleage Y), then "x" can be wrong.
>
> Your "'x' can be wrong" ultimately means nothing more than that a
> proposed value of x can BE INCONSISTENT WITH or DISAGREES WITH the other
> proposed values of x. If one value of x is ALLEGED to be true, then the
> others are wrong. Too clear a truism.
How pity..., you lost your common sense. If you said "A cat is a plant",
then you would have a harder time to convince people. Your original
statement was similar in nature to this "A cat is a plant" statement. If
you want to go philosophical about how wrong/right this "cat"-statement
really is, then I have no interest in such a useless argument.
> Not sure what you really want to say by the (y,x) algebra
> analogy... But "x" in your former example is a math
> variable, but "x" in your latter example is opinion,
> idea, perception, etc. These are two different things.
>
> An opinion usually consists of, in easier terms, three factors: data,
> logic, and conclusion. "X" in my math analogy corresponds to data,
> "(X,Y): Y = 2X" to logic, and "Y" to the conclusion. Consider the
> following case:
>
> X1: Mr.1 holds that what _Nature_ says is true (i.e.
> consistent with the absolute truth, if exists at all).
>
> X2: Mr.2 holds that what _Nature_ says is wrong (i.e.
> consistent with the opposite of the absolute truth).
>
>
> Fact A: _Nature_ says that Mr. Adzuma is human.
>
> Fact B: Mr.1 and Mr.2 deductively think in the same way.
>
>
> Y1: Mr.1, given the two facts and X1, concluded that Mr.
> Adzuma is human.
>
> Y2: Mr.2, given the two facts and X2, concluded that Mr.
> Adzuma is not human.
>
> The truth-values of X1 and X2 do not depend on the above DEDUCTIVE
> demonstration. Which value of X (data) is true determins which value of Y
> (conclusion) is true. And what I said in the last post was that the
> choice of X is ULTIMATELY arbitrary.
... which is untrue. Math variables are arbitrary in that no particular x
is more wrong than others, but "X"s in your example above are not.
Validity in X1 and the validity in X2 are not equal; X1 (X2) can be more
wrong than X2 (X1).
There used to be a guy called "HappyFart" in scaa/scj who thinks he is a
logical person. You are not as bad as he was, but you definitely have a
potential to become like him. Anycase, you won. I lost. Welcome to my
ever-gfrowing list of killfile. Bye... :-)
--
Kenji Adzuma
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-0406961431550001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
I thought you declared "this is the last...", etc. a
couple of times already. I knew you can't keep your
words... :-)
I cited you as an example of arrogance and self-
righteousness, the two attributes common among Tokyo
residents as I see them (somewhat analogous to New-Yorkers).
You are a very good example, indeed.
Then your Inaka-complex must be an attribute common among
Osaka/Hiroshima residents. What a jerk. I meant it's better to use email
instead of continuing this childish quarrel here (if worth continuing
wherever at all!). Anyway, I won't any more try to refute Mr. Adzuma's
post on s.c.j. word for word for he clearly failed to return any
substantial comments so ever (as usual) to my reply (the below quote tells
everything), and in order to end this nonsesne RIGHT NOW.
> > If "x" here refers to the opinion or perception of
> > student L about something (such as reputation of
> > colleage Y), then "x" can be wrong.
> >
> > Your "'x' can be wrong" ultimately means nothing more than that a
> > proposed value of x can BE INCONSISTENT WITH or DISAGREES WITH the other
> > proposed values of x. If one value of x is ALLEGED to be true, then the
> > others are wrong. Too clear a truism.
>
> How pity..., you lost your common sense. If you said "A cat is a plant",
> then you would have a harder time to convince people. Your original
> statement was similar in nature to this "A cat is a plant" statement. If
> you want to go philosophical about how wrong/right this "cat"-statement
> really is, then I have no interest in such a useless argument.
>
>
> ... which is untrue. Math variables are arbitrary in that no particular x
> is more wrong than others, but "X"s in your example above are not.
> Validity in X1 and the validity in X2 are not equal; X1 (X2) can be more
> wrong than X2 (X1).
LAST words. A good advice for you, not refutation. Mr. Adzuma, why
don't you examine at least the above cases further more BY YOURSELF? What
I offered was only examples. Put X1 & X2 as conclusions and construct the
same demonstration schema for each of them, and keep doing it again and
again until you cannot go beyond. Then see what the FINAL premises will
look like. Also why don't you examine what you allege "common sense" in
the like manner? There's always somebody who disagrees with you over what
"common sense" is. A good many fundamentalist Christians are opposed to
_Nature_ lovers in many points regarding the law of the universe. Where
does the point of their ULTIMATE disagreement lie? Do you think either
can "objectively" refute the other? Are the most radical versions of both
parties who share the LEAST commonality reconcilable with each other after
all? By what standard, if possible at all, can you IMPARTIALLY judge
either is right and the other is wrong so that they shall come to agree
with your judgment? What qualities does that standard need to have? How
can you tell which is "the true," or merely better, means to see the
world, faith & the Bible or scientific research method? Remember that for
their definitions of "true" or "valid" judgement are different, one's
claim must self-evidently be "untrue" or "invalid" for the other, if not
having recourse to the third means to umpire their means to appreciate the
world.
Just think over everything. No need to post answer for you're always
too shortsighted and too easily make careless misinterpretations to come
to the right answer in 100 days or so.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is NOT
Shuichi Saito
**
*
In article <adzuma-0406961431550001@adzuma_mac.rockefeller.edu>
adz...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Kenji Adzuma) wrote:
I thought you declared "this is the last...", etc. a
couple of times already. I knew you can't keep your
words... :-)
I cited you as an example of arrogance and self-
righteousness, the two attributes common among Tokyo
residents as I see them (somewhat analogous to New-Yorkers).
You are a very good example, indeed.
Then your Inaka-Gakureki-complex must be an attribute common among
Osaka/Hiroshima residents -- What a jerk. I only meant email would better
serve to cope with this childish quarreler than s.c.j. (if worth continuing
it wherever at all!). Anyway, I won't any more try to refute Mr. Adzuma's
post word for word here because, as I said earlier, he clearly failed to
return any substantial comments so ever (as usual) to my reply (the below
quote tells everything), and in order to end this nonsense right away.
> > If "x" here refers to the opinion or perception of
> > student L about something (such as reputation of
> > colleage Y), then "x" can be wrong.
> >
> > Your "'x' can be wrong" ultimately means nothing more than that a
> > proposed value of x can BE INCONSISTENT WITH or DISAGREES WITH the other
> > proposed values of x. If one value of x is ALLEGED to be true, then the
> > others are wrong. Too clear a truism.
>
> How pity..., you lost your common sense. If you said "A cat is a plant",
> then you would have a harder time to convince people. Your original
> statement was similar in nature to this "A cat is a plant" statement. If
> you want to go philosophical about how wrong/right this "cat"-statement
> really is, then I have no interest in such a useless argument.
>
>
> ... which is untrue. Math variables are arbitrary in that no particular x
> is more wrong than others, but "X"s in your example above are not.
> Validity in X1 and the validity in X2 are not equal; X1 (X2) can be more
> wrong than X2 (X1).
LAST words. A good tip for you, not refutation. Mr. Adzuma, why
don't you examine at least the above cases further more BY YOURSELF? What
I offered was only examples. Put X1 & X2 as conclusions and construct the
same demonstration schema for each of them, and keep doing it again and
again until you cannot go beyond. Then see what the FINAL premises will
look like. Also why don't you examine what you allege "common sense" in
the like manner? There's always somebody who disagrees with you over what
"common sense" is. A good many fundamentalist Christians are opposed to
_Nature_ lovers in many points regarding the law of the universe. Where
does the point of their ULTIMATE disagreement lie? Do you think either
can "objectively" refute the other? Are the most radical versions of both
parties who share the LEAST commonality reconcilable with each other after
all? By what standard, if possible at all, can you IMPARTIALLY judge
either is right and the other is wrong so that they shall come to agree
with your judgment? What qualities does that standard need to have? How
can you tell which is "the true," or merely better, means to see the
world, faith & the Bible or scientific research method? For their
definitions of "true" or "valid" judgement are different, one's claim must
self-evidently be "untrue" or "invalid" for the other, if not having
recourse to the third means to umpire their means to appreciate the world.
Just think over everything. Also ask your "ordinary" mammy about
what is the best Japanese college in the field of entomology or
epidemiology or whatever. No need to post answer for you're always too
shortsighted and too easily make careless misinterpretations to come to
the right answer in 10 years or so.
_________________________________________________________________
Shuichi
This is a reply to "Re: Kansai vs. Kantou,"
which is posted to: soc.culture.japan
My part of the above message is NOT