why is baka ie same as baka iu na?
TANAKA Tomoyuki
examples of pairs of words and phrases that
--- seem to mean the same but actually mean the opposite, and
--- vice versa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese
actually mean the same:
baka ie / baka iu na
sewasii / sewasinai
ki ga okenai / (ki ga okeru)
actually mean the opposite:
?????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------
English
actually mean the same:
valuable / invaluable
flamable / inflamable
intensive / extensive (similar meaning)
could care less / couldn't care less
actually mean the opposite:
priceless / valueless
--------------------------------------------------------------------
from alt.usage.english FAQ
Other idioms that say the opposite of what they mean include:
"head over heels" (which could mean turning cartwheels, i.e. "head
over heels over head over heels", but is also used to mean "upside-
down", i.e. "heels over head"); "Don't sneeze more than you can
help" (meaning "more than you cannot help"; "help" here means
"prevent"); "It's hard to open, much less acknowledge, the letters"
(where "less" means "harder", i.e. "more"); "I shouldn't wonder if
it didn't rain"; "I miss not seeing you"; and "I turned my life
around 360 degrees" -- not to mention undisputedly ironic phrases
such as "fat chance", "Thanks a *lot*", and "I should worry".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <>, Don Kirkman <do...@a.crl.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do Japanese people sometimes say "baka ie" and sometimes "baka iu
>>na"? These seem to be opposite in meaning to me.
>
>Well, I was thinking I couldn't care less, but actually I guess I could
>care less :-)
>
Harlan Messinger
: English
:
: actually mean the same:
:
: valuable / invaluable
: flamable / inflamable
: intensive / extensive (similar meaning)
Intensive and extensive do NOT have similar meanings. Intensive means
concentrated, having heavy but _narrow_ focus. Extensive means covering a
_broad_ range, not confined to a small area. For example:
Intensive training in Japanese means you spent a week in a total immersion
seminar, so that in seven days, instead of a much longer period of time,
you have become totally comfortable in general conversational Japanese.
But don't expect to be able to negotiate the purchase of a house or give a
speech on the plight of the homeless or write more than a few basic words.
Extensive training in Japanese means you have been studying it for years
and years and years, and are fluent in any kind of general conversation,
can speak at length in your fields of expertise, are fully familiar with
the applicability of different levels of speech, can hold forth on the
distribution of pronunciation and dialectic differences throughout Japan,
are well read in Japanese literature both ancient and modern, and are
adept at social, business and technical correspondence and perhaps
scholarly articles.
:
: could care less / couldn't care less
Because "could care less" was meant to be _sarcastic_. It's like when
somebody whose opinion means nothing to you insults you, and you say
scornfully, "Yeah, like, you really hurt my feelings" when your feelings
aren't hurt at all.
:
: actually mean the opposite:
:
: priceless / valueless
:
:
--
The 1990s: the Duh Decade.
Truly Donovan
>TANAKA Tomoyuki (tan...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>> could care less / couldn't care less
>I and probably a lot of other British people are surprised by this. I
>think that the use of a phrase such as "I could care less" is a poor
>reflection on the American education system. It's not part of the
>English language to say "I could care less" when one means "I could
>not care less" it is just a mark of stupidity, like saying "I ain't
>got no money".
Sheesh! Watch out who you are calling stupid. It is an American idiom and
said by people who know perfectly well what they are saying and how and heard
by people who know exactly what is meant by it. Should we now examine the
fundamental intelligence of the literal meaning of some common British
expressions, such as, hmm, say, "taking the piss"?
Truly Donovan
XXdant
writes:
>> could care less / couldn't care less
>
>I and probably a lot of other British people are surprised by this. I
>think that the use of a phrase such as "I could care less" is a poor
>reflection on the American education system. It's not part of the
>English language to say "I could care less" when one means "I could
>not care less" it is just a mark of stupidity, like saying "I ain't
>got no money".
We've hashed out "could care less" too often in this group
(alt.usage.english), but new people come along who haven't heard it. This
phrase started out as a sarcastic way of saying "couldn't care less" much
as "fat chance" is a sarcastic way of saying "slim chance". Both these
phrases have become so hackneyed that they've largely lost the sarcastic
connotations. "Could care less", in fact, has lost *all* sarcastic
connotations while "fat chance" maybe has a little left.
"I ain't got no money." is a perfectly valid sentence in many, if not
most, colloquial dialects. The double negative is only incorrect in formal
English. The same with "ain't". Schools may teach these rules, but what
they are doing is teaching an additional dialect that's used in formal
circumstances, usually written ones. The colloquial dialect does not go
away just because people learn this additional dialect.
--
Dan "ain't no one here but us chickens" Tilque
Satoru Miyazaki
>
>TANAKA Tomoyuki (tan...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>> flamable / inflamable
>
>In fact inflame and flame are not opposites, they are a pair of
>transitive and intransitive verbs. People might think that they are
>opposite from the form, in the same way that Japanese people say
>"tonde mo arimasen" even though the origin of the nai in tondemonai is
>not related to aru.
Isn't "flamable" or "inflamable" spelled "flammable" or "inflammable"?
When I looked at a reagent bottle in the lab, a warning label says
"flammable liquid and vapor" rather than "inflammable". Does "flammable"
mean it will not combust unless I ignite it while "inflammable" can go into
flames spontaneoulsy? However, do you say, e.g., "Tanaka-3 is inflammable"
, but don't say "Tanaka-3 is flammable" ? I wonder what my old "flame" will
say about the above. Are these discussions valuable, inavaluable or
valueless or none of the above? (^_^)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satoru Miyazaki 米国 美国
Pesticide Research Center ミシガン州立大学 Forschungszentram 密西根州立大学
Michigan State University 農薬研究所 fuer Pestizide 農葯研究中心
U.S.A. 宮崎覚 Staatsuniversitaet
miya...@pilot.msu.edu von Michigan
Ben Bullock
> We've hashed out "could care less" too often in this group
> (alt.usage.english),
What the hell did Tanaka-san put alt.usage.english in the header for?
Sorry, stop this discussion immediately, this is a mistake, this is
sci.lang.japan, not alt.usage.english.
--
Ben Bullock @ KEK (national lab. for high energy physics, Tsukuba, Japan)
e-mail: b...@theory.kek.jp www: http://theory.kek.jp:80/~ben/
1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. tel: 0298 64 5403, fax: 0298 64 7831