[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 27 KB, 521x313, englishteacherplx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96542 No.96542 [Reply] [Original]

How would you break this down for an 11 learning english?

>> No.96560

Ze minu za seimu zingu.

>> No.96566

>restraunt

AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA

>> No.96568

>>96542
it/that usage depends on your dialect.

>> No.96574

That is more direct, and less vague.
It is just for general.

>> No.96581

"That" requires specific context. "It" does not.

Assuming that you're not using the words to refer to something unidentifiable.

>> No.96587

"It" seems to generally refer to something not directly pointed out.

"That" seems more of a response to something pointed out, or used when you point something out.

"That (thing you just said) sounds good"

"That (thing over there) is pretty weird looking"

But then you can use "it" in a lot of the same type of cases so I don't fucking know.

>> No.96594

>>96542
doesn't matter. no one will care if you use "that" or "it" and if you want to get into dialcets, there's one in England where saying "it" at the start of a sentence is ungrammatical.

>> No.96603

>>96542
Did it: Refers to what he did.
Did so: Refers to how he did what he did.

>> No.96606

No one will but the most anal english professors would care about the difference between those.

>> No.96608

>>96594
>>ungrammatical
Fuck, that really is word.

>> No.96615

>>96608
Fuck yeah it is...Seaking.

>> No.96620

I always thought that it refers to the distance the object is from the person.

It would sound odd saying "That is here."

It can be used in the opposite "It is there." because "it" can represent any object.

English is a fucked up language.

>> No.96621

>>96603

"You did not do that"

" I did so/it"

same thing

>> No.96623
File: 88 KB, 702x733, 1204172418299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96623

>> No.96632

THIS IS ORANGE.

>> No.96626

>>96621
Not the same. One choice is more vague than the other.

>> No.96636

これはオレンジです。

>> No.96640

>>96621
"Did so" is more like "Did it like that/that way"

>> No.96647

THEY'RE over THERE by THEIR house

>> No.96653

>>96640
It would still work in that situation.

>> No.96654

This reminds me, I got to look for that Pachira PVC figurine...

>> No.96659

"I did so." just seems like a more vague way to say "I did it."

"It" represents a specific thing or objective. "So" can also be used, but it just seems like one of those situations in a language where both work but one is more appropriate than the other.

>> No.96660

it is a third person neuter singular pronoun used to refer to a single genderless object.

that is a demonstrative pronoun used to refer to a less immediate person or object

it and that can both be used as substantives depending on context

>> No.96664
File: 13 KB, 469x462, 1204172859118.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96664

>>96660

>> No.96669

I think the big difference is whether or not you need/want to identify with what the speaker is talking about

>> No.96677

>>96669
OH SHI-

>> No.96680

>>96664
raymoo? did you go to /v/?

>> No.96683

I respond with SAGE

>> No.96691

>>96659
"So" requires context.

>> No.96700

just have them watch wayne's world

>> No.96712

Is that it?

>> No.96714

>>96700

PARTY TIME
EXCELLENT

>> No.96728

>>96712
aw fuck i cant believe you've done this

>> No.96733

"It" is a pronoun, "so" is an adverb.

"So" can only be used as a pronoun to affirm a previous statement, i.e. "Anonymous masturbates to little girls and will continue to do so."

/thread

>> No.96735

>>96712
Somewhere, a Japanese head exploded.

>> No.96739
File: 39 KB, 542x291, 1204173589496.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96739

DISCUSS

>> No.96740

>>96712
Fuck I lol'd

>> No.96747

Wow this is tough. It's kind of hard to explain.

I think 'THAT' is used when in response to some statement immediately preceding yours. So for the example above if your friend asks your whether you want to eat at a fancy restaurant it would be correct to say "that sounds good." ('that' referring to and relying on what your friend just said).

'IT' is used if the subject has already been established. It does not rely on an immediately preceding statement but can be used in response to one.

This is probably wrong.

>> No.96756

>>96733
loli not pedo

>> No.96759

If you want to refer to an entire idea as a noun, you can use 'that.'

>> No.96768
File: 37 KB, 400x511, 1204174033139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96768

>>96712
Is that so?

>> No.96773

Well it depends, unlike english, Japanese have different thats
その that thing next to you
あの that thing over there
after the の　your suppose to put the verb that you are referring to, but in english, we point or assume that the other person knows what we are talking about.
For example:
That apple
versus
That (points to the apple)
Japanese must have that noun apple for it to make sense
but in english, it is inferred.
It is a pronoun which takes the place of the subject (stated or inferred )
The weather is hot
vs.
It is hot.
The best japanese translation would be もの as in 食べもの (food in general) because もの signifies whatever or an object. Without the もの　it would just be 食べる (to eat).

>> No.96770

One went to the park today to sip tea

>> No.96783

>>96768
So, is that it?

>> No.96799
File: 23 KB, 250x250, 1204174349722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96799

このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス
。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。この
イス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。
このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス
。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。この
イス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。このイス。

>> No.96806

>>96783
It's that, so it is.

>> No.96816

I have a new-found hate for pronouns

>> No.96820

>>96773
no, 食べもの without the もの would be 食べ, which is a verb stem.

>> No.96828
File: 14 KB, 483x155, 1204174494610.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
96828

>> No.96839

>>96828
Screw it. Tell him to learn individual examples through ROTE MEMORY. Just like with irregular verbs in French.

>> No.96853

That's it. Thank you for your attention.

/thread

>> No.96858

>>96828
Thank fucking god I'm not an english teacher.

>> No.96972

>>96828
"Yatta" is more of a general expression of happiness. You could probably translate it as "FUCK YEAH" depending on context.

"I did" is a simple sentence. "i" is the subject, "did" is the verb. The addition of either "it" or "so" is optional.

Also, he used the conjunction "it's" where he should have used the possessive "its." See you fall semester, Variton7.

>> No.96985

Eh, this thread is confusing.

It refers to something specific. "I don't like it" in response to the example would be referring specifically to the restaurant, or, if the person talking had said, "How is this idea?" before asking about the restaurant, it would be referring to the idea of going.

That refers to in general what was being talked about. That being the idea of going to a restaurant.

In Japanese, I believe, it would be the difference between saying 「それが〜」　or 「それは〜」 The first one being the "it" and the second being the "that". It is more specific, like "that one in specific" instead of just "that in general".

Or at least those are my thoughts.

As for yatta, it's translated as "did it" because it's from yaru (to do), then made into casual past. yaru (to do) => yatta (did it)

>> No.97026

>>96828
My English major(soon to be) is raging. "I did it" would be correct because he is doing a general declaration (Meaning there is no indication as to who he is speaking to) with no answer.
"I did so" would be a declared answer pointed at a person or persons which would be incorrect in this case.
"I did" is just wrong.

I could be wrong though; because I am tired right now and don't give a fuck.

>> No.97053

>>96985
Ah, I didn't really address the yatta question, did I?
What >>96972 said. "so" is more like "in that way" or "did what you are saying" And I believe it would be "done so" anyway.

And english usually needs objects- so "I did" is confusing in most contexts.

For example:
"Have you done your homework yet?"
"Yes, I have already done so." or "Yes, I did."

But yeah, yatta has a more "FUCK YEAH!" Kind of feeling.

>> No.97055
File: 50 KB, 331x397, 1204176366388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
97055

>> No.97058

What is the difference between
"Yatta!"
and
"Yachatta!"

>> No.97071

>>97026
>Meaning there is no indication as to who he is speaking to

You just ended a sentence with a preposition. Zing!

>> No.97087

>>97055
Leaf Men

>> No.97100
File: 18 KB, 656x193, 1204176690340.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
97100

Should I just post the link?

>> No.97106

Don't forget that that can also be used as a conjunction.

>> No.97113

>>97100
fry.jpg

>> No.97122

>>97100
every day is fry day

>> No.97142

>>97058
yachatta is the regretful casual form of yaru (to do), so it's like..."I regretfully did (it, her, that)"

So say I had a rendezvous with your mother last night...

"Kinou, anata no okaasan wo yachatta. Gomen ne."

Of course, you can also use it for actually doing good wholesome things, too. I;d give an example, but I can't think of anything you'd accidentally do off hand.

>> No.97147

>>97100

I think that he needs to go do some sentence diagramming exercises.

>> No.97153

>>97142
>Okaasan TO yacchatta

Fixed that for you.

>> No.97165

>>97142
That sounds like you accidentally killed her...
like 殺る

>> No.97172

>>97153
It's not は ???

>> No.97206

>>97100
Just link this thread.

>> No.97217

>>97153
Hmm, but wouldn't mother be acting as an object? You are doing the action *to* her and not *with* her. Then again...with, might the the correct english which lends itself to "to". And I meant it as を　not は, it wasn't a misspelling.

You could be right. Particles still fuck me up sometimes.

>>97165
It's this "yaru" => 遣る Romaji sucks. Kanji is important. The difference between killing and having sex with your mother!

>> No.97219

>>97206
Not >>97100
He's really slow.

http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1204138780/

>> No.97222

>>97172
"to" suggests it was done with someone (with mother). "Wa" would mean mom is the one doing something, and has very little to do with the speaker.

>> No.97225

>>97219
No I meant link the 4chan thread

>> No.97235

"I did so" is hardly ever used in normal conversation

>> No.97236

>>97217
people don't act as objects when the action involves more than one party.

like "watashi to asobou" in H doujin; it's not "watashi wo asobou"

>> No.97239

>>97235
I use it if the opportunity is there...

>> No.97251
File: 74 KB, 533x789, 1204178691968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
97251

One or more of these posts originated from 4chan.

Can YOU find said post(s)?

>> No.97298

>>96606

That's irrelevent. to an english as a second language student, telling them "don't worry about it no one will care which you use" isn't going to teach them shit. The question is how to effectively teach the nuance between the two words.

>> No.97311
File: 49 KB, 600x631, 1204179382751.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
97311

Haha, oh wow

>> No.97317

>>97236
Haha, took me a second to realize what the hell "watashi to asobu" was. Guess I should play more H-games to better my Japanese.

But I do suppose that makes sense. I hate particles. (densha *ni* noru?! WTF? I ride to/at the train?!)

>> No.97325

>>97317
that's not as bad as literally translating "riding on the plane/train/bus" into french or other languages, where "in" is the only correct preposition. You get some odd stares.

>> No.97348

To everyone ITT: as someone who's learned English as a second language, I'm appalled at your ignorance.

>> No.97349

>>97317
No no no. "ni" would be correct there; it's the particle for in/on/via. "he" would be at/to.

>> No.97358

>>97348
people who only know one language have a much weaker grasp on how their language even works than people who are completely fluent in two languages.

>> No.97362

>>97348
Welcome to 4chan!

>> No.97369

>>97348
When english is your first language, you don't learn how to conjugate verbs or why you use "it" instead of "that", you just know. Second languages are different. I know that "Would you like to date with me" is wrong because it sounds wrong. First languages are entirely intuitive. When you form a sentence in your native language, you're not thinking, "Okay, noun, object, verb, what is the past perfect from of that verb..." You learn your first language by hearing it and reading it since childhood, not by analyzing and studying it.

>> No.97385

>>97349
Huh? Ni is there. If you're referring to the the "Densha ni noru", that is. I was just reflecting on how in japanese, when you translate literally you ride at/to the train and not "densha wo noru" like actually ride the train, like in english.

へ enters nowhere in this equation.

>> No.97415

>>97369
>You learn your first language by hearing it and reading it since childhood, not by analyzing and studying it.

ESL guy here, I think I did this with English, only through movies and books. I ignored most of my formal education and that's why I have problems with past tenses and whatnot, so I usually go by ear.

>> No.97420

>>97385
My point exactly.
You'd use "densha ni noru" to describe HOW you got somewhere (i.e. by train). "Densha wo noru" would be directly saying "ride the train". "Densha he noru" would be "ride TO the train".

Of course, "noru" isn't conjugated, so the "who" is unanswered. You wouldn't say it in ref. of your own actions.

>> No.97453

>>97420
ni/de interchangeable in this instance?

>> No.97489

>>97420
Incorrect. De would be explaining how, ni is simply stating I ride the train.

たとえば：
毎日電車にのる。
Every day I ride the train.

学校に電車で行く。
I to go school by train.

電車へのる。
I ride to the train (by some means I am not mentioning).

Densha ni noru is perfectly legitimate. And you are correct about he, but I didn't say anything about he (and regardless, in most situations, ni and he are interchangeable). Ni does not describe how or a means, it is used to denote that you are riding the train (as opposed to something else).

>> No.97492

>>97453
"de" would be used if you also stated where you were going; you'd use "de" to refer to how you got there. It's like saying "via".
Sorta interchangeable, but not quite.

>> No.97674

>>97420

電車を乗る is incorrect. The poster above explains it clearly.

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action