|
|
Post by 83tsu on Dec 6, 2018 16:13:25 GMT 9
Thanks everyone! I have another question, that I get mixed results on when I google: "pottery" can be used to portray multiple types of pottery, or creations of a certain potter etc. right? Or is it potteries for expressing plural pottery? The document I'm native checking uses "potteries" and "pottery" both to express many creations or types of pottery. I am tempted to change all "potteries" to just pottery but I am not sure. I also feel that using both terms to express "plural" pottery is inconsistent. Hahaha sorry I'm still laughing at the "fisherpeople" w/ regards to pottery: I personally lean towards just "pottery". "He is skilled in many types of pottery," sounds fine to my (American) ear. If you were saying that there were many types/styles of pottery, e.g. "Various potteries from around the world," I think it'd be acceptable (maybe sounds a little odd to me?). However, it does make grammatical sense. "Various types of potteries," reads as a little redundant/odd, but I don't think there's technically anything wrong with it? |
|
|
|
Post by Aya Raincoat on Dec 6, 2018 16:19:20 GMT 9
Thanks everyone! I have another question, that I get mixed results on when I google: "pottery" can be used to portray multiple types of pottery, or creations of a certain potter etc. right? Or is it potteries for expressing plural pottery? The document I'm native checking uses "potteries" and "pottery" both to express many creations or types of pottery. I am tempted to change all "potteries" to just pottery but I am not sure. I also feel that using both terms to express "plural" pottery is inconsistent. I'd say potteries is used to talk about the actual creation/item, but the art is singular. "There are several styles of pottery." etc. Fisherpeople makes me think of Lovecraftian horror. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee on Dec 6, 2018 16:29:11 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Leilo on Dec 6, 2018 16:33:32 GMT 9
Thanks everyone! I have another question, that I get mixed results on when I google: "pottery" can be used to portray multiple types of pottery, or creations of a certain potter etc. right? Or is it potteries for expressing plural pottery? The document I'm native checking uses "potteries" and "pottery" both to express many creations or types of pottery. I am tempted to change all "potteries" to just pottery but I am not sure. I also feel that using both terms to express "plural" pottery is inconsistent. I'd say potteries is used to talk about the actual creation/item, but the art is singular. "There are several styles of pottery." etc. That is what my heart is telling me too... Then instead of saying potteries for the indivudal items, I am tempted to say what it is (like, pots, cups, figures, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒽𝒾𝓂𝑒 on Dec 6, 2018 16:38:20 GMT 9
Thanks everyone! I have another question, that I get mixed results on when I google: "pottery" can be used to portray multiple types of pottery, or creations of a certain potter etc. right? Or is it potteries for expressing plural pottery? The document I'm native checking uses "potteries" and "pottery" both to express many creations or types of pottery. I am tempted to change all "potteries" to just pottery but I am not sure. I also feel that using both terms to express "plural" pottery is inconsistent. I've not really seen/heard 'potteries' being used before, so I would say 'pottery' for everything
Could you use 'ceramics' for plural 'pottery'? Or would that sound weirder?
Edit: I hate when the forum doesn't actually take me to the most recent page. Leilo I think your idea above this comment would work well
|
|
|
|
Post by Ham on Dec 6, 2018 16:51:00 GMT 9
Suggestion: "pieces of pottery", if you have the space.
Because to me "many|# pottery" and "many|# potteries" both sound odd to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr. pussy popper on Dec 7, 2018 9:39:26 GMT 9
Thanks everyone! I have another question, that I get mixed results on when I google: "pottery" can be used to portray multiple types of pottery, or creations of a certain potter etc. right? Or is it potteries for expressing plural pottery? The document I'm native checking uses "potteries" and "pottery" both to express many creations or types of pottery. I am tempted to change all "potteries" to just pottery but I am not sure. I also feel that using both terms to express "plural" pottery is inconsistent. Is... is 'potteries' a word? I don't think it is. 'Pottery' is the umbrella term for various clay ceramic products. For a singular object, it would kind of depend on what it is, like a pot or a ceramic. But I would never say potteries.
**EDIT: just saw that people said the same thing i did hue sometimes the forum takes me to the latest unseen post by me and i dont realize theres a whole new page
|
|
|
|
Post by Ham on Dec 7, 2018 10:32:51 GMT 9
Dictionary says it exists as the multiple of 'pottery', but honestly when I hear it I think of multiple places where pottery is made.
|
|
|
|
Post by 83tsu on Dec 17, 2018 16:38:20 GMT 9
Brain has died.
心に残るお土産
Is "souvenirs that will stay in your heart" English? I was also considering "souvenirs that will last a lifetime" (this one I do know is English! though slightly less technically accurate compared to first one)
|
|
|
|
Post by Aya Raincoat on Dec 18, 2018 0:52:17 GMT 9
Souvenirs you'll remember for a lifetime?
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒽𝒾𝓂𝑒 on Jan 22, 2019 14:02:58 GMT 9
"Usa Jingu's importance throughout much of the nation's history cannot be understated."
I am wondering if this is right (I'm doing a native check/cutting down the word count, I didn't translate it), as I swear if it's trying to make it sound really important, it should be 'cannot be overstated' (like, 'cannot be emphasized enough' kinda thing)
Like the phrase so many people get wrong which is 'I couldn't care less' but people mistakenly say as 'I could care less'. They're trying to emphasize that they don't care at all and so, they couldn't care any less than they do, because they don't in fact care at all.
So if they're trying to make this shrine sound all important, its importance cannot be overstated, surely? If it says 'understated' it's like, you couldn't state its importance any less than the actuality, inferring it's not important, so GYAKU NI if it actually is important, its importance cannot be overstated, because it's that important kinda thing, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by quill on Jan 22, 2019 15:00:04 GMT 9
"Usa Jingu's importance throughout much of the nation's history cannot be understated." I am wondering if this is right (I'm doing a native check/cutting down the word count, I didn't translate it), as I swear if it's trying to make it sound really important, it should be 'cannot be overstated' (like, 'cannot be emphasized enough' kinda thing) Like the phrase so many people get wrong which is 'I couldn't care less' but people mistakenly say as 'I could care less'. They're trying to emphasize that they don't care at all and so, they couldn't care any less than they do, because they don't in fact care at all. So if they're trying to make this shrine sound all important, its importance cannot be overstated, surely? If it says 'understated' it's like, you couldn't state its importance any less than the actuality, inferring it's not important, so GYAKU NI if it actually is important, its importance cannot be overstated, because it's that important kinda thing, right? Yup, I totally agree with changing it to overstated in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantamen on Jan 22, 2019 17:04:06 GMT 9
yeah, it should be overstated.
If it can't be understated, then Usa Jingu would be totally irrelevant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 14:33:19 GMT 9
Can I ask someone to verify whether or not the following is gramatically sound/ which one sounds the best:
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service to which imperial envoys were ordered, in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa.
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa to which imperial envoys were ordered.
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa, to which imperial envoys were ordered.
All of the example sentences I have found for "to which" have the "to which" directly following the noun being modified. This first sentence follows that format and has "in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa" following after a comma. To be honest I think that sounds worse, but the second sentence, which is more pleasing to the ear, has "to which" following "in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa." I don't know if that is correct. If both of these are gramatticaly incorrect please let me know how to fix!
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒽𝒾𝓂𝑒 on Jan 23, 2019 14:37:17 GMT 9
I actually felt like the first one reads better but I'm not sure why ^^;;
|
|
|
|
Post by dr. pussy popper on Jan 24, 2019 8:52:08 GMT 9
Can I ask someone to verify whether or not the following is gramatically sound/ which one sounds the best:
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service to which imperial envoys were ordered, in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa.
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa to which imperial envoys were ordered.
In 1192 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Gotoba and the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate, Honen Shonin, founder of the Buddhist sect “Jodo shu,” visited the temple and held a great memorial service in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa, to which imperial envoys were ordered.
All of the example sentences I have found for "to which" have the "to which" directly following the noun being modified. This first sentence follows that format and has "in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa" following after a comma. To be honest I think that sounds worse, but the second sentence, which is more pleasing to the ear, has "to which" following "in honor of Emperor Goshirakawa." I don't know if that is correct. If both of these are gramatticaly incorrect please let me know how to fix!
I feel like the third option is best because there's a comma where I would logically pause. The first one is a bit weird because I feel that the honoring should be the main subject of the sentence, and the fact that envoys were also invited is like an afterthought. I'm waffling between 2 and 3 but ultimately the sentence in 2 goes on for too long with no pause and could be seen as a little run-on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 8:56:00 GMT 9
@jelly
Thanks! Yeah I was leaning towards number 3 as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Ham on Mar 1, 2019 8:59:57 GMT 9
Does this sound ok to y'all?
|
|
|
|
Post by thelatter on Mar 1, 2019 9:06:46 GMT 9
Does this sound ok to y'all? Sounds good to me. Personally I would drop the "making" and make "use" into "using" while getting rid of the first "of"
Ex: "Using the unique qualities of V. coignetiae..."
Also is "V. coignetiae" explained somewhere else in the document? I didn't know what it was until I searched it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr. pussy popper on Mar 1, 2019 9:10:23 GMT 9
Does this sound ok to y'all? It's in passive which is super Japanese but sounds a little funky in English. Maybe
We craft a variety of products, from refreshing wines to those with depth or sweetness for easy drinking through utilizing the unique qualities of V. coignetiae, such as its acidity and rich color.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ham on Mar 1, 2019 9:23:54 GMT 9
Thanks for the input! It helped me think of a (hopefully) good way to reword it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 9:30:29 GMT 9
Does this sound ok to y'all? It's in passive which is super Japanese but sounds a little funky in English. Maybe
We craft a variety of products, from refreshing wines to those with depth or sweetness for easy drinking through utilizing the unique qualities of V. coignetiae, such as its acidity and rich color.
Hm, it seems like it is in active to me. Ham
Utilizing the unique acidity, rich color, and other qualities of V coignetiae, we make a variety of products including refreshing wines, wines with depth, and easy-to-drink sweet wines.
How bout this? I was looking at wine sites and the phrase is to "make wine", "craft wine" I did not find
Edit: sorry about the weird tagging
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantamen on Mar 27, 2019 13:32:11 GMT 9
A native check I'm doing has an organization called the "Nagano wider area union" (caps as written). Am I crazy for thinking this sounds nonsensical in english? It's an accociation of municipalities near Nags City. The Japanese is 長野広域連合
Greater Nagano Area Union
Greater Nagano Region Union
Association for the Greater Nagano Area
Union for the Municipalities of the Greater Nagano area
Greater Nagano Area Accociation of Municipalities (GNAA?)
Association of Municipalities in the Greater Nagano Area
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee on Mar 27, 2019 13:37:36 GMT 9
A native check I'm doing has an organization called the "Nagano wider area union" (caps as written). Am I crazy for thinking this sounds nonsensical in english? It's an accociation of municipalities near Nags City. The Japanese is 長野広域連合 Greater Nagano Area Union Greater Nagano Region Union Association for the Greater Nagano Area Union for the Municipalities of the Greater Nagano area Greater Nagano Area Accociation of Municipalities (GNAA?) Association of Municipalities in the Greater Nagano Area I agree with you "Nagano wider area union" doesn't really make sense. I rather like this one: Association for the Greater Nagano Area |
|
|
|
Post by Psychic Pug on Mar 27, 2019 13:38:18 GMT 9
A native check I'm doing has an organization called the "Nagano wider area union" (caps as written). Am I crazy for thinking this sounds nonsensical in english? It's an accociation of municipalities near Nags City. The Japanese is 長野広域連合 Greater Nagano Area Union Greater Nagano Region Union Association for the Greater Nagano Area Union for the Municipalities of the Greater Nagano area Greater Nagano Area Accociation of Municipalities (GNAA?) Association of Municipalities in the Greater Nagano Area not the best translation but I found this |
|
|
|
Post by Cantamen on Mar 27, 2019 13:46:15 GMT 9
Thanks, both of you! I was starting to think I was just imagining that it was bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 15:35:00 GMT 9
has anyone every heard the phrase "as the crow flies" meaning "direct distance to"? I saw this on a native check and thought the iraisha was on acid or something. Turns out it is a legit phrase
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee on Mar 27, 2019 15:38:05 GMT 9
has anyone every heard the phrase "as the crow flies" meaning "direct distance to"? I saw this on a native check and thought the iraisha was on acid or something. Turns out it is a legit phrase Yes, it is a legit phrase. I feel like I heard it used a lot when I was younger, but not so much these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 15:39:14 GMT 9
has anyone every heard the phrase "as the crow flies" meaning "direct distance to"? I saw this on a native check and thought the iraisha was on acid or something. Turns out it is a legit phrase Yes, it is a legit phrase. I feel like I heard it used a lot when I was younger, but not so much these days. are you by any chance british? |
|
|
|
Post by 𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒽𝒾𝓂𝑒 on Mar 27, 2019 15:40:02 GMT 9
has anyone every heard the phrase "as the crow flies" meaning "direct distance to"? I saw this on a native check and thought the iraisha was on acid or something. Turns out it is a legit phrase Definitely legit, though idk if many people use it anymore (to respond to the question you asked dee, I am British she isn't though)
|
|
