<entry id="2147265" stat="A" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>2087820</ent_seq>
<r_ele>
<reb>のです</reb>
<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>
</r_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>んです</reb>
<re_pri>spec1</re_pri>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&exp;</pos>
<s_inf>の and ん add emphasis</s_inf>
<gloss>the expectation is that ...</gloss>
<gloss>the reason is that ...</gloss>
<gloss>the fact is that ...</gloss>
<gloss>the explanation is that ...</gloss>
<gloss>it is that ...</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2006-07-09 00:00:00" stat="A">
<upd_detl>Entry created</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-01-04 12:05:33" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>だ and です forms should be split. Also ん
だ (but not のだ) means "that's right" in 
Tohoku dialect.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-01-05 05:14:26" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Can you indicate the glosses you propose for the split?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-01-18 06:44:36" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I'm guessing it's the 丁寧 aspect that is behind  the split suggestion? I don't have any problem with such a split, with のです &amp; んです being tagges [pol]. Alternatively we could keep the one entry with a note such as "のです and んです are more polite"]</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>Daijr: has のです and のだ entries which are very similar. For のです it says: "準体助詞「の」に丁寧の助動詞「です」の付いたもの。"</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2019-03-19 02:54:43" stat="A">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>it appears as no further edit is forthcoming for the moment, so i'm closing this.  i don't really disagree that this could/should be split though</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-01-08 18:59:27" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_detl>I'm not sure this should be translated as a cleft construction in English. To quote from the Wisdom J-E dictionary (3rd ed.): ―(な)のだ   (!一種の強調語である「…なのだ」に相当する英語はない.｟話｠ではイントネーションと強勢で表すことができる. 例えば,「彼は正直なのだ」は He ↘is hónest. のように, is を強く下降調でいえばよい. 一般に be 動詞を含む文は be 動詞を強調することによって,「…なのだ」の意を表せる.｟書｠では文脈から考えて表現しなければならない).</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -20,4 +20,2 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;the expectation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;the reason is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;the fact is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;it is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;(adds emphasis) be&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;is&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-02-05 02:56:09" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>A month without reaction.
I don't feel that converting this 13yo version to a simple copula with a note is achieving anything much. I'll revert to the earlier version, and add a note.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -20,2 +20,5 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;(adds emphasis) be&lt;/gloss&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;is&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;の and ん add emphasis&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;the expectation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;the reason is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;the fact is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;it is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-02-16 18:43:06" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_diff>@@ -21 +21 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;the expectation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;the explanation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2020-02-17 04:56:10" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think expectation was fine, but we could have both.</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -21 +21 @@
-&lt;gloss&gt;the explanation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;the expectation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;
@@ -23,0 +24 @@
+&lt;gloss&gt;the explanation is that ...&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-06-03 12:37:58" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't think this entry should be split into のです+んです and のだ/んだ. only the first two are [polite]</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-06-03 23:24:39" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>How about this, rather than splitting?
(I have a vested interest, as untangling the 1000+ sentences indexed to these terms would be a pain.)</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -20 +20 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;の and ん add emphasis&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;の and ん add emphasis; ～です forms are more polite&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-06-04 04:32:13" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Marcus Richert</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I still think it'd be better off split. Do these two really need to be linked to hundreds of example sentences? Shouldn't a few each be 
enough?</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-06-05 00:34:57" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I guess so. We split なのです and なのだ. I'll do that now.
I like keeping the terms in the indices complete as it helps identify modifications to the sentences themselves. Around 50-70 sentences get changed each week and I have software that tracks and identifies the changes. The completeness of the indices is central to this.</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>のです	184806448
のだ	70948448
んです	176707857
んだ	151359170</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -9 +9 @@
-&lt;reb&gt;のだ&lt;/reb&gt;
+&lt;reb&gt;んです&lt;/reb&gt;
@@ -11,6 +10,0 @@
-&lt;/r_ele&gt;
-&lt;r_ele&gt;
-&lt;reb&gt;んです&lt;/reb&gt;
-&lt;/r_ele&gt;
-&lt;r_ele&gt;
-&lt;reb&gt;んだ&lt;/reb&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-06-05 12:11:51" stat="A">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_diff>@@ -14 +14 @@
-&lt;s_inf&gt;の and ん add emphasis; ～です forms are more polite&lt;/s_inf&gt;
+&lt;s_inf&gt;の and ん add emphasis&lt;/s_inf&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-18 08:34:20" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>mark dufour</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>seems good to at least mention this second meaning?</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>dictionary of basic japanese grammar</upd_refs>
<upd_diff>@@ -19,0 +20,4 @@
+&lt;/sense&gt;
+&lt;sense&gt;
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;exp;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;gloss&gt;talking about something emotively&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2021-09-21 04:22:00" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I think this is just amplifying sense 1 a little, and is covered by the note. The DBJG mentions "emphasize his point emotionally" (p 327).</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -20,4 +19,0 @@
-&lt;/sense&gt;
-&lt;sense&gt;
-&lt;pos&gt;&amp;exp;&lt;/pos&gt;
-&lt;gloss&gt;talking about something emotively&lt;/gloss&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>