| |
Diff: |
@@ -9,0 +10 @@
+<gloss>too</gloss>
@@ -11,2 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>too</gloss>
-<gloss>words of similar weight</gloss>
+<gloss>in addition</gloss>
+<gloss>as well</gloss>
+<gloss>(not) either (in a negative sentence)</gloss>
@@ -16 +18,9 @@
-<gloss>about (emphasizing an upper limit)</gloss>
+<s_inf>as ＡもＢも</s_inf>
+<gloss>both A and B</gloss>
+<gloss>A as well as B</gloss>
+<gloss>neither A nor B (in a negative sentence)</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&prt;</pos>
+<s_inf>used for emphasis or to express absence of doubt regarding a quantity, etc.</s_inf>
+<gloss>even</gloss>
@@ -18 +28,13 @@
-<gloss>even</gloss>
+<gloss>as many as</gloss>
+<gloss>as far as</gloss>
+<gloss>as long as</gloss>
+<gloss>no less than</gloss>
+<gloss>no fewer than</gloss>
+</sense>
+<sense>
+<pos>&prt;</pos>
+<s_inf>often as as 〜ても, 〜でも, 〜とも, etc.</s_inf>
+<gloss>even if</gloss>
+<gloss>even though</gloss>
+<gloss>although</gloss>
+<gloss>in spite of</gloss>
@@ -23,0 +46,3 @@
+<misc>&col;</misc>
+<misc>&abbr;</misc>
+<gloss>further</gloss>
@@ -25,2 +49,0 @@
-<gloss>further</gloss>
-<gloss>other</gloss>
@@ -27,0 +51,2 @@
+<gloss>another</gloss>
+<gloss>the other</gloss> |
| |
Comments: |
As for Rene's rejection of my submission for "〜もの間, ものあいだ, [exp], (idiom) as long as", I wish to make further comment. I have chosen this location for reasons which will be clear below.
As we all know, in English, where each word is generally in the text as an isolated word with a space or punctuation either side of it, each word can be found as a word in a dictionary with its meaning and grammatical functions explained. On the other hand, Japanese is a plague for the novice with just a continuous string between each main division, which division can only be determined by punctuation and certain obvious particles like “を”; and, of course, more so based upon the degree of knowledge of the user.
However, being specific about the submission, I made the submission on the basis that it had been identified in some places as an idiomatic expression. It seems from your [Rene's] comments that you do not agree with that.
If you are correct, then it is clear that an entry for “もの間” would not normally exist in a dictionary as a specific entry.
In undertaking the research for clarification, the research steps that a novice, like me, would take when looking at a dictionary are these: First I would look for what I think may be a complete reading for a string of text, which is not understood, by me, before starting a search, i.e., in this case, “もの間”. If that string is not found, I would then start looking at the parts, e.g, “もの”and “間”. If those parts do not make sense in context, I would then start looking up any other possible divisions of readings, e.g., “も” and “の”. Maybe there is a better way for the novice, but that is where I sit at present in the mode of my research.
As it happened, for that submission, I got a clue for the whole expression of “もの間”from clicking on the [A] link, which gave a range of 53 examples. Some of these seemed to fall outside the individual parts, as explained by you, and seemed to be a little bit idiomatic. So, I then searched on Google and found the reference in Weblio, to which I referred to in my submission.
I am not stating that you [Rene] are incorrect in ruling out idiom, but if you could conclude that the meaning of “も”in “もの間”is based upon the fact that it is simply inserted for emphasis; i.e., without knowing what came before it or after it in the context of the usage which triggered my search, then perhaps the main entry for “も”should be slightly modified to show that. If one looks at the entry of “も” one has the following:-
も (prt) (1) also; too; words of similar weight; (2) about (emphasizing an upper limit); as much as; even; (adv) (3) (See もう・3) more; further; other; again; (P)
It would seem to me that perhaps (2) should be modified to show simple emphasis as well as emphasizing upper limit. In addition, maybe it should also indicate what happens if the particle is followed by a negative, perhaps meaning “not less than”.
In passing, when you [Rene] make a pedantic dismissive comment like: “a dictionary has to be able to assume that its users know basic grammar.” I comment below:-
Thinking as the novice as opposed to the scholar, I take the view that a dictionary is an inanimate object and of itself it is powerless to assume anything. The only power of assumption rests in the hands of the great variety of human beings who undertake the important task of compiling dictionaries; and that variety of humans inevitably add a variable dimension to all the various dictionaries that are produced. And, as for me, I have always believed that such dictionaries are produced to aide as many of those other human beings who would turn to a dictionary for help. And, in the case of Jim's dictionary, grammatical clues are given in abundance so any additional help would not be out of place. |