What's new

Commercial video song text

Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
Hello. Could somebody write down the song text of this video for me? (Translation not necessary.)
All I understand is 私悪魔な橋本環奈です. :D
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
Thanks!

Why does it sound so much like マッカカかんな instead of 真っ赤かんな? I kinda hear one more ka than there should be... o_O
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
It's 真っ赤っかな(=真っ赤っ赤な), neither マッカカかんな nor 真っ赤かんな, as in the site I linked above.

EDIT:
Or, if you are talking about the refrain starting at 0:22, it's 真っ赤っ赤っ赤な.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
The idol's name is actually Kanna, so I figured... It would make sense though that there's a repitition like 真っ赤っ赤っ赤な.
Well, thanks then.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
まっかっか【真っ赤っ赤】
[名・形動]「真っ赤1」を強めていう語。「夕空が―に染まる」
まっかっか【真っ赤っ赤】の意味 - 国語辞書 - goo辞書

A well-known children's song 夕日
まっかっかっか 空の雲
童謡・唱歌 夕日 歌詞

A bit off topic. Did you notice what the nuance between 悪魔橋本環奈 and 悪魔橋本環奈 is, i.e., why unusual な is used instead of common の?
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
Actually, I noticed this a few times, however I never really thought about it since I understood the meaning... (I know this from な-adjectives and from なの, however it's sure strange that it's sometimes seen with nouns...)
But now that you say it... So there's actually a nuance then? What's about that な?

Edit: Technically の is also a noun, so here we have the same thing... That's odd. Never noticed that really.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
You are correct. な is from na-adjective. Indeed 悪魔 is a noun, not the stem of a na-adjective, but 悪魔な gives a nuance as an adjective such like 悪魔のような. FYI, の is the particle for apposition in this case, not a noun/pronoun, as in 首都の東京 or 友達の太郎, thus, the difference is "Kanna like a devil" vs "a devil Kanna".
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
No, I meant the generic noun の, like 一番好きなのは[...] or 本物なのか.

Well, thanks as always. ^^
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
の is a pronoun in your first example, and the explanatry の (grammatically a nominalizer) in your second example. On the other hand, の is a particle in 悪魔の橋本環奈, as I pointed out.
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
Basically, they're different things. Don't worry, I get it. ^^
It was called a "generic noun" in my learning source, since you could replace it with nouns like もの or 人 in the first sentence and with こと in the second (at least if there was a real な-adjective instead of 本物)... So, yeah, "pronoun" actually even has "noun" in it. :p
I would say nouns and pronouns are gramatically the same anyway, at least in Japanese.

Anyway, I know that it's different from the particle の, so don't worry! c:
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
準体助詞 is classified into pronoun 代名詞 and nominalizer 名詞化辞. Grammtically, they should be treated as different things.
You can't replaced の with こと even for any na-adjective in the second example. See the following threads if you are interested in the difference among nominalizers and pronouns.
koto | Japan Forum

I wrote this since your comment
Edit: Technically の is also a noun, so here we have the same thing... That's odd. Never noticed that really.
shows you are confusing, or at least you were confusing.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
Really? It seems you misunderstood or didn't know much about の to me.

Actually, I noticed this a few times, however I never really thought about it since I understood the meaning...
Do you think you really understood the meaning correctly?
神は細部に宿り給う。
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
I know enough, I'd say. I might just not know how to express myself correctly.
There's a particle の, a nominalizer の... Well, technically, that's all of it. The rest is just the very range of situations in which to use them.

I said I figured it had to be the same with な-adjectives, which would mean な is something like "being". I just accepted it as it was after hearing it a few times. Earlier, I even found the の (as in "中学生の私") weird before I got used to it.
But that's irrelevant because you clarified it anyway.

Now let's make something clear. When I say that the の (as in "中学生の私") is a particle and the の in "どうしたの" or "そういうのは" is a generic noun, then that doesn't mean that it ALWAYS has to have possessive or that it ALWAYS can be substituted by ANY other noun. I just look more on these things while wondering about the actual etymology, and I tend to categorize them more in how they work rather than their practical usage. That doesn't mean that I don't know how to use them in practical situations, though.
You would probably also scold me for saying that な is originally derived from だ even though I made no implication that they're the same thing and can substitute each other. That's not how it works. (It does come from だ though. I'm kinda sure of it.)
Yes, I know you can't always replace the nominal の with こと, it's just that I couldn't come up with another noun to place it there. That doesn't change the fact that in "本物なのか" it's still a type of nominalizer. That's, like, where it comes from. And, oh, see, here we have the な again! Is it merely a coincidence that you change だ to な before "んだ"/"のだ"? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Confusing, right?)

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
There's a particle の, a nominalizer の... Well, technically, that's all of it.
No. A nominalizer の and a pronoun の are different. Please read again the thread I linked above.

Now let's make something clear. When I say that the の (as in "中学生の私") is a particle and the の in "どうしたの" or "そういうのは" is a generic noun, then that doesn't mean that it ALWAYS has to have possessive or that it ALWAYS can be substituted by ANY other noun.
Of course, since the particle の has multiple functions/meanings, and the nominalizer and pronoun are different.

You would probably also scold me for saying that な is originally derived from だ even though I made no implication that they're the same thing and can substitute each other. That's not how it works. (It does come from だ though. I'm kinda sure of it.)
Not really. な is older than だ. It's from 断定の助動詞 "なり"; a classical auxiliary verb なり for assertion. な is just treated as the attributive form(連体形) of copula for convenience' sake in modern Japanese grammar.

You really are not confusing?
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
I can't really seem to find any destinction between it being a pronoun and a noun. It doesn't even seem to be too clear since, you said "the [の in the] second [sentence] can be interpreted both as a pronoun and a nominalizer."
I think I'm okay with treating it like a noun because it basically behaves like one. Just because you translate this の into Enlish with a pronoun doesn't mean that it is one in Japanese. I'm looking on it more from a Japanese perspective rather than an English one. What is the distinction of a pronoun from a noun in Japanese, anyway? There is none, really. Or can you explain me if there is?
I'm not going to dispute with academic people over Japanese grammar anyway, so I might as well call it as I like.
I don't think that it's too far fetched to say that の is essentially a noun. There is virtually no need to destinguish pronouns from nouns like that anyway (at least for me, I'm still learning the language, not "studying" it, if that makes sense). Unlike in German, where pronouns are NOT written in capital letters but nouns are, or in English or French where the difference between these two is that nouns have to have an article and pronouns must not have them, in Japanese there is no real visible difference between these two. That is, unless you can prove me wrong. :p
I don't know if it's smart to dispute with a native over his own language, but my experience is that Japanese tend to access the grammar system of their language in ways that are unneccessarily complicated. Or academics that teach Japanese and try too hard to transfer a system designed for teaching a Western language onto their teaching Japanese.

Anyway, so な actually comes from なり. Interesting, I guess learning never stops. Thanks for the hint. :p
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
I'm talking about the difference between pronoun and nominalizer, not pronoun and noun. You misunderstood it, maybe.

It doesn't even seem to be too clear since, you said "the [の in the] second [sentence] can be interpreted both as a pronoun and a nominalizer."
As you can see below, I pointed out the difference between them since they are different in meaning.

僕が言ったことを取り消す。
1) the interpretation as a pronoun こと
I take back what I said.
2) the interpretation as a nominalizer こと(=僕が言ったということを取り消す。)
I take back the fact I said (something.)

僕が言ったことを否定する would be more appropriate/intelligible as an example.
pronoun
deny (the contents of) what I said
nominalizer
deny that I said something (= assert that I said nothing)
 
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
53
Ratings
1
I know what you mean and I understand your point. You are determined to label the words as exactly as possible while I might not care about how each type of word is called but rather how to put certain words to use.
Nominalizer, noun, whatever... Looks to me like a noun that is preceded by a main clause, which HAPPENS to be translated as either a pronoun or a nominalization of a verb. Your example sentences would seem to me simply like two different possible meanings of the sentence rather than considering there to be two types of こと. "Deny (the contents of) what I said", that would mean that こと is a noun because "content" is also a noun. (I don't think that こと is a noun because the English translation says so, though. But simply because it is. Even jisho.org says so.)
Also, by your logic wouldn't there also be a nominalizing こと? Like in 歩くことが好き, "I like walking"?
And finally, in your example, it would seem that 言った would require an object, like 何か, to be able to take on the meaning "deny I said something". 僕が何かを言ったことを否定する. But I might be mistaken here. I probably am. I'm probably corrupted by English where there's the distinction between "speak" and "say".

I don't condemn your nomenclature. In fact, most people would probably understand it better if you explained it to them your way (which is probably the standard academic way of explaining this type of grammar). I prefer a somewhat more unconventional approach to it. But then again, I won't be teaching anytime soon (luckily). I might not be ready yet to develop my own methods. However, it does help me the way you write. Just don't be too nitpicky on everything I write. ^^
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
14,835
Ratings
2 1,538
こと is also a nominalizer, yes, of course. The nominalized phrase is also treated as a noun, of course, since that's the function of nominalizers, as in its name 名詞化辞.
OK, here's the last examples. I just want to clarify the difference.
pronoun
プールで泳いでいるのは田中さんです。 ( =泳いでいる人 "The one who is swimming is Tanaka.")

nominalizer
田中さんが泳いでいるのは知らなかった。 ( =泳いでいること "I didn't know that Tanaka was swimming.")
 
Top