チーム同士 / ス / きかせて / ウチ / 見ながら言われて

[eeky]

Hello,

1. 実力が伯仲したチーム同士の対戦なので面白い試合になりそうだ。

Translation given: "Both teams are well matched, the game will be an interesting one."

Is チーム同士 a single compound noun? Is it just a fancy way of saying "team" or is there some further significance?


2. 「その人なんて言ってたんスか？」「露語が全く通じな かったので露語でなじってやった 」

Translation given: "What was that person saying?" "He couldn't communicate in Russian at all so I told him off in Russian."

What is 言ってたんスか? Is it 言って + いた + ん + ス + か? If so, what is ス?


3. 彼女は機転を大いにきかせてきわどい質問をかわした。

Translation given: "She showed a great deal of wit in handling the delicate question."

What verb is きかせて? In the dictionary I see 利かせる and 聞かせる as possibilities, but none of the definitions leap out as obviously fitting the sentence.


4. ウチも分煙しなきゃいけないよねぇ。

Translation given: "We'll also have to separate the smoking section won't we?"

Does ウチ just mean "we" here? Any reason why it should be written in katakana?


5. 『ねえ』って、僕を見ながら言われても・・・もしかし て、またダブルブッキングですか？

Translation given: "It's no good saying 'Isn't it?' to me ... have you double-booked again?"

Let's assume this is said by person A to person B. I'm trying to get my head round the subjects and verb forms of 見ながら言われて. Given the tone of the sentence, I'm assuming 言われて is not honorific. The only sense I can make of it is that the subjects of 見ながら and 言われて are both person B, and that 言われて is passive because person A suffered the consequence of being spoken to. I am far from confident though... is this correct?

 

[Toritoribe]

1)
That's a suffix-like usage of 同士. It means "between/among (teams)".

http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2...0%8C%E5%A3%AB/

2)
That's the contraction of です. It's rather slangy.

3)
It's the former. 機転が利く is a kind of set phrase.

http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E6...pe=0&dname=0ss

4)
It's often the case with katakana words, it would be the writer's preference.

5)
Yeah, 言われる in that sentence is a passive, so-called adversative/suffering passive. It seems that there are two different patterns about the usage.

君にそんなこと（を）言われたくないな。

僕にそんなこと（を）言われても困る。
そんな苦情（を）うちの部署に言われても、どうしよう もないよな。

In the first example, the omitted subject "I" is the person who is told such a thing, and に indicates the sayer. This is quite normal usage of the passive form. In contrast, in the second and last one, に indicates the person/section who is told such a thing/complaint nevertheless 言われる is considered as passive, not honorific. This could be from the confusion of the passive and the honorific, JIMO.
Back to your example, 言われて is indeed a passive, and the sayer is B.

Very, very interesting question!! I have to admit I've never thought about it deeply so far.

 

[eeky]

It's often the case with katakana words, it would be the writer's preference

Hi Toritoribe, thanks for your help.

I've heard said that katakana (for words usually written in hiragana/kanji) is a bit like italics in English. Assuming we don't know for sure what was actually in the writer's mind, what impression/perception do you, as a reader, get from seeing ウチ here instead of うち? Does it just seem like the word is being emphasised?

On a related topic, I know I've asked before about why words that one might expect to be written in kanji are sometimes written in hiragana, and you've explained that there are lots of different cases and also invoked the "writer's preference". Taking one specific example from #3:

彼女は機転を大いにきかせてきわどい質問をかわした。

彼女は機転を大いに利かせてきわどい質問をかわした。

As a reader, do you perceive any difference in nuance between these two sentences? Does the kanji/hiragana difference stand out as significant/important, or does it seem neutral and "transparent"?

そんな苦情（を）うちの部署に言われても、どうしよう もないよな。

I am not sure I understand this (for reasons not directly related to the point you are explaining). Does it mean, more or less, "Even if our department were told about this kind of complaint, we couldn't do anything about it."?

 

[Toritoribe]

In addition to my reply for #1, 同士 can be used only when the both(or all, if they're more than three) members are in a same category, e.g., 実力が伯仲したチーム同士; "teams that are as good as each other", 優勝を争うチーム同士; "teams that compete for the championship" or like that. Therefore, the matchup "Manchester United vs West Ham United" is not called as 優勝を争うチーム同士の試合.

I've heard said that katakana (for words usually written in hiragana/kanji) is a bit like italics in English. Assuming we don't know for sure what was actually in the writer's mind, what impression/perception do you, as a reader, get from seeing ウチ here instead of うち? Does it just seem like the word is being emphasised?

Yeah, that's right. Katakana is often used as the same usage as a highlighted/underlined word. I think that that ウチ would refer to their office, restaurant, shop or something. The writer might want to differentiate it from "house/home", JIMO.

On a related topic, I know I've asked before about why words that one might expect to be written in kanji are sometimes written in hiragana, and you've explained that there are lots of different cases and also invoked the "writer's preference". Taking one specific example from #3:
彼女は機転を大いにきかせてきわどい質問をかわした。
彼女は機転を大いに利かせてきわどい質問をかわした。
As a reader, do you perceive any difference in nuance between these two sentences? Does the kanji/hiragana difference stand out as significant/important, or does it seem neutral and "transparent"?

Hmm, they seem the same to me.
Just in my case, I often confuse which kanji I should use; 機転が利く? or 機転が効く? In these cases, using hiragana saves me from the misuse of kanji.

I am not sure I understand this (for reasons not directly related to the point you are explaining). Does it mean, more or less, "Even if our department were told about this kind of complaint, we couldn't do anything about it."?

Right. But the sentence can be used also when a complaint is actually told.

Although our department were told about this kind of complaint, we can't do anything about it.

 

[eeky]

Thank you.

 

[Glenn]

Just in my case, I often confuse which kanji I should use; 機転が利く? or 機転が効く? In these cases, using hiragana saves me from the misuse of kanji.

Ha, this was the first thing that came to my mind. It's happened to me before a few times too. That reminds me of this one 口頭表現 class I had in Japan when we were talking about whether to use お or ご with certain words, and the teacher said "if you're not sure just use the kanji (御) and let the reader read it how they want." That made me laugh, and feel better because if even Japanese people are unsure sometimes, I don't have to be so uptight about it.

 

[eeky]

It's been explained to me before, though, that text written entirely in kana can be awkward for Japanese people to read. IthinkitwascomparedtoEnglishwithoutanyspaces. So, I guess there's a cutoff point where absence of kanji does start to impair readability...

 

[Toritoribe]

That's right. Whether the homonym(s) of the word exist(s) can be one of the points.

 

[Glenn]

It's awkward for me to read too.

 

[eeky]

However, there is one aspect to this that I still don't really understand. If homonyms cause a problem when reading kana-only text, why do they not cause an equal problem in speech? I know sometimes there are stress/intonation differences that differentiate words, but I would imagine that applies in only a minority of cases? In practice does confusion between homophones arise often in spoken Japanese?

 

[undrentide]

Interesting question.
I think that most of the cases, it is context that helps.
Plus one tends to use different words/phrase from writing - usually unconsciously - to make the meaning clear.
(Sorry cannot think of a good example right now...)

 

[Toritoribe]

The pitch accent/intonation can be an effective way to differentiate homonyms, not "sometimes" but, I believe, "mostly". When the homonyms have the same pitch accent, the context can be the index in most cases, as undrentide-san mentioned. Think about that languages are primitively made to comunicate with each other.;-)

 

[eeky]

I think that most of the cases, it is context that helps.

I can understand context being an issue when interpreting isolated written words or even isolated sentences, but in longer texts is there really usually any less context than is found in conversation?

Plus one tends to use different words/phrase from writing - usually unconsciously - to make the meaning clear.

So, I wonder what happens when written text is read aloud? Does one have to often stop and explain which homophone is meant?

 

[Glenn]

So, I wonder what happens when written text is read aloud? Does one have to often stop and explain which homophone is meant?

Yes, this does happen. I've heard it when people have read letters or e-mails out loud from time to time, for instance. They normally do it by saying what the kanji are.

 

[eeky]

The pitch accent/intonation can be an effective way to differentiate homonyms, not "sometimes" but, I believe, "mostly".

That's interesting. When I look up, say, か (as a random example), I see about 20 or 25 different noun meanings. How many ways can one say か?!

Yes, this does happen. I've heard it when people have read letters or e-mails out loud from time to time, for instance. They normally do it by saying what the kanji are.

In fact, a similar thing sometimes happens in English too. I recall a confusion between "formally" and "formerly" when I was recently reading something to someone, which resulted in me spelling out the word.

 

[Glenn]

I'd say 2, but you'd have to hear the following mora to know where the accent on it is. I suppose with that example whether it's 科 or 課 could be confusing in speech and in writing if no kanji are used, but 蚊 should be unmistakable from the context.

 

[WaterFox]

However, there is one aspect to this that I still don't really understand. If homonyms cause a problem when reading kana-only text, why do they not cause an equal problem in speech? I know sometimes there are stress/intonation differences that differentiate words, but I would imagine that applies in only a minority of cases? In practice does confusion between homophones arise often in spoken Japanese?

Hi.
Context and collocation are one answer, and using 訓読み might be another answer, I think.

For example, saishin-no has a lot of meaning, 最新の 細心の 再審の
最深の 再診の 砕身の, etc.
Yet,
saishin-no 知識 is usually 最新の知識.
Saishin-no 注意 is usually 細心の注意, because of collocation.

If you want to say something like 最新の注意事項に従って, then you might say 最も新しい注意事項に従って instead.

In formal writings, an adult should use 音読みの熟語, which has many homonyms.
In speech, in colloquial expressions, one may use 訓読み which has less homonyms.

One might even say 広島いちりつ高校に進学した、 for 広島市立高校.
Because shiritsu may be 市立 and 私立.
The pronunciation "いちりつ" is an intentional mis-pronunciation.
私立 is pronounced as "わたくしりつ".

 

[Glenn]

Similar to the last two examples is 科学・化学. The latter is pronounced ばけがく sometimes to avoid ambiguity.

 

[eeky]

Similar to the last two examples is 科学・化学.

Wow, that is confusing.

One of my favourites is 売 (ばい) and 買 (ばい).

 

[Glenn]

It makes remembering the order of 売買 more difficult, to be sure.

 

[Toritoribe]

That's interesting. When I look up, say, か (as a random example), I see about 20 or 25 different noun meanings. How many ways can one say か?!

広辞苑 has 44 entry words of か, including particles, sufixes, or counters. Most of them aren't usually used solely.
I have to add to my previous post that "in cases we could confuse". I thought about 橋, 箸, 端 in my mind when I wrote it. But, anyway, confusion wouldn't happen so frequently in daily life. I believe we talk to avoid misinterpretations naturally/unconsciously.