JLPT waste of time thread

[Mike Cash]

Strange he didn't take exception to the inclusion of "a" in "a waste of time" which clearly indicates it is a countable noun.

Or should we say, "JLPT (all inclusive, because he doesn't allow for different opinions of different levels) is waste of time." ??

 

[Supervin]

interesting... thread

 

[Supervin]

What is clearly a waste of time is attempting to explain a very simple aspect of basic English to someone so obtuse.

LOL, clearly you're the only one obtuse here when other posters know what I'm talking about.

which clearly indicates it is a countable noun.

Do everyone a favor, and look up the word 'waste' in a dictionary.

And for that matter, do you not even read what other people have posted?

 

[DoctorP]

Everyone is too touchy feely these days. Taking a test, that serves you no purpose after you are done, is essentially a WASTE for me. Why not study the different levels, then just test out once?

Everyone has different opinions. Just because Mike's opinion is different than yours doesn't mean you have to go all psycho. Bucko if you really want to take all of the tests, then be our guest. I chose to skip over the lower levels myself.

 

[RockLee]

You just have to understand Mike, in all his sarcastic glory. Some people have problems with that

 

[yukio_michael]

If people do or do not want to take the test, that's their business I suppose. I can also see that when you're putting in a lot of work towards a specific goal, rarely does anyone want to hear (even in part) that it's a 'waste of time'...

Regardless, a lot of people seem to study "for the JLPT", which is a lot like studying for any other test, you're studying for the test, not studying your Japanese, so passing the test isn't always a good indication of your Japanese level... I'm wondering, at what point do the tests get into one-on-one sessions that test your conversational abilities specifically in branching topics?

I think even if people say that the tests aren't useful to them, it does show the government of Japan that you are interested in learning their language and have taken steps to try to grade your proficiency... I may be remiss in the actual truth to this statement, but this is what I'm told.

I've suffered through conversations whose basic premise was that the entire Japanese language as a whole was a 'waste of time' unless you were going to be making money from it--- Say, working in Japan... That learning the language was too time-consuming for simple things like watching anime or reading Japanese newspapers & magazines. To some extent I think this is true... Japanese is a major investment in time, but this tends to, to quote Full Metal Jacket, 'weed out the non-hackers'...

Oh, yes. I learned on a manual typewriter and was always taught to double space after a full-stop. I also did not get the memo.

 

[nhk9]

Actually I think if you can pass the JLPT 2, you can really show that you can survive in Japan, since most of the stuff that appear in JLPT 1, especially the grammar, hardly ever appears outside of literary and academic circles. Yes, most, if not all, educated native speakers will know the meaning of patterns like "ya ina ya", or "wo motte", but as a foreign learner, you can get by without knowing these (unless you really want to). Of course, passing JLPT 1 would show that your Japanese proficiency is higher, but to say that JLPT 2 is a "waste of time" is a bit too strong.

For the beginner levels, at least passing them will show that you have an interest in Japanese and have put in some effort in learning it. Also, it could serve as a motivator or goal that a beginner can look forward to. So they are not completely "wastes".

 

[undrentide]

Sorry for being persistent, but the usage of "waste" is still bugging me.
(I'm not sure whether I should start a new thread under 英語勉強フォーラム as this thread is about JLPT...)

In my personal view, either way works, but the way of thinking of it is different.

Like Glenn said I don't have as much of a problem with making the plural form (are wastes) as others seem to either unless it is considered uncountable and therefore grammatically a bulk item (stuff, money, space, time etc).

Strange he didn't take exception to the inclusion of "a" in "a waste of time" which clearly indicates it is a countable noun.
Or should we say, "JLPT (all inclusive, because he doesn't allow for different opinions of different levels) is waste of time." ??

So far I could find only two online dictionaries who gives info regarding countable/uncountable/singular/plural on the word "waste". (English-Japanese I've got do not mention about this particular expression = (a) waste of time.)

LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary English
1bad use [singular, uncountable] when something such as money or skills are not used in a way that is effective, useful, or sensible
waste of
- Being unemployed is such a waste of your talents.
- Many believe that state aid is a waste of taxpayers' money.
- What a waste of all that good work!
- excessive waste in state spending
2 go to waste if something goes to waste, it is not used:
- Don't let all this food go to waste.
3 be a waste of time/money/effort etc to be not worth the time, money etc that you use because there is little or no result:
- We should never have gone - it was a total waste of time.

It has a few more entries, in a sense of "unwanted materials" it is uncountable, and as "land" it should be used in plural i.e. wastes. There's "a wate of space" which does not have any indication of countable/uncountable, I assume it is a set phrase.

CAMBRIDGE Dictionaries Online
waste Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

waste (BAD USE)
noun [S or U]
1 an unnecessary or wrong use of money, substances, time, energy, abilities, etc:
- That meeting achieved absolutely nothing - it was a complete waste of time.
- She's been unemployed for two years and it's such a waste of her talents.
- My mother couldn't bear waste - she always made us eat everything on our plates.

2 waste ground/land an area of ground in or near a city which is not built on, cultivated or used in any way:
- His body had been dumped in an area of waste land just outside the city.

My understanding from these dictionaries is;
(1) the noun "waste" can be either countable/uncountable depending on the usage,
(2) when "waste" means "bad use", we can say "a waste of time" or "waste of time" but not "wastes of time".

If the above is true, it is very interesting because being used in singular with article "a" means it is countable, while it is also used as uncountable.

I wonder if "wastes of time" is also valid - I found may "wastes of time" (134,000 hits) when checking with google but being found on the net does not always mean it is grammatically correct, so I'm not really sure.

Or my understanding is wrong? Or even though "wastes of time" is not grammatically correct if strictly speaking, yet is very commonly used? (There are many such words/expression in Japanese, so I wonder if this could be the case.)

If my understanding is correct, then I have further questions.
1. Are there any other nouns similar to this, which are used in singular or as uncountable but not in plural?
2. When subject is plural, what is the correct usage - using "waste" as uncountable noun?

In Japanese basically we do not have singular/plural (at least not like English and many other European languages), and I often get confused and make mistakes about singular/plural, countable/uncountable, with or without article (a, an), which pronoun to be used, etc.

I really want to know what is correct and what is incorrect, and any help would be appreciated.
:

 

[epigene]

I have to apologize first that I haven't been following this thread, so my question may be slightly off-topic.

I have the same questions as undrentide because "wastes of time" sounds "unnatural" to me.

I have used wastes when referring to different types of wastes (such as effluents, solids, scrap metals, etc.). When referring to time, space, and other abstract nouns, I have stuck to "(a) waste of time", thinking of the subject, if plural, as a collective noun, such as: The JLPT tests are a waste of time.

I'd love to have our native-speaking members (esp. the
English pros) to elaborate of this!
Yoroshiku-onegai-shimasu!

 

[Supervin]

(2) when "waste" means "bad use", we can say "a waste of time" or "waste of time" but not "wastes of time".
... etc

For goodness sake, did you even read what I wrote?! Are my comments not worthy of your quoting? I brought this whole issue up in the first place as well!

... because "wastes of time" sounds "unnatural" to me.
I have used wastes when referring to different types of wastes (such as effluents, solids, scrap metals, etc.). When referring to time, space, and other abstract nouns, I have stuck to "(a) waste of time", thinking of the subject, if plural, as a collective noun, such as: The JLPT tests are a waste of time.
I'd love to have our native-speaking members (esp. the
English pros) to elaborate of this!

This is absolutely correct. Finally.

I cannot believe that not a single person backed me up on this. It's outrageous. As a native English speaker, I would've thought that other native speakers would spot this inaccuracy fairly quickly. Ridiculous.

 

[undrentide]

For goodness sake, did you even read what I wrote?!

Yes, of course I did.
But then other "native" speakers wrote different comments.
That is why I asked the question again, hoping we might get more comments from other native speakers of English.

I apologise if my post offended you, but it is not my intention.
I would be grateful if you could be a little bit more patient with me.

 

[Supervin]

That is why I asked the question again, hoping we might get more comments from other native speakers of English.
I apologise if my post offended you, but it is not my intention.
I would be grateful if you could be a little bit more patient with me.

It's just that this thread ticks me off.

Any decent native English speaker should be able to tell that there's something screwed up about the expression 'wastes of time'. I can't believe it has taken two pages.

 

[cheapshot]

Everyone is too touchy feely these days. Taking a test, that serves you no purpose after you are done, is essentially a WASTE for me. Why not study the different levels, then just test out once?

for me the test is just a milestone indicator of... "yes, i was at this level last year, now i am at this level" kind of self-motivational thing. nothing more or less.

 

[Glenn]

Alright, I'm going to attempt to clear this up for undrentide. Here's what I think:

The way it was used in the initial sentence didn't bother me because the usual expression has "a" in it, indicating there can be many, so making "waste" plural wasn't a huge leap in logic.

Now, it may not be used very often, but I didn't hear any records scratching when I read it. If you want to look at it logically from a grammatical point of view, "Levels 4, 3, and 2 are wastes of time" isn't a problem. When I first read it, I'm not even sure I noticed anything, much less thought it was strange. However, as it was a few days ago, my memory may not be reliable.

That said, the expression is usually "...a waste of time," and should probably be thought of as one unit (like a word), and saying "levels 4, 3, and 2 are a waste of time" doesn't bother me either. It seems the difference is in how you think about "levels 4, 3, and 2." In Mike Cash's mind, it seems that they're three separate things, and three separate wastes.

Having said all that, it does bother me a little to think that a singular noun would follow a plural subject and verb, but only because actually thinking about it is confusing as hell. I'd never even given the expression a second thought until now.

So, that's my take on it. I'm not sure I'm an English "pro"; I haven't made an extensive study of the language. Whether or not I'm a decent native speaker I suppose is up for debate as well. At any rate, that's what I've come up with regarding this issue. I hope it helps at least a little.

 

[senseiman]

Holy crap, talk about a thread getting hijacked off onto some meaningless tangent. I can't believe about 30 posts have been made by various people expressing lenghty, heartfelt opinions as to whether or not a single 's' should or should not be attached to the end of the word 'waste'.

Anyway, I want to express my opinion on the original topic of this thread, so excuse me for hijacking the hijacked topic. I took level 3 and 2 and did not think either was a waste of time (or wastes of time if you prefer). They were really valuable to me in giving me a target to study for and specific study goals, without which my course of independent study would have lacked structure. Also, passing each test gave me a good sense of confidence and was a motivating factor that drove me to continue in my studies.

I understand that in terms of employment the 1kyuu is really the only important one, but I think the lower tests serve a very important role to unorganized people like myself.

Thank you for your time and please continue with the discussion on that 's'!

 

[undrentide]

Glenn,

Thank you so much for explaining about the usage on "waste" in the sense of "bad use".
It seems that while some people find "wastes of time" grammatically in correct, some other people do not feel so. (Maybe it is something similar to 全然大丈夫 in Japanese? People do have different opinion on this, too.)

Could you please move the posts relating on this to a language forum if they are off-topic and unrelated to the original post, thus not appropriate to this thread.
I don't want to upset/offend other members.
:

senseiman,

I'm very sorry for posting my stupid questions here, I should have started a new thread somewhere else.