English and Japanese grammatical question......

[Blitzvogel]

Ok, the opening song for the anime ZZ Gundam is this song called "Anime Ja Nai", which basically means "This isn't anime!".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PHF...FpnwL74Fv-Merdp4Rn1JaOPTulReQtA&feature=inbox

For the sake of keeping the poetic effect in translation, I would interpret "Anime Ja Nai" into "Anime this isn't", however someone doesn't seem to agree that this is possible, regardless of the intention of the actual Japanese.

Regardless, "Anime this isn't" is grammatically correct in English, no? To be perfectly honest, I never payed much attention in English class when I was younger, but it still sounds proper/correct to me. The language of course has the flexibility of running words around in many different orders if the speaker wants to, regardless of the intention or overall meaning.

Is anyone here a native Japanese speaker with enough English experience to define a clear line here?

 

[uhohs]

It's not anime~
it's reaaaalliiitttyyyyyyy~

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're arguing on Youtube...

 

[Dumac]

Ok, the opening song for the anime ZZ Gundam is this song called "Anime Ja Nai", which basically means "This isn't anime!".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PHF...FpnwL74Fv-Merdp4Rn1JaOPTulReQtA&feature=inbox

For the sake of keeping the poetic effect in translation, I would interpret "Anime Ja Nai" into "Anime this isn't", however someone doesn't seem to agree that this is possible, regardless of the intention of the actual Japanese.

Regardless, "Anime this isn't" is grammatically correct in English, no? To be perfectly honest, I never payed much attention in English class when I was younger, but it still sounds proper/correct to me. The language of course has the flexibility of running words around in many different orders if the speaker wants to, regardless of the intention or overall meaning.

Is anyone here a native Japanese speaker with enough English experience to define a clear line here?

Translation is more than just correlating each words between languages.

Would anyway say (non-awkwardly) "Anime this isn't!" in English? No. So that shouldn't be the translation.

 

[Perknose]

Ok, OP, I'll weigh in. "Anime, this isn't" is perfectly fine as conversational English or dialog. <----- Note the added comma.

You wouldn't use that particular grammatical construction in a formal presentation or paper, but otherwise, go for it.

In a world where everyone says "close proximity" (close closeness?) and others argue seriously and strenuously for "very unique" (as if there were gradations of ONE OF A KIND), your construction, with the comma, while it may be non-standard and therefore a bit stylistically awkward, can't really be damned on grammatical grounds.

While I'm on the subject of grammar fail, I continually hear announcers on TV and radio say, "We'll be back momentarily." The word momentarily means for a short while, not in a short while.

So, they think they're telling you they'll be back shortly, but they are not.

They are not at all telling you when they'll be back. They are only telling you that when they do return, it will only be momentarily, ie, for a very short moment.

Finally, may we have a brief moment of silence, ie, be momentarily silent, for the true meaning of "begging the question." The fat lady has sung for this once finely nuanced phrase.

The complacent idiocracy has triumphed once again.

Brilliant, they aren't.

 

[Eug]

paid

 

[Blitzvogel]

Ok, OP, I'll weigh in. "Anime, this isn't" is perfectly fine as conversational English or dialog. <----- Note the added comma.

You wouldn't use that particular grammatical construction in a formal presentation or paper, but otherwise, go for it.

In a world where everyone says "close proximity" (close closeness?) and others argue seriously and strenuously for "very unique" (as if there were gradations of ONE OF A KIND), your construction, with the comma, while it may be non-standard and therefore a bit stylistically awkward, can't really be damned on grammatical grounds.

While I'm on the subject of grammar fail, I continually hear announcers on TV and radio say, "We'll be back momentarily." The word momentarily means for a short while, not in a short while.

So, they think they're telling you they'll be back shortly, but they are not.

They are not at all telling you when they'll be back. They are only telling you that when they do return, it will only be momentarily, ie, for a very short moment.

Finally, may we have a brief moment of silence, ie, be momentarily silent, for the true meaning of "begging the question." The fat lady has sung for this once finely nuanced phrase.

The complacent idiocracy has triumphed once again.

Brilliant, they aren't.

I thought about the insertion of a comma, but it didn't seem necessary in my head to me.

Earlier I was wrapping my head around subject-verb-object concepts, trying to look for a clear answer to this grammar issue. Like I noted earlier, "Anime, this isn't!" poetically would seem better to a native Japanese speaker who might want the feel and sound of the lyric to remain as intact as possible, regardless of how they may feel over it's grammar and how "Anime ja nai" translates. Honestly, I think if the basic meaning of the lyric is retained, then stylistic harmony I think should be precedent.

I know it's a strange thing to argue, but I felt compelled to argue this one out.

One of the greatest strengths of the English language is it's flexibility, which allows for accuracy and style in the expression of thought. However, it does make the language difficult for non-native speakers to understand.

Thank you for your input Perknose.

 

[Ichinisan]

Ok, OP, I'll weigh in. "Anime, this isn't" is perfectly fine as conversational English or dialog. <----- Note the added comma.

...

your construction, with the comma, while it may be non-standard and therefore a bit stylistically awkward, can't really be damned on grammatical grounds.

...

This.

OP, go with your suggestion.