Is, "I think it is going to rain" about "thinking" or about "raining"? In fact, it is about "raining", as the tag shows us: "I think it is going to rain, isn't it [don't I] ?" In other words, the tag is picking up the main part of the sentence, namely the "it is going to rain" part. However, "John thinks it is going to rain", is certainly about "thinking", as the tag shows: "..., doesn't he [isn't it] ?" The tag here is picking up "John thinks".

"A flood of emotion" is an example of a metaphor -- in which "a flood" is used in an extended, non-literal, sense to mean "a lot".

In the same way, "I think it is going to rain" is an example of a metaphor, but a metaphor within the grammar of the language. It really means: "It is probably going to rain." Such metaphors are called "grammatical metaphors", and play a very important role in language. I will take up this idea in my next Column.

In the last Column, I introduced the idea of grammatical metaphor. Here is another example of grammatical metaphor: "Can you open the door?" This is certainly not about asking someone if he has the ability to open a door. In this sentence, the grammar of "ability" and the grammar of the question-form are used to tell someone to do something.

The fact that we can make jokes by pretending not to recognize the grammatical metaphor is in itself a hint that it is a metaphor. For example, the following are all kinds of jokes:

Can you open the door? -- Yes. [followed by silence and no action]
Can you open the door? -- Yes, but I won't.
Can I open the door? -- You can, but you may not.

In these cases, the difference between the "real meaning" ("can" = ability) and the grammatical metaphor allows us to make a joke. We could not make such jokes if these sentences had been used:

Please open the door.
May I open the door?

Of course, Japanese also has grammatical metaphors, but not in this kind of case. If you want someone to open the door, you do not say 「ドアを開けられますか（??）」. You perhaps say 「ドアを開けてください」-- which is not a grammatical metaphor. If you learn at school that 「ください」= "please", you are likely to say, "Please open the door". In English this usually sounds rather rude. Therefore use the grammatical metaphor instead.

Conditional uses are a bit difficult for learners of English. It is certainly difficult to keep the "balance" between the clauses:

If it rains, I will take an umbrella.
(雨が降れば、傘を持っていくつもりだ) [降るかどうかは微妙]
If it rained, I would take an umbrella.
(雨が降れば、傘を持っていくのだが)[降りそうもない]
If it had rained, I would have taken an umbrella.
(雨が降ったら、傘を持っていったのだが)[降らなかった]

These three patterns are the basic three patterns of conditional sentences.

Then, as is well known, there are special uses with "were". In this Column, and the next one, I will discuss "were" vs. "was".

Should we put "was" or "were" in the following blank space:

A: They say that there was an earthquake yesterday.
B: Well, if that (　　) so, I didn't feel it.

The answer is "was". But what about this sentence:

If I (　　) a bird, I would fly to you.

The answer, as everyone knows, is "were", although "was" is also correct in informal English. The earthquake situation is clearly about something that happened (or did not happen) in the past. The bird situation is not related to time in any way. It is a general statement.

Some people (including those who write various kinds of exams) think that "if" is a kind of switch, which automatically switches on "were". This is not the case. I will continue this point in my next Column.

The following sentence, which I found in a book, is about surveying the length of a meridian in France in 1797:

If one side of one of these triangles were known, the lengths of all the others could be calculated.
(これらの三角形の一辺がわかれば、他の二辺の長さが算出されえた)

The story is about what people did and what they wanted to know more than two hundred years ago. It should be "was known".

But let us imagine that you and I are at this very moment sitting down, trying to work out a geometry problem. In such a case, I can certainly say to you:

If one side of one of these triangles were known, the lengths of all the others could be calculated.
(これらの三角形の一辺がわかれば、他の二辺の長さが算出されうるのだが)

The "time" here is "non-time", or "imaginary time", or "wishing time". It is the same "time" as the "time" in, "If I were a bird, I would fly to you".

But what happened, and what people wanted to happen, in France in 1797 is past time.

Here is another example, which I found in very well-known British magazine, and have slightly rewritten to make it clearer:

Leigh Hunt wrote as if he were walking with the reader, arm in arm.
(レイ・ハントはあたかも読者と腕を組んで歩いているように執筆した)

This is about how Hunt wrote more than 150 years ago. It should be "was walking".

Since subjunctive uses have been dying out in English for a very long time, it is only natural that there is a degree of confusion about them. Also, "were" tends to sound elegant or educated, therefore writers are tempted into using it even when "was" is the correct form.

Both these expressions are used when giving permission or advice for someone not to do something in the future. The meaning is similar to "It is not necessary for you to do it"/"There is no need for you to do it".

Here are some typical example sentences:

You needn't/don't need to buy eggs. We have enough.
(= It is not necessary to buy eggs.)
You needn't/don't need to take your umbrella. It won"t rain.
(= It is not necessary to take your umbrella.)

The two expressions mean the same thing. However, if I am being careful in either writing or speech, I will use "don't need to" when making general statements:

You don't need to be intelligent to learn a foreign language.
（外国語を学ぶのに頭の良さは必要ない）
Children don't need to pay full fare if they are under 14 years old.
（子供は14歳以下なら全額払わなくてもよい）

In the next Column I will take up another point connected with "need".

The first of these two expressions looks like a present perfect form (because of the "have + past participle"). However, it is a past form, just like the second expression.

The difference in meaning is clear. "I needn't have done it" means "It did it, but it was not necessary". This expression can be used, for example, when we waste our time or energy doing something:

I needn't have bought butter. There is still a bit in the fridge.
（バターは買わなくてもよかったのに。まだ冷蔵庫に少しあるから）

This means that I bought the butter, but it was not necessary to do so. Here is another example:

I needn't have taken my umbrella, since it didn't rain.
（雨が降らなかったから、傘は持って行かなくてもよかったんだが）

This means I took my umbrella, but the umbrella was not necessary, since it didn't rain.

The meaning of the second expression is "It was not necessary to do it, and I did not do it". We can say, for example:

I didn't need to buy butter. We have a lot in the fridge.
（バターは買わないですんだ。冷蔵庫にたくさんあるし）
I didn't need to take my umbrella, since I knew it was not going to rain.
（雨が降りそうにないのは知っていたから、傘は持って行かずにすませた）

It is certainly not everyone who makes this distinction. The tendency in modern English is to use "didn't need to do it" for both kinds of situations.

If John returns home one night and finds that money has been stolen from his house, he might say, "It had to have been a burglar" (泥棒のしわざにちがいない). This means that he is almost certain that the person who stole the money was a burglar.

This is an expression which we use when we make strong assumptions about what happened in the past. For example, if the police are examining a building that has been destroyed by fire, they may say:

The fire spread very quickly. It had to have been arson.
(火の手は非常に速かった。放火（だった）にちがいない)

A less emphatic way of saying this is to use "must have been", which, in this sense, can also be used:

It must have been a burglar.
It must have been arson.

Here are some other sentences using "had to have/must have + past participle to mean assumption:

John passed the exam. He had to have/must have studied hard.
(ジョンは試験に合格した。彼は一生懸命勉強したにちがいない)
Her English was perfect. She had to have/must have lived abroad.
(彼女の英語は完ぺきだ。留学経験があるにちがいない)

The thing to notice about all these expressions is that although there is a "have been" in the sentence, the meaning is past, and not present perfect (see Column no. 018).

As a final point, I should mention that a computer search of a very large corpus shows that "must have been" is about 1000 times more common than "had to have been".

This is only natural, since the less emphatic way of saying something tends to be the more common one in everyday life.

In the next Column I will look at "had to have + past participle" once more.

In the previous Column, I dealt with this pattern when it is used to show an assumption. In this Column, I will give some examples of when it is used to show necessity.

Here are some example sentences, followed by paraphrases which show this necessity:

You had to have lived in the village for years and years before they accepted you as one of them.
(村の一員として受け入れられるまでには長年その村に暮らさなくてはならなかった)
＝ It was necessary for you to have lived in the village for years and years ...
You had to have experienced the war in order to understand you terrible it was.
(その戦争がどれほど恐ろしいものかを理解するには、それを経験しなくてはならかなった)
＝ It was necessary for you to have experienced the war in order to …
You had to have been a resident for ten years before you could apply for citizenship.
(市民権の申請ができるまでには10年間居留している必要があった)
＝It was necessary for you to have been a resident for ten years before ...

This pattern is rather a complicated one, and gets more complicated if we use it in the passive form:

All the goods had to have been paid for by the customers before they were allowed to take them out of the shop.
(すべての商品は、代金が払われてはじめて、店から持ち出すことができた)
＝ It was necessary that all the goods were paid for by the customers before ...

Note that in this use of "had to have + past participle" we cannot use "must have + past participle" with this meaning, as we can in the case of assumption (see Column 019).

We all learn that the verb "be" has no passive voice. For example, you cannot say, "It was been".

But is it true to say that "be" has no passive voice? In fact, certain uses of "be" do have passives. It is just that we do not notice the passive, since the active and the passive are the same in form.

We can say this:

1. A dove is peace.

Another way of saying this is:

2. A dove represents peace.

In sentence 1, the meaning of "is" is "represents", or some word that has that kind of meaning. Other verbs we could use instead of "is" are:
A dove symbolizes/signifies/indicates/suggests peace.

These "represent", etc. sentences all have passive forms:

Peace
is represented/symbolized/signified/indicated/suggested by
a dove.

In other words, we can turn the nouns "dove" and "peace" around and get a passive sentence with these verbs.

Speaking logically, one might expect the same to be the case with the verb "be". However, when we do turn the sentence around, the form of the verb remains the same:

Peace is a dove.

To summarize this:

A dove is peace = A dove represents peace
Peace is a dove = Peace is represented by a dove

So, it is quite easy to see that "Peace is a dove" is actually a passive sentence. It's just that we never notice it!!

In the last Column I wrote that "be" can mean something like "represent" or "indicate". Here is a fuller list of the verbs that can be used instead of "be" with the general meaning of "represent", "indicate","mean", etc.:

* Bruce Willis was/played the hero in "Die Hard".
* This lever is/acts as/functions as/serves as the brake.
* A white flag is / indicates / suggests / implies / shows / symbolizes / signifies / represents / expresses surrender
* 2 and 2 is / equals / adds up to / makes 4.
* "NHK" is / stands for / means "Nihon Hoosoo Kyookai.

The verbs which are underlined above are ones which easily take the passive, as in:

* The hero was played by Bruce Willis.
* Surrender is indicated by a white flag.

In this Column and the previous Column, I have been discussing the identity meaning that the verb "be" sometimes has. Next week, I will look at another meaning of "be".

In the previous Column (and the one before), I discussed the identity meaning of "be". An example of this identity meaning is:

2x is 4

In this case, we can say that 2x has the identity of 4.

The second meaning of "be", which I will discuss in this Column, is connected with "characteristic".

If I say, "Hiromi is a man", I am not identifying Hiromi. I am not saying which person Hiromi is. Rather, I am telling you about some characteristic of Hiromi. Namely he is a man, not a woman.

The basic questions for the identity meaning and the characteristic meaning of "be" are different:

Identity meaning of "be":

Q: Who is Hiromi?
A: Hiromi is the man.

Q: Do you know which one Hiromi is?
A: Hiromi is the man.

Q: I am looking for Hiromi.
A: Hiromi is the man.

Characteristic meaning of "be":

Q: Is that woman over there Hiromi?
A: No, Hiromi is a man.

Q: What does Hiromi look like?
A: Hiromi is a man.

Q: Tell me about Hiromi.
A: Hiromi is a man.

The characteristic meaning of "be" is also used in sentences like:
Hiromi is very tall.

Again, in this sentence, we are describing Hiromi in terms of some characteristic. The question would be "What does Hiromi look like?"

Here is a list of the verbs that can be used with the characteristic meaning of "be":

* He was/became/grew/got/went pale.
* He was/remained/stayed/kept calm.
* He was/seemed/appeared tired.
* That is/looks/sounds/smells/feels/tastes terrible.
* I am/feel sick.

We can think that the sentences with "be" give the basic information (He was pale/calm/tired, etc.), but the sentences with the other verbs give the same information, but in a more interesting way (He became pale/He stayed calm/He seemed tired).

The following is from an English language test:

"Does this water ( ) salt?" "No, it's fresh water."

Should we put "include" or "contain" in the blank space?

Actually, the answer is "contain". We cannot use "include" in this sentence.

In this Column, I want to study these two easily confused words.

BASIC MEANING OF "CONTAIN"
"Y is inside X: usually concrete, but not necessarily visible"

This book (= X) contains six chapters (= Y).
（この本には6つの章がある）
This letter contains useful information.
（この手紙には有益な情報が含まれている）
Each cell contains a nucleus.
（細胞にはそれぞれ1つの核が入っている）
This pill contains vitamin C.
（この錠剤はビタミンC入りである）

BASIC MEANING OF "INCLUDE"
"Y is a (minor) part of X: concrete or non-concrete"

The final price (= X) includes the service charge (=Y).
（最後の値段にはサービスチャージが含まれている）
This book includes a chapter on the French Revolution.
（この本にはフランス革命に関する章が入っている）
The health check includes an X-ray.
（その健康診断にはレントゲン検査が含まれている）
All televisions include a remote control.
（テレビはすべてリモコン付きである）

In the following situations we can use either "contain" or "include", but with slightly different meanings:

This book contains/includes an index.

Meaning with "contain": There is an index inside this book.
Meaning with "include": This book has several parts, and one of these parts is the index.

This complex contains/includes an exhibition area.

Meaning with "contain": There is an exhibition area inside this complex.
Meaning with "include": This complex has several areas (restaurant area, relaxation area, hotel area, etc,), and one of these areas is the exhibition area.

So, to get back to the example from the test, we say, "Does this water contain salt?" because the meaning is "Is there salt in(side) this water?" The meaning is not X "Is salt part of this water?" Water is H₂O, and salt is NaCl, so salt cannot be part of water.

If I said to you, "Please pick me up at the airport", I would be rather disappointed if you came by bus or train, and then expected me to take the bus or train back home with you. The verb "pick up" in this sense means "come and meet me in a car (and take me home)".

Does it cover only a private car, or would it also include a taxi? I have asked various native speakers, and have had different answers, so we can conclude that "pick me up" perhaps covers the taxi situation.

In Japanese, one could say, バスで空港へ迎えに行きます. "Pick up" would not cover this situation. Probably we would say something like this:

It would be a mistake to say something like this (which is a direct translation from the Japanese):

Although these too expressions look rather similar, the meanings are completely different.

"Even if" is a strong "if", as used in conditional sentences:

Even if I had the money, I would not lend it to you.
(お金があっても、あなたには貸しません)
She will have a second chance, even if she fails the exam.
(今度の試験に落ちても、彼女はまたチャンスがあるだろう)

"Even though" is a strong "although", as in the following sentences:

Even though he had two weeks to prepare, he still did not pass the exam.
(二週間の準備期間があったのに、彼は試験に合格しなかった)
My cough has not got better, even though I have been taking the medicine.
(薬を飲み続けているのに、私の咳は直っていない)

Since "even if" is used in conditional sentences, it is about unreal situations, or situations which may, or may not occur. "Even though" is about real, actual situations.

These two expressions look very similar, so it is only natural that they are easily confused. Perhaps the easiest way is to first look at the basic meanings.

"As far as" means "to that limit of distance, and no further". For example if the road we are travelling on is blocked, I might say to you:

This is as far as we can go.

If we are standing on the top of Mount Fuji, I can say:

There is a carpet of cloud as far as the eye can see.

"As long as" means "to the limit of that time, and no longer". Here are some example sentences:

I will love you (for) as long as I live.
He tried to put off the meeting (for) as long as possible.

With this meaning of "as long as", we can use "for", as shown by the brackets in these two sentences.

These meanings are not that difficult. The difficulty arises in expressions such as those given as the title of this Column. In the next Column, I will show how:

"as far as" is related to the concept of "limit" (限度)
"as long as" is related to the concept of "if" (条件)

As I said in the previous Column, "as far as" is related to "limit"; "as long as" is related to "if". I will give some sentences to show this, and also give Japanese translations in order to make the point clear:

As far as I know, he is Chinese.
(私の知っている限りでは、彼は中国人です)
As far as I am concerned, you are wrong.
(私に言わせてもらえば、きみは間違っている)
She lives in Osaka, as far as I am aware.
(私の知っている限りでですが、彼女は大阪に住んでいます)
Her name is "Mary", as far as I can remember.
(私が覚えている限り、彼女の名前は"Mary"です)

"As long as" has a rather emphatic or strong conditional meaning, very similar to "provided".

As long as [Provided] you finish your homework, you can watch television.
(宿題が終わっているのだったら、テレビを観ていいよ）
We can go by taxi, as long as [provided] you have enough money.
(十分な金さえあれば、タクシーで行けます）
I will phone you, as long as I can remember the number.
(電話番号を覚えていれば、電話します）

As an interesting extra point, notice that "as long as" can be ambiguous, as in:

I will love you as long as you love me.

This can have a conditional meaning (あなたが私を愛してくれるのなら、私はあなたを愛します). It can also mean "to the limit of time" (あなたが私を愛しているうちは、私はあなたを愛します) [see previous column]. If we want to make the second meaning clear, we have the choice of saying " ... for as long as you love me".

The following kind of expression can be very confusing, and many native speakers will say that it is has two very contradictory meanings:

Newton is a great scientist, if not the greatest.

This sentence has two different interpretations:

1. Newton is probably the greatest scientist.
2. Newton is a great scientist, but perhaps not the greatest.

In fact, most native speakers will accept the first meaning, rather than the second meaning.

If you look at the grammar of the sentence, this is actually a little bit strange. In other words, "Newton is a great scientist, if not the greatest" seems to be almost the same as "Newton is a great scientist, even if not the greatest", which is the same as the second meaning.

Here are some more examples:

Manchester United is the most famous football club in Britain, if not the world. [= ... is probably the most famous football club in the world.]
That country has a very high rate, if not the highest rate, of HIV infection in Europe. [ = it probably has the highest rate ...]

In the next Column I will discuss the conditions under which the "even if not" interpretation becomes the likely interpretation.

In the last Column I wrote that sentences like "Newton is a great scientist, if not the greatest" usually mean "Newton is probably the greatest scientist". Such sentences do not usually mean "Newton is a great scientist, but perhaps not/even if not the greatest scientist".

However, let us look at a sentence like this:

Newton, if not the greatest scientist, is a great scientist.

In this sentence, as you can see, "if not the greatest scientist" has been moved towards the beginning of the sentence.

In such cases the concession becomes stronger, and probably the only meaning is "Newton, even if not the greatest scientist, is a great scientist".

Here is one more example:

Manchester United, if not the most famous football club in the world, is the most famous in Britain. [ = even if not the most famous club in the world, ...]

So, to summarize Column 033 and Column 034, we can say that:

1. ... "if not the 〜est" is an ambiguous expression, but it most commonly means " ... is probably the 〜est".
2. However, if ... "if not the 〜est" is moved towards the beginning of the sentence, the only interpretation becomes "... even if not the 〜est".

In Column 035 and Column 036, I will discuss one more "meaning puzzle".

If you look at various reference works and dictionaries, you will find that the model Japanese translation is 「Ｂとは言わないまでもＡ」. Unfortunately this is not correct.

Let us look at this sentence:

1. The information is inadequate, not to say misleading.

The following translation is not correct:

2. その情報はまぎらわしいとは言わないまでも物足りない。

Here are some ways to translate this Japanese sentence (2) back into English:

3. I will not say that the information is misleading, but it is inadequate.
4. I will not go so far as to say that the information is misleading, but it is nevertheless inadequate.
5. I will hesitate to say that the information is misleading, but it certainly is inadequate.

However, the original English sentence (1) does not mean the same as (3), (4) and (5) above. Rather, it can be paraphrased in the following ways:

6. The information is not only inadequate, it is also misleading (which is much worse).
7. Far from being simply inadequate, the information is actually misleading.

To take another example, we can say, "she is pretty, not to say beautiful". This does not mean:

8. 彼女はとてもきれい [beautiful] とは言わないまでも、かわいい [pretty]。

It means:

9. Rather than being just pretty, she is actually beautiful.

The correct Japanese translations for these "not to say’sentences will probably use patterns like "AというよりもB" and "A だけでなくB".

We could thus translate sentence (1) like this:

3. その情報は物足りないだけでなく、実際にまぎらわしい。

In Column 036 I will discuss the reasons why this English sentence pattern has this meaning.

In Column 035 I said that "she is pretty, not to say beautiful" means "彼女はかわいいと言うよりも、とてもきれいです. 　It does not mean "彼女はとてもきれいとは言わないまでも、かわいい".

The problem is that it seems as if "not to say" means "I will not say" or "I will not go so far as to say". Because of this, "not to say" gets translated into Japanese as "とは言わないまでも".

But actually, "not to say" means "Although I want to say it, I will not say it directly because I have a feeling of modesty, or politeness, or reserve, or I lack the desire to make an extreme statement".

Therefore we can sum up this "not to say" pattern as meaning:

Someone/Something is [UNDERSTATEMENT], not to say [PROBABLE TRUTH].

Here are some examples:

The above may be called "emphasizing" situations. And this is one use of "...not to say...". In the next Column, I will discuss how this pattern is used in "different from expected" situations.

The "... not to say..." pattern is also commonly used in what may be called "different from expected" situations, or "surprising situations".

If I go to a museum, I would expect it to be educational ("expected"/"not surprising"). But I would probably not expect it to be fun ("different from expected"/"surprising"). However, after the museum visit, I could say:

The museum was educational, not to say fun.
（その博物館は教育的なのはもちろんのこと、その上楽めるものでした）

This means, "Although I expected the museum visit to be educational, it was also fun (which I had not expected)".

Thus, by the same logic, after my visit to a theme park, I could say:

The theme park was fun, not to say educational.
（そのテーマパークはは楽しかったのはもちろんのこと、教育的でもありました）

It would obviously be a mistake to say:

× The theme park was educational, not to say fun.

This last sentence would not fit in with the "different from expected" situation.

So, to summarize, we use "... not to say..." in two kinds of situations:

1. In order to emphasize:

　pretty >> beautiful

2. In order to surprise:

　educational >> fun

In Columns 35, and 36, I discussed the meanings of "…not to say…", and mentioned that the model translations (「Ｂとは言わないまでもＡ」) in dictionaries are incorrect.

"She is pretty, not to say beautiful" means "she is certainly pretty, and you could even say that she is beautiful".

This sentence, however, has a very different meaning:

1. She is pretty. That is not to say that she is beautiful.

This means:

2. She is pretty, but you could not say that she is beautiful.
3. She is pretty, but I would not go so far as to say that she is beautiful.

It is this pattern that should be translated as「Ｂとは言わないまでもＡ」.

This expression occurs at the beginning of a sentence, and gives some sort of qualification, or contradiction, regarding the preceding sentence.

Let us look at some sentences, and the variety of ways in which these kinds of sentences can be translated into Japanese:

4. I can run a marathon. That is not to say that I want to run one.
走れることは走れるが、走りたいわけではない。
5. There have been some terrible bombings. This is not to say that the terrorists are winning.
恐ろしい爆弾事件が何件か起こっている。しかし、テロリストが勝っているとは言えない。
6. You passed the exam. But that is not to say that I am pleased with your grade.
あなたは試験に合格したが、だからといって、私はあなたの成績に満足しているわけではない。
7. Microsoft is terrible. But that is not to say that Apple is without bugs.
マイクロソフトは最低だ。しかしそれは、アップルにバグがないということではない。
8. That is a very strange story. That is not to say you are telling a lie.
それは大変不思議な話だ。しかし、あなたが嘘をついているという意味ではありません。
9. That is a very strange story. That is not to say you are you are not telling the truth.
それは大変不思議な話だ。しかし、それはあなたが真実を伝えていないという意味ではありません。
10. This teaching method emphasizes communication. This is not to say that learning English grammar is not important.
この教授法はコミュニケーションに重きをおいている。しかし、英文法を学ぶことが重要ではないということではない。

This pattern is rather a tricky one, especially when there is a double negative, as in the last two sentences.

The other day, one of my students said to me that it is "strange" that the same words are used for making wh-questions (who, which, whose, when, where: "Who is she?", "Who is John?", "Which country do you like best?", "When did she arrive?", "What do you want to eat?", etc.) and also used in declarative sentences like this:

She is the woman who I love.
John is the man whose pen I borrowed.
Germany is the country which I Iike best.
She arrived when there was little time left.
I want to eat what you want to eat.

But if you think about it, this is not strange at all. When we make a wh-question, we are, at the most general and basic level, asking someone to give us some information about a person, place, time, etc. For example:

Who is she? = Give me some information about her.
When did she arrive? = Give me some information about the time of her arrival.
What do you want to eat? = Give me some information about the kind of food you want to eat.

Thus, in the question form, "wh-" means "give me the information about X". Likewise, in an ordinary declarative sentence, "wh-" means "this is the information about X", as in:

She/woman/I love: She is the woman who I love.
Germany/country/I like best: Germany is the country which I like best.
She/arrived/little time left: She arrived when there was little time left.

"Give me the information about X" and "this is the information about X" are two sides of the same coin. It is therefore only natural that we use the wh-words in both cases.

Today I was doing some dictionary work, and came across quite a number of what may be called "rare body parts". Actually, I did not know the Japanese equivalents of some of these parts, so I made a point of learning them.

One way of making one's language more impressive is to use words that are rather rare, and which the average learner is not likely to know. With this in mind, I have made the list below. Try not only to memorize the English words, but also the sentences.

脳天 　I hit the man on the crown of his head.
旋毛（つむじ）
The whorl of hair on the top of my head just won't stay down.
項（うなじ） 　The nape of her neck has a lovely shape.
蟀谷（こめかみ）　I felt a throbbing in my left temple.
鼻腔（びこう）　She has hair growing out of her nostrils.
喉仏（のどぼとけ）　His Adam's apple is very large.
耳朶（みみたぶ）　He tugged at as his earlobe as he spoke.
脇の下　She should shave her armpits.
脇腹　I have a pain in my side.
鳩尾（みぞおち）
The man hit me in the pit of my stomach.
I have a nasty feeling in the pit of my stomach.
上腕　I got a bad cut on my upper arm.
前腕　Her forearms are very muscular.
腿（もも）の付け根　I have a strange pain in the groin.
脹ら脛（ふくらはぎ）　I am trying to strengthen my calf muscles.
脛（すね）　The little boy kicked me on the shin.
足の甲
You have a black-and-blue on the instep of your left foot.
土踏まず　The arches of my feet are very high.

We live in a world of fashion. It is only natural that we should be able to talk about the many colours we see around us. Here are some different ways that we can talk about colours in detail:

1) Use "dark" or "light": dark blue, light green
2) Add a noun (often a fruit or flower) before the colour: strawberry red, carnation pink, salmon pink, banana yellow, lemon yellow, lime green, sea green, sky blue, midnight blue, eggplant purple, slate grey, etc., etc., etc.
3) Add an adjective ending on "-y" that is based on a (liquid) substance: creamy white, milky white, buttery yellow, watery blue, chocolaty brown, etc.
4) Use the pattern "colour + ish + colour": reddish orange, reddish brown, yellowish orange, bluish green, greenish blue, bluish purple, etc.

Since people may well describe the same colour in different ways, when talking about them, we tend to be rather vague, by saying things like this:

It is sort of salmon pink.
It is kind of milky white.
It is more or less sea green.
You could call it reddish brown, or perhaps brownish red.

These sentences using "sort/kind of", "more or less", etc., are examples of vague language. Mastering vague language will help your English to sound much more natural. I will take up the question of vague language in the next Column.

We can think of "pair expressions" as being of three types in terms of the level of what I will call here "connection":

(1) weak connection:
a pair of birds /dogs /candlesticks /curtains /sentries / statues / trees / aces (i.e., the ace of spades, etc) / pistols/spanners [UK] (wrenches [US]), etc.
(二羽の鳥/二匹の犬/ろうそく立て二本一組/カーテン二張/哨兵二人/銅像二つ/二本の木/二枚の(トランプの)エース/ピストル二丁/スパナ [レンチ] 二本、など)

(2) medium connection:
a pair of shoes / boots /socks / stockings / skis / gloves / mittens / cow's horns / contact lenses / ears / eyes / headphones, etc.
(靴一足/ブーツ一足/靴下一足/ストッキング一足/スキー板一揃/手袋一対/二叉手袋一対/牛の両方の角/コンタクトレンズ一組/両耳/両目/ヘッドフォン一つ、など)

(3) strong connection:
a pair of trousers / jeans / shorts / tights / glasses / sunglasses /goggles / binoculars / scissors / pliers / tongs / tweezers / nail clippers / secateurs [UK] (pruning shears[US]) / forceps / bellows / handcuffs, etc.
(ズボン一着/ジーンズ一着/ショーツ一着/タイツ一着/メガネ一つ/サングラス一つ/ゴーグル一つ/双眼鏡一つ/はさみ一丁/ペンチ一つ/火ばし一本/毛抜き一つ/爪切り一つ/剪定ばさみ一丁/鉗子一本/ふいご一個/手錠一組、など)

In the case of "weak connection", we are talking about items which might rather naturally occur in pairs (such as candlesticks or curtains), but not necessarily so.

In the case of "medium connection", a pair is the natural way to think of the objects, and the objects are usually only fully useful when they occur in pairs, although they can be separated into single items (e.g., a pair of contact lenses > a contact lens), and still be useful to some extent.

In the case of "strong connection", the pair cannot be physically separated, unless we damage or break the item, and it therefore becomes useless.

This way of looking at pair expressions is useful when we look at the grammar of pair expressions, which I will take up in the next Column.

In the last Column, I discussed how we can think of "pair expressions" as being of three types: weak connection, medium connection, and strong connection.

In the case of weak connection and medium connection, the grammar is the same:

a curtain is ...; a pair of curtains is ..., three curtains are ...;
a shoe is..; a pair of shoes is ...; three shoes are ...

Although the grammar is the same in these above cases, in the case of medium connection the use of "a pair of 〜" is much more common than in the case of weak connection. Thus we are much more likely to say "a pair of shoes" than say "a pair of dogs". So, the grammar is the same, but frequency very different.

In the case of "strong connection", the grammar is as follows:

× a scissors is ...
○ the/these/those scissors are ...
○ a pair of scissors is ...
○ three pairs of scissors are ...

Thinking of pair expressions in terms of connection helps us to understand why we can say "a stocking" [= one stocking of the pair]/a pair of stockings" (medium connection), but we cannot say "× a tight"; we can only say "a pair of tights" (strong connection).

To take another example, "a pair of spanners" means "two spanners" (i.e., two separate tools), since this is an example of weak connection; but "a pair of pliers" means one tool, since this is a case of strong connection.

There are a lot of puzzling points about this area of English grammar and usage. Based on the grammar of "pliers", "tweezers", "forceps", we might expect that "× a pair of nutcrackers" is correct. But in fact, "nutcracker" is just an ordinary countable noun. The reason for this is perhaps because a nutcracker does not have to be something like a pair of scissors in shape -- there are many other designs of nutcracker.

Collective nouns are those nouns which refer to number of people, animals, or things, when they are considered as one group

A list of some common collective nouns that refer to groups of people follows below. As you can see, I have arranged this list into rough meaning groups:

"GENERAL":

a group (of people), a team (of athletes), a class (of students), a crowd (of onlookers), *a band (of musicians)

"SOCIAL":

a nation, a tribe (of Indians), a family (of geniuses), a government, a ministry「省」, a parliament, a senate「国会の上院」, the aristocracy「貴族階級」, *a gaggle of schoolgirls 「女子生徒の騒々しい一団」

"OFFICIAL":

a society, a club (of chess players), a union (of miners), a committee (of experts), a jury「陪審」, a panel (of experts)「専門家の委員たち」, *a board (of directors/governors)「重役会／理事会」

"BUSINESS":

a company, a corporation, a firm (of accountants)「会計士たちの会社」, a staff (of women)

"MILITARY":

an army, a navy, *a platoon (of soldiers)「兵士の小隊」, *a squad (of soldiers/policemen)「兵士の分隊, *a regiment (of soldiers)「兵士の連隊」, *a troop (of soldiers)「兵士の一団」, *a crew (of sailors), *a posse (of lawmen)「警官などの一隊」, an enemy, a colony (of settlers)

"PERFORMANCE":

an audience (of music-lovers), *an orchestra (of musicians), *a cast (of actors)「出演俳優」, *a troupe of acrobats「曲芸師の一団／一座」

"CHURCH":

the clergy「聖職者（全体）」, *a conclave (of cardinals)「枢機卿の法王選挙会」, *a choir (of singers), *a congregation (of worshippers) 「礼拝に集まった信者たち」

"BAD":

a gang (of pickpockets)「スリの一団」, *a band of robbers「泥棒一団」, a mob (of protesters)「抗議する人たちの大衆」, a horde of nomads「遊牧民の群れ」, *a coven of witches「魔女の集会」, *a den of thieves 「盗賊の巣窟」

In Columns 029 and 030, I will discuss the grammar and usage of collective nouns, including the meanings of the asterisks and brackets in the above examples.

In the previous Column, I gave quite a long list of collective nouns.

In this list, if I have used bracketing (e.g., a group (of people)), this means that the group noun can easily be used by itself:

There is the group.
（その一団がいる）
We have a large class.
（私たちのクラスは大きい）
The band played very well.
（その楽団の演奏は非常にうまかった）
That gang caused a lot of trouble.
（その一味は大くのトラブルを引き起こした）

When there is no bracketing, this means that the collective noun is usually followed by another noun, which gives us more information about the collective noun:

a gaggle of schoolgirls
a troupe of acrobats
a band of robbers

Thus, one cannot readily say, "There is a dangerous band in town". One would have to say, "There is a dangerous band of robbers in town". However, it would be all right to say, "There is a dangerous gang in town".

The asterisks are used to show those expressions in which the collocation is very tight. For example, "a group (of people)" is not marked by an asterisk. This tells us that this expression is a loose collocation. In fact, there are hundreds of nouns we could use instead of "people".

On the other hand, the only "conclave" we can have is "of cardinals"; the only "coven" we can have is "of witches" (excluding jokes and humorous uses). These are therefore tight collocations.

In the next Column, I will mainly discuss whether collective nouns are singular or plural, or both.

Since these nouns are both singular (i.e., a family is one unit) and plural (i.e., there are several individuals in a family) at the same time, their grammar can be a little bit tricky. Here I will list up some grammar points about collective nouns:

1. Collective nouns can be treated as either singular or plural. The singular use suggests unity, etc:

The family was united.
（その家族は一つになった）

The plural use suggests individuality or separateness:

The family were always fighting each other.
（その家族はお互いに争いが絶えない）

2. Nevertheless, American English tends to favour singular usage, and British English tends to favour plural usage.

3. Collective nouns can themselves become plural:

There were five families living in the village.
（その村には10家族が住んでいる）

4. If we want to talk about one of the people who are "within" the collective noun, we can almost always say "a member of the A":

Peter is a member of our family.
（ピーターは我が家の一員だ）

5. (4) above does not apply to "enemy" (× a member of the enemy). We would probably say "one of the enemy".

6. "Enemy" is also a bit different from the other collective nouns since it can refer to one person:

He is my enemy.
（彼は私の敵だ）

7. Collective nouns must not be confused with uncountable nouns like "bread", "furniture", "information", etc. Note that we can say "a family" but not × "a bread".

In Column 031 I will discuss collective nouns used when we talk about groups of animals.

In a game of golf, I might say about your shot, "Ah, that was a lucky shot!" But if you think about this sentence, it is quite clear that it is not the shot that was lucky; it was you that was lucky. I could, in fact, have said, "Ah, lucky you!".

Since "a shot" knows nothing about luck, and certainly cannot experience it, why is it possible to make such an "illogical" statement? And why is it possible to use the same adjective to refer to both the "shot" and to "you"?

If we are walking along a road, I may say:

This is a bumpy road. (これはでこぼこ道だ)

And you might add:

It is also a lonely road. (それは人通りの少ない道でもある)

Although the road is bumpy, it is not really "lonely". We are lonely.

In English, adjectives connected to experiences, feelings, emotions, reactions, etc. we have towards events and things can often be transferred to the event or thing itself. If I feel lonely, I can transfer this feeling of loneliness to the road, so that the road becomes "lonely".

I realize that you can do the same thing in Japanese (e.g., 寂しい道) -- but not necessarily with the same kinds of adjectives.

In the next Column I will give a list of common adjective of emotion + noun combinations.

In the last Column, I discussed some grammar points about what we can call "adjectives of emotion". Continuing from that discussion, a list of these, together with translations, follows below. You will notice that some of these combinations can be translated into rather directly into Japanese (a happy marriage > 幸せな結婚).

a happy marriage（幸せな結婚）
a happy coincidence（うれしい偶然）
a lucky shot（まぐれ当たり）
a fortunate meeting（幸運なめぐり会い）
a gloomy sight（陰鬱な光景）
a joyful reunion（楽しい再会）
a cheerful speech（元気のいい話し方）
a merry Christmas（メリークリスマス）
a wise judgement （賢明な判断）
a foolish request（ばかげた要望）
a kind remark（親切なひとこと）
a tired joke（退屈な冗談）
a considerate decision（思いやりのある決定）
an inconsiderate comment（配慮を欠く発言）
a rude speech（荒っぽい演説）
a lonely life（寂しい生活）

As I said in the previous Column, we can apply the adjective to either the object or event, or to the person.

We have a happy marriage. > We are a happy couple.
私たちは幸せな結婚生活を送っている。> 私たちは幸せな夫婦だ。
This is a gloomy sight. > I have a gloomy feeling.
これは陰鬱な光景だ。> 私は気がふさぎ込んでいる。
You are a wise woman. > You made a wise judgement.
あなたは賢明な女性だ。> あなたは賢い判断をした。

Based on the above list, see to what extent this applies to Japanese (e.g., 幸せな結婚 > 幸せな夫婦).

In Japanese, when writing an address, we start from the "big" (e.g., 東京) and go to the "small" (○○荘×××号室), finally ending up with the person's name. In English, it is the opposite, starting with the name and ending up with "Tokyo".

Either of these ways seems rather logical: big > medium > small (the Japanese way), or small > medium > big (the English way). What would not be logical is medium > small > big.

But, when writing English, this is what people Japanese people do with dates (e.g., "12/23/05" for 「05年12月23日」). As far as I know (and I have checked very many date stamps from many countries in my passports), the only people in the world who do this are Americans and Japanese.

Therefore, it is a good idea to be aware of this, and to make the safe choice of writing dates in full: "23rd. December, 2005", or December 23rd, 2005. You can abbreviate the months (e.g., "Dec."). In this case, remember that the short months are written out in full, and "September" is abbreviated "Sept.". At least, this is traditionally the case. But since we live in the age of computers, you are very likely to see things like "Mar" and "Sep".

For me, this expression means "I have the same number of CDs as you have, or more CDs than you have".

If I wanted to say that I had exactly the same number as you, I would say, "I have the same number of CDs as you".

If I wanted to limit myself to the second possibility (i.e., my having more CDs than you), I would say: "I have more CDs than you".

If I am speaking only vaguely and generally, I am likely to say "I have roughly/about as many CDs as you". This means I might slightly fewer, slightly more, or the same number.

If I say, "My eyesight is as good as Peter's", this means that can see as well as Peter for most daily activities. I can say this even if I know that Peter"s eyesight is 1.1 and mine is 1.0. However, if we are talking about the possibility of Peter and me passing an eye examination to become pilots, I will then say, "My eyesight is not as good as Peter's". Our eyesight has not changed. It is the situation that has changed. Therefore my language has changed.

So, we can say that many of these kinds of expressions are only accurate within the degree of accuracy that is reasonable for the particular situation, and the degree of information the speaker has.

The fact that these kinds of expressions form a large part of English education in Japan shows the extent to which the "puzzle nature" of English is more important than the "communicative nature". In other words, it gives us a hint as to why the results of English education are not as good as they could be.

In the last Column, I said that vague language will help your English to sound more natural.

There are two main reasons for this. First, vague language is a very natural part of our daily language use. For example, in your daily Japanese, you often say things like: のようなもの, 何となく, だいたい, 〜っぽい, 〜的な, etc.

However, in "formal" language learning, such as at school, much of this vague language tends to be overlooked or ignored. Thus, students may learn "The car is red". But they are very unlikely to learn "The car is kind of red", or "The colour was somewhere between green and blue".

Generally, learners who master vague language do so in natural situations (e.g., living abroad), or because they have made a special effort to do so.

Second, since a learner of a foreign language does not know that language perfectly, it is only natural that much of what she says is less than 100% exact or accurate.

Instead of looking for the English word that is the exact equivalent to a Japanese word, you can use vague language to convey your basic meaning. Here are some examples of vague language used to convey the general meaning of some Japanese words:

螺旋階段　They are steps that are sort of like a corkscrew.
なめくじ　It's maybe a kind of snail, but has no shell.
藤色　It's pretty much the same as purple, or perhaps violet.
わさび　It's more or less the same as horseradish.

I suggest that you try to think of some different Japanese words and expressions, and see if you can explain them using vague language.

In ordinary conversation, it would be very strange to say: "I will meet you at 8 a.m." In almost all cases, the normal English is, "I will meet you at eight in the morning (four in the afternoon/seven in the evening/nine at night)". However, "in the morning/in the evening, etc" are not usually necessary, since we know what time of the day we are going to meet someone. Therefore, simply say, "I will meet you at eight."

If you are working in the travel business, or planning a schedule, or something like that, it would then be all right to use "a.m." and "p.m.".

Another thing to remember about time is that "midnight" means "twelve o'clock at night" (i.e., 24:00).

Here are some ways about talking about doing things while it is dark:

The movie started at midnight. (= at 24:00)
I worked until late at night. (XX= until 23:00. or 24:00)
I was awake in the middle of the night. (XX= from 23:00 to 02:00)
I got up in the early morning. (XX= 03:00 to 05:00)
[Notes] XX means "approximately equal to" .

"In the early morning", as in the sentence above is different from "early in the morning", as in this sentence:

I got up early in the morning. (XX = 06:00 to 07:00)

"In the early morning" is used for "a time that is so early people usually do not get up at that time". "Early in the morning" is used for "a time that is early but many people do get up at that time".

One trend which seems to be spreading at great speed in modern English is to say things like: "There is two apples on the table." Readers, if they keep their ears and eyes open will perhaps hear this pattern.

Of course, the "correct" sentence is "There are ...". Traditionally, "there" is not the subject of the sentence, but a sort of "flller", and the subject of the sentence is "two apples". But there seems to be a trend to thinking of "there" as the singular subject of the sentence and thus putting the verb in the singular. Since in speech "There is" is generally pronounced "There's", perhaps this is increasingly being looked at as an unanalyzed unit of language, and there is no feeling that it contains the verb "is".

You will hear and read this usage especially with "a lot of", as in: There's a lot of apples on the table. Also, "there's a few...", instead of "there are a few..." is very common.

In such cases, it seems as if the presence of the article "a" makes it more acceptable to use a singular verb.

Short adjectives make their comparative forms with "-er" (big > bigger). Long adjectives use "more" (difficult > more difficult). A trend that is spreading very fast is to use "more" with those adjectives which are traditionally "-er".

I have not noticed this with very basic adjectives of one syllable (e.g., big, small, deep, low, high). But less basic adjectives, especially of more than one syllable, are these days often seen and heard with the "more" comparative. Among examples I have noticed recently are the following: more clever, more shallow, more high, more happy, more strong, more smooth.

With the English language (and of course the Japanese language) changing so quickly, I cannot help wondering if the people who set school and university entrance exams should not be very careful about the kinds of questions they ask in these exams.

In school, "happier" should be taught, since this is the traditional "correct form". However, it is difficult to say that "more happy" is incorrect, given that many native speakers say it.