One of the most difficult things to master in a foreign language: cases where the target language uses multiple words (subcategories) for a concept for which your previous languages only have one word. You're simply not used to parse reality into these new subcategories.
-
-
There's even a counter specifically for chopsticks. Even though they're cylindrical objects, chopsticks are their own semantic category within cylinder-like things
Show this thread -
Also birds and bunnies are a distinct category within animals, so while there's an animal counter, birds and bunnies have their own specific counter. Bunnies are a type of bird
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What would be the rationale behind this? Surely there is no significance in the actual nature of these objects that would influence how one thinks of their numerosity.
-
Languages don't have "rationales". What is the "rationale" for English having different nouns for "cow" and "beef"? For Spanish assigning gender to inanimate objects?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't that kind of an arbitrary artifact of tokenization? If there was a space in between "san" and the rest, you'd say that "ka" means "small thing" and "bon" means cylindrical thing, and it's a curiosity of Japanese that you always have to count in categories.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Many languages have count words, incl English! A pair of glasses/pants/chopsticks, a drop of water, a bar of chocolate, a grain of rice, a slice of bread, a gaggle of geese. No different than 一只狗 (one animal-dog) in Chinese or 젓가락 한 짝 (a pair of chopsticks) in Korean.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.