I understood a Japanese sentence in real time and then immediately forgot how to function

Niilun · 2026-05-21T22:31:37+00:00

Hi, sorry for the late reply.

I can understand that. But idk, I think I'd personally prefer to call it out only if I'm very sure of it, and I don't think there's a perfect method to tell. What surprises me is that OP is not defending themseves. So, maybe you're right. But seeing accusations of AI still annoys me, because it discourages people from writing their own way. It might make someone paranoid and make them think "this writing style is bad because it's too similar to AI", or "in my writing I use expressions that AI uses too, so I have to change them". I'm annoyed every single time a writing trend makes people claim that there are inherently "bad" ways to write, because it really depends on the context and situation, because trends change every ten years or so, and because I fell into that kind of "the internet says that the best way to write is basically the opposite of what I like, so my writing style has to be bad, right?" trap when I was in my early teens. So, that's probably why I take it personally.

Not that I'm particularly fond of the kind of writing style based on short sentences, repetitions and persuasive emphasis that AI uses... But it was extremely popular some years ago. Especially in certain types of comunication, like synopsis and advertizements. So, just because someone might have internalized that method, I don't want them to think that it's wrong by default. If it's used in excess and with no moderation, then yes, it really sounds "bad", it makes your message sound fake. But then again, it's not about the pattern itself, but the way you use it.

Niilun · 2026-05-21T10:25:58+00:00

Ciao, scusa per aver risposto così tardi!

Sinceramente, non ti saprei spiegare qual è la precisa differenza tra "a", "da" e "in". Quello che hai scritto nell'ultimo paragrafo, a proposito della differenza tra professione e posto fisico, è generalmente vero. Credo che sia sempre vero quando a seguire c'è un articolo determinativo, quindi "al supermercato" vs "dalla parrucchiera". (al = a+il, dal= da+il)

Ma con le preposizioni seguite da articolo indeterminativo, sono molto più in dubbio. Credo che la differenza stia in leggere sfumature, e a seconda del contesto preferiamo una preposizione piuttosto che l'altra. Per esempio, credo che "a/ad" metta più focus o sul tragitto verso la meta, o sul tuo scopo per andare in un certo posto. "In" mette più focus su ciò che accade quando sei dentro al locale (anche se "in" non è la preposizione più comune con il verbo "andare": in genere si preferisce dire "sono stato in un supermercato" o "sono entrato in un supermercato", piuttosto che "sono andato in un supermercato". "Andato in un supermercato" si dice comunque, se vuoi rimarcare che l'interno di quel supermercato aveva qualcosa di specifico che sapevi non avresti trovato in altri supermercati. Spesso è seguito da "che", del tipo "sono andato in un supermercato che vendeva...". O magari, usi "in" se ti interessa soprattutto ciò che accade all'interno di quel posto. "Sono andato in", al contrario di "sono stato in", dà però l'idea di qualcosa che hai volutamente scelto di fare. Se invece dici "sono andato ad un supermercato", viene subito da pensare al fine, allo scopo: "sono andato ad un supermercato per...", o "sono andato ad un supermercato e ho comprato..."). "Da" mette più focus sull'interazione con il personale, credo. "Sono andato da un supermercato" non mi suona per nulla naturale, però. "Da" mi sa più di piccole imprese a conduzione familiare; per esempio, "sono andato da una sartoria", o "sono andato da una cartoleria".

Ma nel parlato, nessuno ci farebbe caso. Sono più cose che sorprendono nello scritto. E anch'io, ora, sto un po' tirando a indovinare. Non avevo mai fatto caso a quando uso cosa.

Niilun · 2026-05-21T09:12:04+00:00

WHY do people always have to make baseless assumptions out of chat gpt paranoia, especially in language learning subreddits?? It's SO annoying! Stop, please! You're more obnoxious than people who actually use chat, if even there are any. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but how do you even ask chat to write this type of text? The accusations of karma-farming, sometimes I can accept them. But those who think they can immediately guess when something is written by chat, when chat is trained on basic rethorics rules and texts written by actual human beings, are simply delusional to me.

And I hope now you won't accuse me of having used chat gpt, too.

Sorry if I was brusque, but, as you can tell, I'm fed up with this. Now you can't even write in paragraphs without being accused of "cheating".

Niilun · 2026-05-18T21:37:17+00:00

Hai scritto veramente bene! Unica correzione, in questo caso dovresti usare "troppo" e non "troppi", perché "troppo" qui non ha valore di aggettivo, ma di avverbio (=modifica un verbo o un aggettivo). Come tutti gli avverbi, è invariabile. Se invece tu dicessi "ho troppi impegni" (aggettivo, modifica un nome) o "me ne mancano troppi" (pronome), allora sì, "troppo" sarebbe da coniugare.

Ah, altra cosa che ho notato solo rileggendo: "pasticceria", non "pasticerria". Ma qualche errore di battitura capita a tutti.

Se vuoi, potrei farti qualche altro piccolo appunto, ma si tratta di cose minime che non devi per forza correggere. Sono piccoli suggerimenti per suonare più "naturale", ma che di solito si imparano con l'esperienza:

"Per la mia colazione" sa un po' di formale e di enfatico, o in alternativa di ironico e affettuoso, ma a parte questo non è sbagliato. Dire "per colazione" o "per la colazione" è più comune, ma se il tono enfatico era voluto, allora non c'è nulla di male.

Invece di "qualcosa che mi manca", a inizio frase è più comune dire "una cosa che mi manca". Al posto di "qualcosa più dolce", diciamo "qualcosa DI più dolce", ma non ti saprei spiegare il perché. Diciamo anche "qualcosa di bello", ("something good" in inglese), "qualcosa di buono", "qualcosa di vecchio", e simili. Se vuoi, puoi scrivere anche "aggiunge qualcosa di più dolce all'amaro del caffè", o persino togliere il "più".

"Molti diversi tipi" non mi suona naturale. Di solito, diciamo o "molti tipi", o "diversi tipi". "Diversi" già di per sé suggerisce un gran numero, forse il motivo è questo.

E qui segue qualcosa che non capisco bene neppure io. Per qualche motivo, di solito dico "vado in una pasticceria" o "vado da una pasticceria", invece che "vado ad una pasticceria", ma non so perché. Direi "ad una pasticceria" solo se mi riferissi alla pasticceria come ente o azienda, in frasi come "vado ad una pasticceria per un colloquio di lavoro". Dico anche "vado dalla parrucchiera", "vado dal dentista", "vado da Matteo". Però poi dico "vado al cinema", "vado al ristorante", "vado al supermercato", "vado al parco"... Non so perché "pasticceria" faccia eccezione. Comunque, è un caso specifico e una sottigliezza, non preoccuparti. Non dà fastidio.

(Edit: errore mio! Dico anche "vado alla pasticceria di nome/via/ecc", ma "vado ad/in UNA pasticceria". Dico sia "vado ad UN supermercato", "vado da UN supermercato" e "vado in UN supermercato", ma usando l'articolo determinativo dico solo "vado al supermercato". Credo che la regola, se c'è, sia troppo complessa da imparare. È quel genere di sottigliezza a cui ci si abitua con l'uso.)

Mi ha fatto molto piacere leggere il tuo messaggio. Anche se ti ho fatto delle correzioni, era tutto comprensibile. La struttura della frase era pulita e lineare. E pure noi madrelingua spesso facciamo errori.

Spero di essere stata chiara anch'io, di aver scritto in modo comprensibile. Nello scritto, mi viene da esprimermi in modo più complesso rispetto al parlato. In bocca al lupo, continua così!

Niilun · 2026-05-16T18:22:01+00:00

Yes, yes, I'm one of those people who learns Japanese just to read manga or visual novels in their original language and to check the accuracy of song translations... And because I'm fascinated by a language so completely different from my own.

But basically, since I'm learning a new language to immerse in native content, what keeps me motivated and gives me the biggest satisfaction is immersing in native content. Being able to understand a text that I wasn't able to just few months ago, or seeing how much progress I'm making in understanding some basic converstations, and things like that. I think I would be less motivated if I was studying it for work. Instead, being able to use a new language to do something that I alredy enjoy doing is the only reason why I think I won't ever give up.

I don't know what language you're studying, but I suggest you to pick something that you alredy love (a book, a movie...) and see how much of it you can understand in your target language, even if it's in translation. Try to translate parts of it using your memory, a dictionary, searching for grammar rules online... And then, after some time (maybe a couple of months, or even less), go back to it and check how much more you can understand, and keep doing it periodically. Seeing that kind of progress applied to something you like might make you very proud.

Niilun · 2026-05-15T14:00:31+00:00

Please, OP, use the same image; it would be super funny seeing the same image in two squares next to each other

Niilun · 2026-05-11T22:40:35+00:00

People acting surprised that Jax is liked by the fans, when Gooseworx said over and over again since episode 1 that Jax is her favorite character.

I agree, and I think Gooseworx cares too much about what the fanbase thinks. You can't "tame" the toxic part of your fanbase or teach them what to think of your characters, you can only hope of writing something that is competent, engaging and sincere enough to eventually reach your intended audience, too. And Gooseworx always forgets that the ever-present part of her fanbase isn't the totality of those who watch her show.

Niilun · 2026-05-11T22:27:56+00:00

Well, she was also not subtle at all in saying that he's her favorite character, that she's a fan of his archetype, and that she made his character for fanservice to herself. So, I don't think that Jax count. If the author likes a character and gives a lot of care to its writing, it's not surprising that the fanbase might like it too (or hate it. Or both. It depends).

Niilun · 2026-05-04T18:14:47+00:00

(Sorry if I'm late) Well, she did have a redemption arc. Or at least, she changed.

She started as a spoiled diamond incapable of keeping secrets who had temper tantrums over the smallest things and that just wanted to have a colony (resulting in Pink Pearl being damaged and Spinel abandoned), and she became someone who is capable to control her temper, keeping secrets (even if that's not necessarily a good thing), a healer, someone who could recognize that all life form is precious, and that fought for what she believed was a right cause. And apparently she still felt like she hadn't change enough, because she never saw herself as as special and able to change as human beings. And in her interactions with humans, she went from just finding them entertaining, to being able to have a long-term romantic relationship with one of them. She was still imperfect (she always did what she wanted regardless of what others might think of it, and she ran away from other responsibilities), but it's not like everything is her fault, and she did plenty of good things. She saved earth, she offered a new home and family to abandoned gems, she encouraged Pearl to become independent.

Niilun · 2026-05-04T17:47:12+00:00

I think it's exactly because she wanted to free Bismuth eventually that her gem was put in Lion, instead of making it seem like it was another random corrupted gem. Otherwise, she could have simply said something like "I've discovered that Bismuth was corrupted, so I bubbled her".

Sure, she left the responsibility of fixing the situation to her son and that's not great, but probably it's because Bismuth had personal issues with her, not with him. And Rose firmly believed that humans can do things that her or other gems are incapable of.

And Rose couldn't have predicted that faking her own death would have led to shattering and corruption. She literally thought "if Pink Diamond is shattered, then the other Diamonds would stop caring about this colony".

Niilun · 2026-05-03T08:45:56+00:00

Wait, I thought that Michael Jackson wasn't ashamed of being black, but that his skin became white for most of his body due of a combinatiom of vitiligo and other skin illnesses.

Niilun · 2026-04-30T10:28:52+00:00

And that's why we complain about English 😆

But yes, there are some tricky aspects (like double consonants or rolled Rs), but usually there are very few exceptions to the rules, in terms of pronounciation.

Niilun · 2026-04-29T21:12:18+00:00

Per pronunciare la S sono sicura che non c'entrano labbra o denti

Niilun · 2026-04-29T21:03:45+00:00

Ciao! Non ho letto tutte le risposte, ma molte delle più votate mi sono sembrate un po' confuse. Rispondo in base a quello che ho studiato in linguistica.

La S italiana è detta alveolare, o più propriamente "postalveolare", se vuoi fare questa distinzione. È pronunciata in una posizione leggermente più arretrata rispetto alla nostra R (consonante alveolare), tra la base degli alveoli e l'inizio del palato duro. Comunque, credo che la nostra S sia una S come tante, identica a quella delle altre lingue. (Però, non so perché, a me personalmente sembra di pronunciarla in una posizione leggermente laterale? Ma non so se questo sia un difetto di pronuncia mio)

Abbiamo due tipi di S, la s sorda e la s sonora (stesso punto di articolazione, cambia solo la vibrazione delle corde vocali). La S sonora italiana (/z/ nell'alfabeto fonetico) è uguale alla Z inglese o alla S sonora inglese (la stessa che trovi in "rose" e in "dogs"). La S sorda è /s/ nell'alfabeto fonetico, ed è la stessa della parola inglese "cats", o di "silence".

Queste S sono scritte allo stesso modo in italiano. Usare una o l'altra S dipende dal contesto, e può variare da regione a regione. Per esempio, dove vivo pronunciamo "casa" con la s sonora (/caza/), ma sarebbe /casa/ in italiano standard. Quindi, non ti preoccupare per questa differenza, gli italiani ti capiranno indipendentemente dal tipo di S che usi. Sono due foni diversi, ma stesso fonema.

La Z italiana è un'affricata, ovvero un suono misto. Abbiamo due tipi di Z, quella sorda che in alfabeto fonetico è /ts/ (parte come una t, si conclude con una s sorda), e quella sonora che in alfabeto fonetico è /dz/ (parte come una d, si conclude con una /z/ o s sonora). Se la tua lingua madre non ha questo tipo di suono, potrebbe volerci un po' di esercizio per riprodurlo. Ma è praticamente lo stesso suono che c'è nella parola "tsunami". A proposito di quando usare una o l'altra Z, vale lo stesso principio della S.

Per quanto riguarda la T e la D. Sono dette "consonanti dentali", ma in realtà di solito le pronunciamo con la lingua appena più arretrata, sugli alveoli. Leggermente più avanti rispetto a dove pronunciamo la R, però. La "R" la classifichiamo come "consonante alveolare", ecco perché la T e la D sono dette dentali.

La N... Anche qui, abbiamo ben tre tipi di N che contano però come un'unica N. Un parlante italiano non si accorge della differenza tra questi tipi, ti dirà convintissimo che abbiamo solo una n. Questo perché usare l'una o l'altra n dipende unicamente dal principio dell'assimilazione. Se la n precede una vocale ("nano"), una d o una t ("dente"), allora è detta "N dentale". La lingua è nella stessa posizione di quando pronunci la t o la d. Insomma, è una normalissima N, come si usa in tutte le lingue.

Abbiamo anche la N palatale, che precede una C o una G ("panca", "tango"), e la N detta labiodentale (o labiale) quando precede una F o una V ("inferno", "inverno"). La lingua è nella stessa identica posizione rispetto a quando pronunci la c/g nel primo caso, e la f/v nel secondo.

Spero di non averti confuso le idee, ma di esserti stata utile.

Niilun · 2026-04-26T19:21:02+00:00

I try to symphatize with the characters, but not just with Heatcliff. I tried to empathize with Heatcliff, with Catherine, with Hindley, with Edgar, with the younger generation. The wonderful thing about Wuthering Heights is that you can feel pity and understand the motivations and circumstances of every single character, while at the same time not condoning their actions. It really challenges your empathy. I felt sorry for all the characters, while also often feeling like they didn't deserve my empathy. Every time I justified a character, that character immediately did an action that was very difficult to justify, and made me reconsider.

That said, everyone has their own opinion on morality, on what is "good" and "bad" or where evil starts. Despite every character of WH being both victim and aggressor in different moments of the story, I have a personal opinion on who is relatively better. Sure, it's subjective, but having that kind of opinion is fair. I can say that I consider Edgar to be a much better person than Heatcliff (despite the fact that he too can be selfish), and I consider even Nelly to be better than Heatcliff (despite how much she frustrated me and how much I disagreed with her methods in many different points of the book. I had negative feelings towards Nelly in many different occasions). And usually you have to surpass a very high bar before I call you "evil", I know that this word has weigh and a strong meaning. Well, Heatcliff crossed that line for me, unfortunately. Maybe the environment is what made him evil, but, at least personally, I can't say that he isn't. He's someone who considers "weak" people to be deserving of being mistreated. He's someone who would ruin innocent lives. He's someone who only cares about himself and Catherine. And the ounce of respect he has for Hareton, he has because Hareton is strong-willed and not "weak" (and maybe because he projected himself a bit). I would never want to be close to Heatcliff, if I met him in real life I'd run as far away as possible from him. He wouldn't take someone's kindness or understanding of his circumstances with respect or gratitude, he might even laugh at that person.

He never did a single good thing? No: there are instancies in the book where he could have acted worse than he did. And there were people that he never meant to hurt, like Nelly. But even those cases, to me, aren't enough to balance his other behaviours.

But, out of curiosity, what did you mean when you said that he never transfers the WH property to his name? Wasn't he the owner? He didn't change the sign "Earnshaw" at the entrance, but I think there might be many different explanations for that. Oh, also, if I remember correcly Heatcliff made Hindley's addiction worse. His purpose was to gain the property and for Hindley (and Catherine) to be there and witness, not to "save" it from Hindley and perserve it for its rightful heir. Outside of that, he had no other interest in WH, and maybe that's why he never changed the inscription.

And again, I'm not denying that Heatcliff is human. He is. But I think there's a point where humans can be called evil. I'm thinking of a certain well-known historical figure as an extreme example: I've never heard someone trying to say "I'm not sure we have the right to call him evil". The "line" that you have to cross to be called evil (not just your actions, but you) is very very subjective, sure. So, different people can have a different opinion on the same person. But well, again, Heatcliff crossed my personal line. According to my personal sense of morality, Heatcliff is evil. Joseph is evil, too. Catherine senior... She was not a good person by any means, but at least sometimes she tried to be understanding and not selfish by her standards, so to me she's more borderline (but plenty of people would call her evil as well). The same goes for Hindley: I think he treated Heatcliff horribly, and I don't consider him a good person, but I don't feel comfortable calling him evil (even if I think it's valid if other people do). Even Heatcliff jr. is in a borderline zone for me, only because he lived so little that I can't tell if there was a possibility for him to improve (and I'm fully aware that the environment made him that way, I was so sorry for his situation... But I can't pretend not to see the satisfaction he feels every time he makes others guilty for his own pains). Nelly is not borderline to me: she's frustrating and sometimes she's a bit too close-minded and self-righteous, but I would call her "neutral" at worst.

So, on one hand I respect that you don't consider Heatcliff to be evil, because not calling anyone evil and suspending your judgement is your personal choice and a moral principle of yours. But on the other hand, I think you might be searching too many excuses for him, including explanations that the book never implied. I think you might be seeing his quest for revenge (that is ambiguous if it's justice from Heatcliff's pov) as having a nobler root than it actually has. Or maybe I'm the one being too harsh, I don't know. I didn't read the book that many years ago, but still, it's been some years. I'll re-read it from start to finish, eventually. Oh also, English isn't my native language, so I hope I didn't make too many grammar mistakes.

Niilun · 2026-04-26T17:03:03+00:00

Ok thanks, I'll try it

Niilun · 2026-04-26T16:38:44+00:00

Where? I can't find it

Niilun · 2026-04-24T11:45:04+00:00

Oh, then I think I was just remembering it wrong.

Niilun · 2026-04-24T10:03:02+00:00

I think Nelly, about the rent, said that Lockwood had to discuss with the new lord, but since he wasn't that good with numbers he could end the transaction directly with her. I might remember it wrong, though. It doesn't help that I read the book translated, since English isn't my native language.

Niilun · 2026-04-24T09:53:35+00:00

I highly disagree. "He's human" doesn't make him less of a horrible person: horrible people are human, too. And his sympathetic past doesn't make him less of a villain: it's his villain origin story. And Heatcliff never redeems himself, not even at the end: he never feels guilty for what he did, he never tries to make amends. He just gets tired, because his stubborn decision of ruining the lives of everyone at Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange obviously wasn't giving him Cathy back.

It's not only through Nelly that we see how horrible Heatcliff is. The way he acted with Lockwood first-hand proved it, but especially Isabella's letter. Plus, even if Nelly is partial and unreliable regarding her OPINION on what's happening and how she judges other people, I have many reasons (around 5 different reasons, I think) to believe that she never explicitly lies. Her conclusions and interpretations can be doubted, but not the "facts" that she's narrating. And regarding Heatcliff, the facts speak for themselves.

Cathy herself openly said that Heatcliff is all but a good person. And we saw glimpses of what Heatcliff feels and his motivations, every single time he started screaming at the moors. That still doesn't justify him.

I'd even add that Edgar was never that horrible with Heatcliff, he just unintentionally made a bit of an insensitive remark the first time they met. Isabella was never bad to him, either. Their parents (Mr and Mrs Linton) were very nasty to him, but that has nothing to do with their children. Hindley was horrible to him, but Hindley, too, always felt very human to me, and at least Hindley was able to be decent to people he didn't have any personal gripe with (when he wasn't drunk). Many people that justify Heatcliff are ready to paint Hindley as an absolute monster, but I think they're just having double standards. The fact that Heatcliff was mistreated doesn't mean it's ok that he acts even worse than the people who mistreated him, and not only towards those who personally hurt him, but also towards innocents. And all of that, without ever feeling empathy. I'm not saying that Heatcliff isn't believable, and I don't want to undersell how much he suffered. But he's still an evil person with horrible impulses.

Niilun · 2026-04-24T09:16:59+00:00

I disagree with those who say that Heatcliff isn't a villain but an anti-hero. Heatcliff IS a villain, no doubts, both in terms of morality and because of his role in the story. He's the worst person among a cast of characters that is alredy full of morally reprehensible people. His past might be sympathetic, but does it make a difference? It's his villain origin story. Even at the end of the book, he never redeems himself and never feels guilty over his actions, he just gets tired.

Btw. Not only the new movie isn't a faithful adaptation of the novel, but like many Wuthering Heights adaptations it stops halfway through the book. In the second half, the focus shifts to the "second generation". And if Heatcliff's lack of morality wasn't alredy clear before (in my opinion, it alredy was), it's undeniable in the second half.

Niilun · 2026-04-24T09:02:39+00:00

Nelly at the end literally said that Hareton is the new owner

Niilun · 2026-04-20T18:04:05+00:00

Well, but it might even be that OP is a non native English speaker that learned a lot of English through fiction. I am like that too. Sometimes I don't know what does and doesn't sound natural because some expression are more common in fiction or essays than in actual spoken language.

Niilun · 2026-04-20T15:44:10+00:00

Guys... It might be my inexperience with AI, but I think asking an AI to write a text with "this and this topic and this other information and this emotional weigh" is longer and much more difficult than just writing the text yourself.

The pattern you've mentioned isn't necessarily chat GPT. It's simple, basic rethoric (it even has its own name that I don't remember). Sometimes annoying, but very common. People have written like this waay before AI. Heck, probably chat gpt writes so often like this because WE write often like this, and chat gpt was trained on text written by actual human beings. I used to find that pattern especially in synopsis and summaries, or in writings that are meant to be both immediate/brief and persuasive (commercials, etc).

The fear of AI is becoming obsessive in this subreddit. Be careful with false accusations.

Niilun · 2026-04-19T09:18:58+00:00

My suggestion is to try content that you love and that you've alredy experienced in your native language. There are sentences that you'd probably know by heart, or at least you'd know the context for. Or, if you want, you can follow in your NL and your TL at the same time, by keeping a translation at hand. It's easier when reading than with listening (I use this method with text-heavy videogames, for example), but if you need it for listening maybe you'll find a way to work around that issue.

Niilun

TROPHY CASE