Translation:It is 1:01 now.
To ask this question in a different way, why is (minutes) 分 sometimes pronounced ふん fun and other times it's pronounced ぷん pun? How do you know which one to use when?
Here is the answer:
2, 5, 7, 9 minutes are [fun],
1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 minutes are [pun].
After 10 minutes, the same pattern will be repeated."
For more information:
I'm not sure if this is right, but I read that the pronunciation of 分depends on the minute. It's a bit tricky but once you remember it, it'll be easy.
六分＝ろっぷん 七分＝ななふん 八分＝はっぷん *
九分＝きゅうふん 十分＝じゅっぷん Or じっぷん *
十一分＝じゅういっぷん 十二分＝じゅうにふん *
Hope this helps!
PS: I've also heard that the kanji 分 is also used to talk about fractions. E.g. 四分の一＝よんぶんのいち １/４ Or 1 quarter
No its not. If I can learn Japanese, you can learn English. Trust me, I'm the stupidest person alive. Granted though English is one of the harder languages to learn, with all our words that sound the same, but mean different things, and are spelled different. Such as to, two, and too. Or due, dew, jew. Where and wear. Hear and here. Hair and hare. You get the picture, but hang in there. Would be pleased to help you out.
Sora - English is one hell of a difficult language to learn. I am honestly glad that it is my native language or I don't know if I'd be able to learn it myself! I think you'll be happy to hear though that most non-native English speakers/students of English that I've met actually know the language much more thoroughly than native speakers. We may be able to speak and understand it but we often can't explain why something is correct or incorrect beyond "that's just how it is". In my experience, students of English understand the grammar and syntax of English extremely well and can explain what is going on whilst the majority of native speakers (myself included) often only know something "sounds right".
Well, and I say this as a native speaker, it's a stupidly complex mix of languages. But it's a lot simpler now than Anglo Saxon was! When the French invaded in 1066, endings got a lot simpler, thankfully!
But modern English is the result of the Gaelic/Welsh speaking Celts being invaded by the Romans (who brought in Latin), and then by the Angles and Saxons (Germanic tribes) when the Romans left again, then by the Norse (the Vikings), who left a lot of their own words behind (like "give/gift" and "take").
They also started the simplification of plurals and tenses. Before them, you'd not only have horse/horses and "the horses ran/run/are running/will run," but different endings depending on how many horses there are (beyond just one/more than one), and even if they were running towards or away from you. Or parallel to you.
Then the French invaded and things got simplified again; but we also started using the French words for cooked meat rather than the Anglo Saxon ones. So "beef" (from "boeuf") instead of "cow"; "pork" (porc) instead of "swine". Didn't quite do the same thing with "chicken" and "poultry" (poulet), though, probably because only the very rich could actually afford to eat them, so "poulet" wasn't on enough plates to matter.
Then in the 1700s some guys decided to write down the rules for English, but base them on the rules for Latin (on the grounds that it was the "proper" and superior language--mistly because English didn't really have any hard-and-fast rules yet, probably because no one had written them down yet), and, where English allowed something that Latin didn't (such as double negatives), decided that English was wrong, and the Latin rules must be followed.
Anyways, the end result is that modern English is basically at least five languages run through a blender, with the odd useful term (such as "angst" or "entrepreneur") that gave a nuance English didn't yet have liberally sprinkled through.
It really is three languages in a trenchcoat, as the joke says, heh, lurking in dark alleys, knocking other languages on the head, and rifling through their pockets for spare vocabulary!
No, I understood the context of your question. Maybe I should flesh out my answer more, since I realize I did leave out a detail that is important in this context.
Consider the syllables Fu, Pu, and Bu. They are all written with the same base character with the addition of a diacritic: ふ ぷ ぶ
Consider also the syllables Ka and Ga: か が. This is part of a larger pattern of how Japanese orthography is pretty transparent.
The stand-alone pronunciation of 分 is ぶん. But in context it assimilates with the voiceless "ch" of いち and becomes ぷん. But then a further step is taken and いち reduces to い while the "p" of ぷん is pronounced for an extra beat to make up for the lost ち.
Your translation is reasonable. The course contributors simply neglected to add that option to this sentence's answer database. You can flag it next time and report "My answer should be accepted."
Keep in mind, though, that translation is not about a direct correspondence between words, but rather how a native speaker would say it. "Now" and "right now" largely overlap, but "right now" has an urgency to it that "now" does not. So there are variations in how you can translate "ima" depending on the greater context.
You need to take a screen shot and file a bug report. There's nothing anyone here can do.
I'm English, ”it's one o'clock” is usually at best within five to ten minutes of 1:00 precisely, in my experience. To specify an exact time in minutes is less often the case than a loose approximation. ’Exactly' is the word I have used many times to disambiguate that kind of misunderstanding. ”Right now, it's exactly 1:01” is something I'd almost never say, but that's how I'd specify the exact current time if needed.