"There are a lot of boys."
Both of the sentences I wrote above are grammatically correct. I know you just use adjectives that end with い before noun such as 大きい犬(big dog). But 多い(ooi) and 少ない(sukunai) are the exceptions and you often have to change them to 多くの(ookuno) and 少しの(sukoshino) before noun. Of course people can understand what you mean by saying 多い男の子. It's just a small mistake. There are some noun that you can use 多い instead of 多くの such as 多い給料 but I can't think of many.
大勢 is getting read as たいせい for me in the audio instead of おおぜい, which seems to be a different meaning altogether. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E5%8B%A2#Japanese
"Are a lot" is correct, and "is a lot" is incorrect, because the plural thing here is "boys", not "a lot". Ex.
"There are a lot of boys."
"There is a lot of jam."
"There are lots of boys."
"There is lots of jam."
Here "boys" is plural, so it always uses "are", while "jam" is uncountable, so it counts as singular, and uses "is".
To explain further, the sentence construct "There are..." is an odd sentence construct to explain. The subject in this sentence is actually "boys", and the phrase "a lot of" acts as an adjective.
We can reorder the sentence to be "A lot of boys are there." to put it in subject-verb-predicate order. If we're talking about boys being numerous, then "a lot of" is an adjective phrase, and "boys" is the subject. We use "are" in this case because the subject is plural.
If we're talking about a single grouping of boys, "a lot" is the subject, "of boys" is a prepositional phrase, and the verb "is" is required to be grammatically correct for the singular subject.
Now building off the above explanation, nouns like "jam" and "furniture" are uncountable nouns and are always singular. (You can actually say "jams" but that is talking about different types of jams, rather than multiple jars.)
English is difficult to explain haha. Conversationally, either one would be fine and no one would care either way.
I am given the English sentence "There are a lot of boys" and asked to provide the Japanese translation. This is an idiomatic construction I have never seen before. Even knowing the words 男の子 and 大勢, I have no way of knowing what the correct construction in Japanese is.
In English, the idiom is that there exists "a lot" (nominative - a collection of many) an it is composed of boys (genitive). The most direct translation would be 男の子の大勢がいます.
Were I given the Japanese first, I could know learn that the Japanese idiomatic construction is that 大勢 behaves adjectively and 男の子 is a non-topic nominative.
But this is never the pattern. I am continually asked to correctly guess something I have no way of knowing. I can only assume this is a cynical, and frankly unethical, attempt to increase ad revenue.
I'm tired of it.
well, i'm on PC (no adds, try Plus?), but when it comes to the completely unknown, failing is an opportunity for students to invest themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, which after the fact, as in now, the unpleasant efforts and the unwelcomed discomfort accompanying said efforts will help 'burn' the new knowledge into long(er) term memory.
One can copy/paste into an online machine-translator and modify or accept results according to your discretion.
- Google: 男の子がたくさんいます
but, as posted above,
N5 大勢 [おおぜい] great number of people
one example of a website each time variations are noted:
just saying also that when we advance significantly in language acquisition we lose what Suzuki called "Beginner's Mind". It may be helpful, in this regard, that the website indicates that 大勢 is N5 :
JLPT N5 (beginner level) Kanken Level: 10 (learned at completion of 1st grade)
also: Be careful when using 大勢「おおぜい」since it is used to refer to a crowd or large number of people as opposed to objects. 2 YEARS AGO
and: 男の子が多くいます。or 多くの男の子がいます。would be ok. 多い→多く THREE YEARS AGO
So many opportunities to learn! So, as a polyglot, I hope you will find happiness in every step of the way.
For example, someone shared this with lyrics English/Portuguese from Brazil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeHH-rTZIw
English version only: "... believing life was only a bitter tragic joke..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srw5FRm5eA
well, if you'd be willing to give reasons for not accepting, then we might gain something from it. I mean, if an elaborate free language learning platform entails an additional click or two from its sponsors, we can ignore and move on (if that's the "price to pay", I'd actively choose to be happy or pay for no ads or use PC, or invite 2 new people per month for free PLUS).
please be happy kudasai :)
@h0x0 How does one enter a classroom? [just saw this (you seem lacking in gratitude somehow, why so glum?)
h0x0 "I think once you a type of relative clause, the next one gets easier to recognize"
Fair enough. But Duo just springs this out of nowhere, basically guaranteeing that you lose a heart. Those hearts aren't free. Increasing the amount of ads you see is not a neutral action. Making your party service more attractive by deteriorating your "free" service is not a neutral action. It is unethical. It is theft. 4 DAYS AGO
IsolaCiao It's the choice of the user to use hearts. If it doesn't suit your learning style, then why not use the web browser version instead of the app? For those who prefer to use the app for whatever reason, it's also possible to remove hearts by joining a classroom. 4 DAYS AGO
If I agreed to sell you something for four dollars, then demanded five, would you be grateful? Would I be acting honestly?
That is exactly what is going on here. I'm willing watch an amount of ads for the service that Duo provides. Duo is then increasing that amount through dishonest tactics. I take issue with this.
It does not matter that there is an alternative where they are being less dishonest, I take issue with this instance of dishonesty.
They are not my friends (nor yours). Gratitude doesn't enter into it. This is strictly transactional. And they've got their thumb on the scale.
h0x0, are you teenage years or very old person? i cannot decide, but you pay zero (no 4/5...) and they fund thru ad sponsors like all other free sites (no dishonest). this is standard modern life in technological era. you are either too old or too young to resolve your complaint. Why are you angry and sad (glum is as well a good questions)? your parents are low income radical intellectual-artists?
hahaha!!!! eureka! maybe stop getting basic Japanese wrong answers! weaker students must pay more thru ad-time, because penalty on the amount of server interaction... hahaha!!!! in fact, every post-complaint of you is indication and self-incrimination of poor foreign language skills. not too old, not too young, not too smart!!! haha, self-incriminating knavery! thank you h0x0. for humorous skit.
First of all: ad hominem is a very poor way to argue.
Second: I don't mind being punished for failing to learn from previous lessons. That's my point. This isn't from a previous lessons or presented in a way that I could apply knowledge from previous lessons. I'm being punished for not knowing something that I can't possibly know.
Third: the idea that other sites engage in similar dishonest shenanigans , that it's standard as you say, don't make this ok. This is what's called a tu quoque and it's just as fallacious as ad hominem.
But I suspect your not trying to make an argument. You're just trying to be unpleasant to a stranger in the internet. Congratulations.
1st i was asking ad hominem your age independently of argue, on which questions the ad hominem seeks for ultimate resolutions, based on concrete identity toward finding in-roads toward "Authenticity"
2nd learning via failure without "punishment," ads are not punishment, but as above stated "price to pay" for free appli... (see 5th...) 3rd acceptance of Technology Standards was from even Heidegger's time a pre-requisite for "Authenticity".
4th not a "stranger", if such personal inquiries lead generally to the crux of engimatic dispositions and behavioural patterns.
5th petitio principii is what you have been doing and above marti_MG also gave his genuine interest, but you don't participate fairly due to unknown (for now) stigmatisms.
So, rather than reveal, you further conceal, due to attachments on the POV itself, and, oddly, such predisposition toward like argumentation apporaches turns the analytical eye toward the ad hominem.