reon
09-26-2004, 10:38 PM
Calling Japan and Nihongo experts,
Meron akong binabasang libro para sa 50-question Nihongo written exam para makakuha ng Japanese driver’s license. Ang pangalan nitong libro ay 試験によく出る普通免許100 0題. Meron itong 1000 questions (sentences actually) na commonly na lumalabas dito sa true or false na written exam.
Okay na sana kaso sa page 29 merong ganitong sentence:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
Ang translation ko roughly ay: “If you put children below 5 years old in your car, you are required by law to provide them with child seats.” Simple lang di ba? Siyempre, ang sagot ko ay “True.” Pero nang tignan ko ang sagot sa libro, “False” daw. At ang explanation:
チャイルドシートの使用義務化の対象は6歳 未満の子供である。
Rough translation: “Child seat is required for children below 6 years old.”
Siguro nakikita ninyo kung bakit “True” and sagot ko doon sa first sentence. Ang interesting pa ay nang tinanong ko yung mga kasama ko (isang Brazilian, Peruvian at Chinese) lahat sila “True” din ang sagot. Tapos bigla nilang binago ang opinion nila nang makita nila ang “tamang” sagot ayon sa libro.
Meron akong exchange na ganito doon sa Chinese:
Ako: Do you have children?
Siya: Yes, I have a son.
Ako: How old is he?
Siya: He is 4.
Ako: So is 4 years old “5歳未満”?
Siya: Well, yes.
Ako: If you put your son in your car, you are required by law to provide him with a child seat, right?
Siya: Yes, of course.
Ako: So the sentence is “True”!
Siya: No, no, no, no! You don’t understand, the law said “below 6 years” old. “6”! That’s what the law says!
I know what the law is. Pero kung required kang bigyang ng child seat ang mga batang below 6 years old, required ka ring bigyan ng child seat ang mga batang below 5, gaya ng sabi ng first sentence, hindi ba?
Or to put it in another way: If the first sentence is true, does it imply that it is not required to provide child seats to children 5 and above? Am I missing something here? Mali ba ang translation?
reon :growl:
http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/4471160044.09.LZZZZZ ZZ.jpg
cyclops
09-27-2004, 08:22 PM
Reon-san:
I’m not familiar with the child seat law. So ang answer ko a Question will be TRUE also.
Dahil ang alam ko children 0 yeas old and above are required to have a child seat.Ngayon kung ang sagot sa question is FALSE, then hanggang ilang taon ba required ang child seat?.
Then kung ang explanation ay ６歳未満 then pati siguro ako mapapasagot ng “Aahh”, and ths is my reason:
５歳未満 means HANGGANG 5 yrs old lang or 0 up to 5ys old. while ang sabi sa Law,
６歳未満 means HANGGANG 6 yrs old or 0 up to 6yrs old.
So mali nga ang answer natin. Dahil sa question children hanggang 5 yrs old lang ang pwedeng bigyan ng child seat.
Sana nakatulong ang explanation ko. 
reon
09-28-2004, 08:37 PM
Then kung ang explanation ay ６歳未満 then pati siguro ako mapapasagot ng “Aahh”, and ths is my reason:
５歳未満 means HANGGANG 5 yrs old lang or 0 up to 5ys old. while ang sabi sa Law,
６歳未満 means HANGGANG 6 yrs old or 0 up to 6yrs old.
So mali nga ang answer natin. Dahil sa question children hanggang 5 yrs old lang ang pwedeng bigyan ng child seat.
cyclops, tenkyu sa reply. eto rin sinabi ng ibang tao. pero parang hindi yata ganyan ang pagkaka-intindi ko sa sentence. kung ganito ang sentence, definitely mali:
チャイルドシートの使用義務化の対象は5歳 未満の子供である。
translation: child seat is required by law for children under 5 (and implies that children 5 and above are exempted).
pero kung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
sa sentence na ito, hindi ko makita ang implication na exempted ang batang 5 and above. sabi lang nya ay: pag meron kang isasakay na batang less than five years old, required kang i-provide ng child seat. hindi ko alam kung question ito ng comprehension ng japanese o comprehension ng japanese mindset (may mga bagay siguro na ini-imply ng customs at traditions at hindi words). o kaya hindi ko lang talaga makuha ang implication.
reon (ime-memorize ko na lang para walang gulo) :grinny:
pixel
09-29-2004, 06:31 AM
hello reon,
actually, sa unang pagbasa, parang walang implication, pero kung i-consider mo ulit, at lalo na kung makita mo ang “tamang” sagot, parang mayroong kaunting implication. medyo okashii rin ang sentence. baka “trick question” nga talaga. 
pixel
Dax
02-08-2005, 12:41 PM
５歳未満 means HANGGANG 5 yrs old lang or 0 up to 5ys old. while ang sabi sa Law,
６歳未満 means HANGGANG 6 yrs old or 0 up to 6yrs old.
「5歳未満」 means below 5 years old…hindi “HANGGANG” 5 years old, which is 「5歳以下」.
チャイルドシートの使用義務化の対象は5歳 未満の子供である。
translation: child seat is required by law for children under 5 (and implies that children 5 and above are exempted).
pero kung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
sa sentence na ito, hindi ko makita ang implication na exempted ang batang 5 and above. sabi lang nya ay: pag meron kang isasakay na batang less than five years old, required kang i-provide ng child seat. hindi ko alam kung question ito ng comprehension ng japanese o comprehension ng japanese mindset (may mga bagay siguro na ini-imply ng customs at traditions at hindi words). o kaya hindi ko lang talaga makuha ang implication.
i agree 100% with reon. mali ang sagot na “FALSE” sa case na ito kasi sinasabi sa batas na 「チャイルドシートの使用義務化の対象は6 歳未満の子供である。」, at ang sabi naman sa exam ay 「チャイルドシートの使用義務化の対象は5 歳未満の子供である。」. and since <5 is contained/included in <6, therefore the sentence must be TRUE! siguro ang gustong palabasin ng gumawa ng exam ay dapat alam mo kung hanggang anong edad kailangan ang child seat.
subukan nating gawing negative ang sentence: 「5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合、チャイ ルドシートの使用が義務づけられていない。 」 assuming FALSE ang tamang sagot, pag ginawang ganito, hindi naman magiging TRUE ang sagot di ba? so mali sila! :mad:
aiko
08-13-2005, 07:17 PM
hi reon, matagalna na rin ako dito sa japan at awa ng Diyos nakakuha na ako ng japanese liscence…that was 5 yrs ago …10 questions lang at may actual examinations ,doon ako nahirapan…siguro naka 7 beses din akong nag exam,pero ayun nakuha rin sa tiyaga…marami sila talagang mga tricky questions …kaya gambatte ne…atama yasasou dakara daijobu da yo…Good Luck!
docomo
08-15-2005, 02:47 AM
@ reon
share ko lang advice ng mga teachers ko sa mukagaoka driving school …according to them pag binabasa mo na ang japan questionnaire tandaan daw palagi na sa isang question na mababasa mo, dalawa palagi ang nabubuong sentence … ( usually ang maiisip natin kaagad parang ang gulo )
… ok,ganito na lang para di masyadong magulo …yung example na question mo ang i-example natin…
question** " If you put children below 5 years old in your car , you are required by law to provide them with child seats.
… basahin mo ulit yung question at mag concentrate ka sa sentence after the comma kasi nandyan ang question…pansinin mo yung unang word na “you” dyan pa lang makikita mo na yung reason kung bakit false ang sagot …
my two cents …good luck
reon
08-15-2005, 01:31 PM
medyo matagal ng itong thread na ito, a.
thanks for the analysis dax, pero kahit pareho tayo ng opinion mali daw ito sabi ng libro at ng ibang hapon na nakausap ko. bale ang reason ay, “kung ‘5 five years old’ ang nasa isip mo, baka malimutan mo na ang child seat ay required hanggang ‘6 years old’”. hindi ako satisfied sa ganyan explanation, pero baka maliwanagan din ang isip ko balang-araw.
tenkyu din sa encouragement aiko, yes, makukuha din yan, although busy ako ngayon kaya kailangang ipagpaliban muna.
tenkyu din sa suggestion docomo, pero hindi yata gumagana ng mabuti ang utak ko ngayon kaya hindi ko pa rin makuha. ang suspetsa ko ay isa ito doon sa mga “culture thing” na hindi mo lang makukuha based sa logic, kailangan mo ng pananaw ng isang matagal na sa japan. o hindi rin?
sam
08-15-2005, 04:05 PM
matagal na nga ang thread na ito, pero, nakakatuwa lang, kaya pwede ring makidagdag ng opion, dalawa lang: kung ano ang sinabi nila sa batas, yun dapat ang eksaktong sagot, 6 at hindi 5; pangalawa, yung analysis ko naman, kung below 5 nga lang, then you must be forgetting children betwen 5 to below 6, kaya false ang sagot.
malinaw ba o malabo din? tnx.
reon
08-15-2005, 04:20 PM
kung ano ang sinabi nila sa batas, yun dapat ang eksaktong sagot, 6 at hindi 5.mukhang magaling na sagot yan, sam, at so far, pinaka-satisfying sa lahat. parang meron kang sudden insight, at biglang… malinaw na ang lahat. pero totoo, magandang eksplansyon yang sinabi mo. masyado kasi akong nag-f-focus sa kung naintindihan ko nga ba ang nihongo o hindi kaya hindi ko nabigyan ng tamang atensyon yang exact letter of law. salamat.
cyclops
08-15-2005, 09:20 PM
I hope this one can help:
１． 以 上．．．．．．．．．その数字を含めて 大きい数字
（例 ５以 上＝５，６，７．．．．）
２．以 下．．．．．．．．．その数字を含 めて小さい数字
（例 ５以 下＝５，４，３．．．．）
３．こえる．．．．．．．．．．その数字を 含まずそれより大きい数字
（例 ５を こえる＝６，７，８．．．）
４．未 満．．．．．．．．．その数字を含 まずそれより小さい数字
（例 ５未 満＝４，３，２．．．．）
reon-san;
paki translate nalang.
cyclops
sam
08-16-2005, 12:37 PM
Thanks reon. We usually used the technique of syllogism to solve problems like that but it is always faulty (especially in a precise environment like Japan). Now I don’t want to lose you all on that term. A syllogism is simply a form of logic. It has a major premise and a minor premise that leads to a conclusion. It goes like this:
Major premise: "Child seat is required for children below 6 years old. “If you put your son, who’s age is under 6 y/o in your car, you are required by law to provide him with a child seat, right?” Yes, minor premise, you will do that, conclusion: True
You say, “Well, that’s logical.” It is. The problem is the bare inference in the minor premise. Seems to be true but is actually deceptive. Actually sa totoong buhay madalas mangyari yan. Sana mas malinaw na o lalong gumulo?
andres
08-16-2005, 01:19 PM
Lalong gumulo.
Sam, anong ibik sabihin ng: “The problem is the bare inference in the minor premise.”
Salamat!
sam
08-16-2005, 03:17 PM
It means that the minor premise does not always speak for the major premise. Example uli:
”Only man is born free, and no women are men, therefore, no women are born free.”
Major premise: Only man is born free
Minor premise: no women are men
Conclusion: no women are born free.
Again, it’s logical right? But the problem with the minor premise is the word ‘men’-it means ‘male’ and the other one in the major premise basically refers to humanity. So the minor premise is false. Sana malinaw na. salamat
Paul
08-16-2005, 03:30 PM
parang klase ko nung college sa philosophy a.
summergirl
03-10-2006, 08:04 AM
reon i think ur very smart enough para bumagsak sa written test ng hapon for applying japanese license.I have japanese license also ,almost 10 yrs na akong meron noon.Wala pa akong narinig na bumagsak sa written kasi puro true or false nga lang.ang alam kong strict sila ay sa actual,pag fasten ng seat belt before staring the engine at sa 止まれ very strict.wish u luck ,relax para hindi ka kabahan
striver
03-10-2006, 12:18 PM
my answer to this tricky question is actually FALSE. actually this kind of tricky question usually given in some 資格試験(licensure examination).
if your understanding on the first question is “child-seat should be provided to 6 years old below”, and you take the second question as “5 years old falls to 6歳未満”, then definitely, you will arrived in concluding that the answer is TRUE.
the way to simply solve this is not to apply the second statement to the first statement, but to compare them. since the law state that “child-seat should be provided to 6 years old below”, then the second statement “child-seat should be provided to 5 years old below” is difinetly wrong. so my answer is FALSE.
Dax
03-10-2006, 01:13 PM
since the law state that "child-seat should be provided to 6 years old below"The law states 「チャイルドシートの使用義務 化 の対象は6歳未満の子供である 。」, the underlined part of which means below 6 years old. When you say “6 years old (and) below” this becomes 「6歳以下」, which includes 6 year-olds. Malaking pagkakaiba.
striver
03-10-2006, 05:40 PM
The law states 「チャイルドシートの使用義務 化 の対象は6歳未満の子供である 。」, the underlined part of which means below 6 years old. When you say “6 years old (and) below” this becomes 「6歳以下」, which includes 6 year-olds. Malaking pagkakaiba.
thank you for the reply. pero di ko naman sinabi na “6 years old (and) below”. if that is the case like you said, talagang malaki ang pagkakaiba.
Dax
03-10-2006, 05:42 PM
@striver
Pwede paki-explain ang ibig sabihin ng “6 years old below”? Akala ko nakalimutan mo lang yung and, kasi kung wala nito parang mali eh. 
if your understanding on the first question is "child-seat should be provided to 6 years old below"Ang tinutukoy mong “first question” sa post na ito (#17) ay yung batas na pinost ni reon sa post #1 di ba? Yung 「チャイルドシートの使用義務 化 の対象は6歳未満の子供である 。」? Kung yun nga, di dapat “below 6 years old”.
docomo
03-10-2006, 05:48 PM
@ dax
… wag mong i~focus sa first sentence … sa second sentence ka mag focus… read it slowly dun mo makukuha yung sagot sa sinabi ni striver:)
Dax
03-10-2006, 06:02 PM
@doc
Alin ang second sentence? Yung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合 、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
? Kung ito ang tinutukoy ni striver, mas lalong hindi “6 years old below” kasi ang 「5歳未満」 ibig sabihin “below 5 years old” - pati 5 years old hindi kasama.
Baka ang iniisip niya 以下, hindi 未満? I tried to make it clear in post #5, and also cyclops in post #11.
striver
03-10-2006, 06:28 PM
@doc
Alin ang second sentence? Yung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合 、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
? Kung ito ang tinutukoy ni striver, mas lalong hindi “6 years old below” kasi ang 「5歳未満」 ibig sabihin “below 5 years old” - pati 5 years old hindi kasama.
Baka ang iniisip niya 以下, hindi 未満? I tried to make it clear in post #5, and also cyclops in post #11.
di naman. i know the difference between 以下 and 未満.
like you said, when you say 5歳未満, 5 years old is not included.
Dax
03-10-2006, 06:40 PM
di naman. i know the difference between 以下 and 未満.
like you said, when you say 5歳未満, 5 years old is not included.Sorry, my apologies. 
So would you mind posting which is this “first question”?
03-10-2006, 06:02 PM
@doc
Alin ang second sentence? Yung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合 、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
? Kung ito ang tinutukoy ni striver, mas lalong hindi “6 years old below” kasi ang 「5歳未満」 ibig sabihin “below 5 years old” - pati 5 years old hindi kasama.
Baka ang iniisip niya 以下, hindi 未満? I tried to make it clear in post #5, and also cyclops in post #11.
striver
03-10-2006, 06:28 PM
@doc
Alin ang second sentence? Yung:
5歳未満の子供を車に乗せる場合 、チャイル ドシートの使用が義務づけられ ている。
? Kung ito ang tinutukoy ni striver, mas lalong hindi “6 years old below” kasi ang 「5歳未満」 ibig sabihin “below 5 years old” - pati 5 years old hindi kasama.
Baka ang iniisip niya 以下, hindi 未満? I tried to make it clear in post #5, and also cyclops in post #11.
di naman. i know the difference between 以下 and 未満.
like you said, when you say 5歳未満, 5 years old is not included.
Dax
03-10-2006, 06:40 PM
di naman. i know the difference between 以下 and 未満.
like you said, when you say 5歳未満, 5 years old is not included.Sorry, my apologies. So would you mind posting which is this “first question”?
This is an archived page from the former Timog Forum website.