Please help me to read this English sentence:

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Columbine

No, I wouldn't ever use self-dependent. The 'in' in 'independent' means 'self' in this context. 'Dependent' almost always refers to something ~other~ than yourself, so 'self-dependent' is confusing. If you want to say someone can rely on them-self and they don't need anyone or anything else, we use 'self-sufficient'.

EDIT: Oh, I didn't see some of the other posts. You could certainly also use 'self-reliant' as a synonym for 'self-sufficient' and 'independent'. Use whichever you prefer, Yuri.

I'm sorry!
I seem to be confused.
Which one should I use????

[ColinHowell]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

I'm sorry!
I seem to be confused.
Which one should I use????

Hmm, "self-sufficient" never even occurred to me. Columbine is right that "self-reliant", "self-sufficient", and "independent" are synonyms. The corresponding nouns are "self-reliance", "self-sufficiency", and "independence". As Columbine said, use whatever you prefer.

I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but you might try using a thesaurus (a reference book of synonyms) in situations like this. Merriam-Webster's online one appears to be fairly good.

What follows is just minor quibbling; if it confuses you, feel free to ignore it.

I do object to Columbine's earlier statement that "The 'in' in 'independent' means 'self' in this context." I understand what he is trying to say, but I still think it's a misleading thing to tell an English learner. The prefix "in-" here simply means "not"; "in-" never means "self".

But Columbine is correct that the word "dependent" always implies a relationship to someone else or something else, and for that reason "self-dependent" sounds like it contradicts itself.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by ColinHowell

Hmm, "self-sufficient" never even occurred to me. Columbine is right that "self-reliant", "self-sufficient", and "independent" are synonyms. The corresponding nouns are "self-reliance", "self-sufficiency", and "independence". As Columbine said, use whatever you prefer.

Hi. I see.
You have many synonyms.

I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but you might try using a thesaurus (a reference book of synonyms) in situations like this. Merriam-Webster's online one appears to be fairly good.

Oh, thank you!
This site seems to be really helpful.
I just was just about to buy a thesaurus to develop my vocabulary, but I don’t need any more. It’s really helpful.

What follows is just minor quibbling; if it confuses you, feel free to ignore it.

I do object to Columbine's earlier statement that "The 'in' in 'independent' means 'self' in this context." I understand what he is trying to say, but I still think it's a misleading thing to tell an English learner. The prefix "in-" here simply means "not"; "in-" never means "self".

But Columbine is correct that the word "dependent" always implies a relationship to someone else or something else, and for that reason "self-dependent" sounds like it contradicts itself.

I see.
Prefixes are confusing, because both “in-“ and “im-“ mean “not”, right?
At the same time, “in” in “increase” does not mean “not”, but “up”.
“Im” in “impossible” may means “not”, but in “import” and “immigrant”, it doesn’t mean “not”, but “in”. (!!!) This is really complicated.

[JamboP26]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

jambo half my problem is APART from being OLD---------------- Is-- I cannot select separate "quotes" so probably that is why I cause chaos and confusion.

Young people are better at manipulating these !quotes! than I.

anyway "I'll try to do better in future Miss."

lol. As I say, don't worry about it too much. It can just get confusing sometimes, thats all.

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

I see.
Prefixes are confusing, because both “in-“ and “im-“ mean “not”, right?
At the same time, “in” in “increase” does not mean “not”, but “up”.
“Im” in “impossible” may means “not”, but in “import” and “immigrant”, it doesn’t mean “not”, but “in”. (!!!) This is really complicated.

I didn't realise English was so complicated. But we'll do our best to help

All the points you make there are correct. The prefix meaning will change depending on the word it's 'added' to.

[dogsbody70]

I do question that the phrase "Self dependent" is wrong. surely it means a persons dependence on Him or her Self, self explanatory really.

I also question the use of THEMSELF. them-- is plural so surely themselves is more accurate but better to say either Him or Her self. It just strikes me as odd. unless English has changed a lot since my school days. Maybe it has.


Self`-de`pend´ent
a. 1. Dependent on one's self; self-depending; self-reliant.

[ColinHowell]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

I do question that the phrase "Self dependent" is wrong. surely it means a persons dependence on Him or her Self, self explanatory really.

I also question the use of THEMSELF. them-- is plural so surely themselves is more accurate but better to say either Him or Her self. It just strikes me as odd. unless English has changed a lot since my school days. Maybe it has.

Self`-de`pend´ent
a. 1. Dependent on one's self; self-depending; self-reliant.

Oops, you're right. It is actually valid English; that entry appears to be from the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary. so the word has definitely been around for a while.

Still, it seems to be used far more rarely than "self-sufficient" and "self-reliant", at least judging by the frequency of matches for these phrases in Google searches of both web pages and Google Books. That might explain why it sounded wrong to me. I wouldn't use it myself, much less recommend it to an English learner.

As for "themself", I agree with you--only "themselves" is correct. I would guess the writer is trying to use it in an attempt to make up for English's lack of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. This is certainly an unfortunate flaw in the language, but most attempts to fix it end up sounding clumsy and unsatisfying to me.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by JamboP26

I didn't realise English was so complicated. But we'll do our best to help

All the points you make there are correct. The prefix meaning will change depending on the word it's 'added' to.

Thanks, JamboP26!
I will master English some day.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by ColinHowell

Oops, you're right. It is actually valid English; that entry appears to be from the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary. so the word has definitely been around for a while.

Still, it seems to be used far more rarely than "self-sufficient" and "self-reliant", at least judging by the frequency of matches for these phrases in Google searches of both web pages and Google Books. That might explain why it sounded wrong to me. I wouldn't use it myself, much less recommend it to an English learner.

As for "themself", I agree with you--only "themselves" is correct. I would guess the writer is trying to use it in an attempt to make up for English's lack of a gender-neutral personal pronoun. This is certainly an unfortunate flaw in the language, but most attempts to fix it end up sounding clumsy and unsatisfying to me.

Uh…is “independent” OK in that context?

[YuriTokoro]

Hi.
I have written another composition.
I think you might not be interested in this subject, but this is to improve my English.
Could someone help me?


“Japanese Honorifics”

One of my friends asked me two questions about Japan. This is one of them.

The Contract318 : My first question is: What is the meaning of calling someone _____chan vs _____san. In my Japanese class we are called by our last names with san at the end which I think means Mr./Mrs. However, many times in manga people say chan at the end. Is this something said just between friends?

Answer : Yes.

The Japanese language has five common honorifics to add at the end of names of people.
“San”, “chan”, “kun” “sama” and “dono”.
“Dono” is used scarcely. You write it when you direct letters to lower ranking people. That means that writing the honorific makes you to be seemed bossy.
When my younger brother has written it to me, I got angry and complained about it. He said that he writes many letters to his patients with the honorific every day, and he had written it to me out of pure habit. He is a doctor. Still, I believe he is arrogant.
I think only Tennoh (the Japanese Emperor) can use that when he writes to Japanese people.
When you write letters, you must write “sama”.
“Sama” is also used to call customers. Shop assistants and clerks usually call their customers with “sama”.
By the say, we say god/gods “kamisama”. This “sama” is the honorific.

When you call your boss and fellow mates, you should add “san” to their family names.
If you are very elderly, you can call young subordinates with “kun”. However, I don’t recommend it.
If you are a male student, you would call your male friends with “kun”, or just their names without an honorific, and would call your female friends with “san”. If the person is your girlfriend, you can call her without an honorific, too.
If you are a female student, you would call your female friends with “san”. When the friends are very close, you can call them with “chan”.
When you are an adult, you must be very friendly to call friends with “chan” or to be called with “chan”.

Is it complicated?
Don’t worry. You always can say “san”.
Good luck!
Thank you!!

[hinata2]

English is a hard language to learn it follows the rules of all the languages it was formed from