11

Can it cover an entire month? Two?

Louis Waweru
  • 5,295
  • 33
  • 56

3 Answers3

13

Completely context-dependent. Try googling "最近の年号" — in this phrase, 最近 goes back a century or more.

Matt
  • 10,114
  • 45
  • 57
2

Yes it can cover an entire month. And yes, it can even cover two.

Axioplase
  • 12,202
  • 30
  • 49
2

People might complain that this answer is offensive, but I feel English-centrism or bias in this question. Have you ever thought of the following questions?: How long of a time period does recent cover? What is the threshold of length that divides things being referred to as this or as that?

  • 2
    I don't think there's anything wrong with this answer. It's eye opening. – Louis Waweru Sep 28 '11 at 13:40
  • Of course he's never thought of those questions - people have decades of experience with their first language to draw on for knowing when a given word is appropriate or not. This knowledge does not necessarily translate to words of similar meanings in other languages. And there can be lots of subtlety in how some words are used: "tomorrow" means exactly one day from now, but set phrases like "The world of tomorrow" clearly mean something different. – Random832 Sep 28 '11 at 13:48
  • 2
    I don't see the English bias, is it because the question was asked in English? What if we were to ask the question in Japanese, like this guy: http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1117338791 There are countless others to be found on Google too. – phirru Sep 28 '11 at 14:03
  • Where do you see this bias? When we learn new things, it's only natural to base our understanding on things that we already know. Also, the only thing I see that could justifiably be considered offensive is that you open your question in what could be taken as an accusatory tone. You could have easily said "To get a more intuitive feel for it, think about the following questions: [Question A] [Question B]". – Nathan Ellenfield Sep 28 '11 at 14:18
  • 2
    Thanks to Louis for understanding the nuance. Phirru, it is not because it is asked in English; it is because it is asking things about Japanese whose English counterpart the OP would prorably not have asked. –  Sep 28 '11 at 15:01
  • 1
    That's because the OP already knows how to use the English words. It's easy to imagine someone who's not a native speaker of English asking those questions. For any given word or phrase, "It means exactly the same thing as [some english word] and you can use it whenever you would have used that word in English" isn't necessarily true (speaking of english-centric ways of thinking), and it isn't a priori obvious even if it is true. Just because native speakers of a language don't think of some aspect of meaning in explicit terms doesn't mean it's not a legitimate thing to ask or describe. – Random832 Sep 28 '11 at 15:07
  • 1
    @DaveMG @Random832 Comparing the meaning of different words within a language or between languages can be meaningful, but the difference is relative to one another (e.g., you can say that one is longer than another). You cannot define the meaning of these words with an absolute unit. The question sounded like it is asking for that. Would you define the meaning of recent as 'time span within XXX seconds'? No. The same with Japanese. –  Sep 28 '11 at 15:11
  • 1
    You're right that there's no bright line, but at the same time, I certainly wouldn't describe a hundred thousand years (3 trillion seconds) ago as "recent" except in a geological sense. Clearly there are some times that are too long to be "recent" in a given context and some that are not. So really one place you can start is, is this word identical to "recent", or does it mean generally shorter/longer timespans, or does it have more/less flexibility to context (can you say like "geologically recent"), etc. – Random832 Sep 28 '11 at 15:19
  • 3
    I'm guessing that it's because the word "bias" seems to contain a negative accusatory connotation when directed towards a person. But if we all read it as a statistical deviation then there's nothing inherently offensive in using the word "bias" to describe such a situation. As in "I'm less likely to ask this question with regard to the English language than compared to a foreign language." Which is in summary a "bias". But not used in an offensive sense. "Bias" here is not a common term to all parties. Some understand it with a negative connotation, and some see nothing inherently wrong. – Flaw Sep 28 '11 at 15:33
  • 1
    @DaveMG Once again it's the problem of non-common terms. It is my practice to first interpret terms without connotation, then determine if the tone of the conversation warrant the implication of any connotation. "English-centrism" is not there to "accuse" anybody. It is again showing statistical deviation - "To use English as the most frequent method of cognition". It's only offensive insofar as to how we feel when we perceive that we are "wrong". Offensiveness works both ways, 1. the intention of the speaker, and 2. the perception of the listener. – Flaw Sep 29 '11 at 02:31
  • @DaveMG Okay let's agree to disagree then. – Flaw Sep 29 '11 at 03:15