grammar constructions - Could you please explain the use of passive voice in the following sentences?

I would like you to help me to understand this grammar pattern （Nに）Vれる presented in Nihongo Sou Matome JLPT N3 (Pg.14). I'm not able to understand why the passive voice is used in the example sentences.

1. 友達の赤ちゃんを抱っこしたら、泣かれてしまった。

Why is 泣く in passive form? If 友達の赤ちゃん was the one who cried, then shouldn't it be 泣いてしまった?

2. 雨に降られて、服が濡れてしまいました。

My literal translation of this would be: "Something was fallen by the rain and the clothes got soaked." It doesn't make sense...

Again, why is the passive form used?

3. 父に死なれて、大学を続けられなくなりました。

My literal translation of this would be: "(I or somebody) was died/killed by my father, and could not continue university."

If it's my father who died and it's me who could not continue university, wouldn't it be better to say 父が死んだから、大学を続けられなくなりました。 or something like this.

I really don't understand the use of the passive form in these 3 cases.

Could you please explain this to me and give some more examples to grasp the use of this kind of strange passive?

Thank you so much in advance for your help!

reading comprehension - Subject confusion or mistranslation of 無難

A scientist is investigating a mysterious hole in the ground. His experiments have failed and I think he's a bit sulky. He then says:

「埋めてしまいなさい」
Fill it in.

Then the narration goes:

わからないことは、なくしてしまうのが無難だった。

My literal translation of this is "It was safe to get rid of something he didn't understand.", but that doesn't make much sense at all.

First of all I'm unsure of the subject of わかる. Is it the scientist or is or is it a generic "things one doesn't understand"?

Is this statement the narrator's belief, the scientists belief, or what the narrator thought the scientists would think?

With any combination of the above thoughts I still can't make a sentence that really seems to fit the context. Maybe I've translated 無難 wrongly?

Such a simple sentence, but I'm so confused.

Answer

I think the most natural sentence in this context would be:

わからないものは、なかったことにしてしまうのが無難だった

This means "The low-risk choice here was to pretend this mysterious thing never existed".

This is a bit different from

わからないことは、なくしてしまうのが無難だった。

First, the use of こと rather than もの means the author is including related things to the hole (it's a bit like home vs. house). They are still talking about the hole, but not only about the physical hole.

Second, they use なくしてしまう instead of なかったことにしてしまう. The difference is the former means "eliminate the thing", whereas the latter means "pretend it never existed". I guess it depends whether you think a hole can be eliminated completely by filling it in, or it's just hidden from view.
My guess is the author uses the former because the scientists' desire is to "kill" the hole - eliminate it. And they think they can do that by filling it in. I'm guessing the story goes, "scientists go home thinking they have successfully eliminated the hole and any related danger or creature or what have you, but it turns out filling the hole doesn't eliminate the hole at all".

This storyline is also strongly suggested by the use of 無難 because it's often used to mean "A low-risk choice that turns out to be wrong (the actor should have confronted the problem rather than taking the easy way out)".

As to whose belief it is, I think it's describing the scientists' belief.

Buffer formation in weak acid/strong base titration?

I'm a little confused about what happens when you titrate a weak acid or base. For example, let's say that you are trying to titrate a weak acid. Based on this question, it seems like the weak acid isn't initially a buffer. But, as you begin to add strong base, conjugate base is created from the reaction between the weak acid and strong base. Does this mean that a buffer is created from the titration?

Answer

I think that the above diagram will explain a lot of your questions.

it seems like the weak acid isn't initially a buffer

That is correct as to form a buffer you need a solution containing a weak acid and its conjugate weak base. So in the example above, initially the solution only contains acetic acid ($\ce{CH3COOH}$, but its conjugate base, acetate $\ce{CH3COO^{-}}$, is not present.

But, as you begin to add strong base, conjugate base is created from the reaction between the weak acid and strong base

That is absolutely correct. For example, in the above diagram the reaction that is occurring when you titrate the acetic acid with sodium hydroxide is: $$\ce{CH3COOH + NaOH -> CH3COO- + Na+ + H2O}$$

Now as you begin to titrate the acid, its conjugate base starts to form. This is supported by the fact that the pH doesn't really change when more $\ce{NaOH}$ is added to the solution.

To form an effective buffer solution you need roughly equal concentrations of the acid and conjugate base, hence that is why it says it is a buffer when half of the acid is titrated. However anywhere near that region can be considered as a buffer. Generally a solution is a buffer if the pH is within +/- 1 of its pKa. So for acetic acid, a buffer will have a pH between 3.76 and 5.76.

Does this mean that a buffer is created from the titration?

Yes, a buffer is created. However is doesn't stay as a buffer for long. As I mentioned above, when the ration of the concentration of acid and the conjugate base becomes too high or too low, it won't be a buffer. That is evident as when more $\ce{NaOH}$ is added to the buffer, the concentration of the conjugate base becomes much greater than the concentration of the acid, resulting in the pH to increase dramatically.

verbs - 〜たいと思う -- What does this mean?

I'm experiencing a little confusion with the verb form meaning "to want", and am a little confused as to how to say "would like to" instead. In Japanese, are the two meanings combined into the ending 〜たい? I've had language partners before say, for example, 「東京に行きたいと思う」and this was translated to, "I would like to go to Tokyo" by our messenger's in-app translator. Is this also acceptable to say?

meaning - Nuances of: ふっと、ふと、ひょっこり、 どっと、 さっさ、不意 に、唐突、突然、急に and いきなり。

I'm reading a beginner book and noticed that the author uses a lot of different words that translate to suddenly or abruptly which is interesting, so I have been trying to figure out the differences in between them.

I have included some words I looked up and their supposed nuances but I'm not 100% sure they are correct so confirmation would be appreciated.

ふっと,　?
ひょっこり,　?
どっと,　?
ふと,　Focuses on the aspect that something was unintentional
不意に、ふいに、?
さっさ,　?
唐突,　とうとつ,　Only of human behavior
突然,　とつぜん,　Spontaneously / Instantly
急に,　きゅうに,　Fast paced change of events. (no surprise element, not instant)
いきなり,　Immediately / Without Warning*

*: In the sense of immediately being/doing something with no intermediate, such as:
I got stuck on the first question. (No in-between step)
He jumped in the pool and immediately began drowning. (No in-between step)

If anyone can elaborate or confirm it would be much appreciated. ^_^

Edit: Added ふっと, 不意に,　ひょっこり,　どっと,　さっさ.

Answer

I think that this is a very interesting question, and I will try to line out the results of what I found out in this answer.

I think that it is important that we first differentiate between what is onomatopoeia and what is still written or was originally derived from kanji. The former have more of a feeling-like explanation and the latter have some interpretation room. Lastly, I will cover the words on your list that do not immediately carry the meaning of abruptness or unexpectedness (i.e. words I feel should not be in this list). Note, not all words have clear distinctions there are overlaps between their use cases.

Disclaimer: I will mostly aggregate information and mostly trust my sources if I think they make sense (i.e. I do not require any academic degree behind claims). Additionally I will add personal opinion and disclaim this appropriately, so read with this in mind since I am no native. Furhermore, note that your (and my) list is not extensive with respect to words that you listed, but you probably listed most of the important ones already. Finally, do not forget that there are worlds between spoken and written Japanese, I will outline the things as researched and exemplified by written Japanese. For spoken Japanese the explanations of Kimi Tanaka are certainly enough.

Onomatopoeia

Let us first tackle the words that (probably) originate from a feeling with respect to the pronunciation. Some of the nuances in this section might be harder to understand, since this is mostly dependent on your feeling for the language.

• 
  

  ひょっこり - the ひょ transmits a certain aloofness or lightness that is implicit in the pronunctiation. So a certain event came up in a ひょっと light way, without you expecting it. Let us consider some example sentences (all from here, emphasis theirs):

  
  

  
  

  [...]ひょっこり訪ねて来た小学時代の同級生[...] (太宰治「嘘」青空文庫)

  
  

  すると、八ヵ月目かにです、娘がひょっこり戻ってきました。(小林多喜二「疵」青空文庫)

  
  

  そこへ兄きがひょっこり帰って来た。(森鴎外「里芋の芽と不動の目」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  we see that the word is mostly associated to people or objects appearing unexpectedly on visiting terms, i.e. they just lightly come over without any pretext or anything (the lightness is important for nuance).

  
  
  


• 
  

  ふっと - This word carries the notion of breeziness that Kimi Tanaka outlined in his answer and is also well explained here. It is used for things that suddenly disappear and appear without reason. Like the movement of air. Not many good example sentences exist, but consider those from here (emphasis mine)

  
  

  
  

  夜中にふっと目が覚める

  
  

  ふっと名案が浮かんだ

  
  

  ふっと見えなくなる (from here)

  
  

  
  

  I think it is apparent why ふっと fits well here.

  
  

Meanings stemming from 漢字

Let us now get to the words that can be rewritten in 漢字 and try to derive their nuance from the signs used and confirm our findings in example sentences. Note, that not all words have their meaning that are still in direct relation with the signs, in these cases I just leave out the explanation as it is purely historical and unrelated to the question.

• 
  

  不図{ふと} -　the second character is usually used to hint at a meaning like planning or thinking over something. Thus by extension it just is used in relation to something one doesn't particularly feel the need to think over and thus comes to mind without one expecting it. This is exactly the notion Kimi Tanaka explained

  
  

  
  

  ところが今朝は如何なる吉日か、私は不図四十年前に、金博士から聞いた疑問の民族の名を思い出したのであった。(海野十三, from here, emphasis mine)

  
  

  ふと灯りが消える (from here, emphasis mine)

  
  

  
  
  

  They are not events that come and go like a breeze, but also not events that you expected to happen anytime soon or ever.

  
  


• 
  

  不意{ふい}に - you probably already know 意 from 意味, 意識 or others. It always has this meaning of in mind or in general something connected to you being mentally prepared for something as expressed by Kimi Tanaka. Consider the following examples from here (emphasis theirs)

  
  

  
  

  それが今不意に目の前へ、日の光りを透かした雲のような、あるいは猫柳の花のような銀鼠の姿を現したのである。(芥川竜之介「お時儀」青空文庫)

  
  

  私が茶の間で夕刊を読んでいたら、不意にあなたのお名前が放送せられ、つづいてあなたのお声が。(太宰治「きりぎりす」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  Personally, I would say that there is a slight difference between 不意 and 不図 in that the former feels like the event that happened is more lightweight and the latter is a more important event. Like while I was reading the evening newspaper I suddenly heard your name read out on the radio (that is the example sentence for 不意). While the sudden turning off of the lights (as in the example sentence for 不図) is of more direct personal consequence. This might just be me, most people would probably use them interchangeably.

  
  



• 
  

  唐突{とうとつ} - the description from Kimi Tanaka is again mostly correct it seems, as is supported here and here. It is used when there was a certain flow to a speech or movement of an object which is suddenly interrupted and changed. I think this needs to be more or less active, so a light cannot 唐突に go dark as it can ふと go dark, even though it is a continuous action. Let's look at some examples from here (emphasis theirs):

  
  

  
  

  Ｍは唐突とこんなことを尋ねた。(芥川竜之介「海のほとり」青空文庫)

  
  

  爺は、彫刻のように堅くなったが、「あッはッはッ。」　唐突に笑出した。(泉鏡花「燈明之巻」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  This should be straightforward to get a feeling for.

  
  


• 
  

  突然{とつぜん} - this describes the unexpected starting of motion or flow of speech (i.e. in general some action). The difference to 唐突 is that this does not require that some flow is broken, but that a new one starts. The example given here illustrates this well: You would say a parked car 突然 dashes off, but wouldn't say 唐突, as it just starts movement. Let's again look at some examples of usage from here (emphasis theirs)

  
  
  

  
  

  誰か外へ来たと見えて、戸を叩く音が、突然荒々しく聞え始めました。 (芥川竜之介「アグニの神」青空文庫)

  
  

  それは女の姿がその明るい電灯の光を突然遮ったためだった。(梶井基次郎「ある崖上の感情」青空文庫)

  
  

  
  

  It shall be noted that I think that 突然 is the most widely used suddenly-word and that it probably is misused a lot if you want to go hard-core on the definitions and origins of the words.

  
  


• 
  

  急{きゅう}に - I fear I will disagree with Kimi Tanaka here (at least on the literary side). This answer explains really well how I feel about the difference between 急に and 突然. It basically says that 急に is used for more normal surprising things, like ''急に I have become hungry'' or ''急に I have gotten another appointment and need to leave''. On the other hand, 突然 is used for really surprising things like ''突然に it started raining men''. You cannot interchange those two words in these 3 examples. Some easy examples are given on the nlpt preparation site

  
  

  
  

  授業中に、急に眠くなりました。

  
  
  

  
  


• 
  

  行{い}き成{な}り - This is very close in meaning to 急に and 突然 and for all intents and purposes it is used interchangeably and Japanese people will not be able to tell you what the differences between them is. Apart from the one outlined above there is a research paper from Nagoya University researching exactly the difference of these three words. It's very detailed and giving examples for very detailed nuances. As this answer is already long enough, I am not going to paraphrase it into this answer here, but be my guest and read it through, it is interesting to see all the example sentences.

  
  


• 
  

  突如{とつじょ} - is very similar to the previous 3 but mostly literary (i.e. you will probably never hear this word in spoken Japanese). You cannot use it interchangeably though, as something like 突如の出来事 just sounds weird while 突然の出来事 is fine. In books you will mostly see it as 突如として, as documented here and here. Furthermore, one can argue that 突如 is more for encounters the narrator didn't expect but somebody prepared while 突然 can also be used for more random things like rain.

  
  

Examples that shouldn't be in the list (in my opinion)

• どっと - I think you meant とっとと which derives from 「疾疾と」（とくとくと） and means (as the characters indicate) something like quick.


• さっさと - This derives from 「颯々」（さつさつ and basically signifies the blowing of the wind (which makes さーさー sounds in the trees). So you use it to say somebody should hurry (like the wind). Both this and the previous word are similar, their difference being elucidated in the link and not subject of this question.

Okay, sorry for this long answer. I got carried away, if this is too much written text just tell me, I'll mend it as good as I can. I just want you to know that for most situations these nuances are not important in spoken Japanese. And the examples I gave you are from over 50 years ago mostly (mostly the big Japanese writers). Japanese people today think that Japanese is very old-fashioned. So don't go learning these nuances and words expecting everybody to understand them. Even in written Japanese these Nuances come fairly naturally, so don't worry too much.

verbs - と言います vs．と言われています

I'm playing The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past（ゼルダの伝説：神々のトライフォース）and this sentence came up (spoken by one of the 7 maidens):

ハイリアの民は、ふしぎな力を
あやつることが、できたと言います。

I think this means "It is said that the Hylian people could harness/manipulate a mysterious power.". Why did they use と言います instead of と言われています? I thought that's how you'd indicate a myth or some widely-believed story.

Answer

The difference is very subtle, but there is a difference. With と言います, it sounds as if the myth is actually true or people somehow believe it. With と言われています, it sounds as if it is an actual myth. There is no rule that says you must use と言われています when indicating a myth.

I've never played the game, but you can probably infer that the maiden actually believes the myth and she is informing the player about it. That's at least the impression I get with と言います, but again, the difference is very subtle. It makes sense with either way.

halacha - May one write with a pencil or marker in the margins of a sefer Torah?

As a Ba'al Kri'ah (Torah reader), I sometimes find it difficult to locate the start of an aliyah (reading) on Shabbat, esp. in parshiot Vayetze and Miketz where both of these are one contiguous parsha (paragraph) with no breaks.

Would one be allowed (before Shabbat, of course) to mark in the side margin where the aliyot are located?

I've see sofrim sometimes mark in pencil something in the margin that indicates the place for a correction or some serial number that they need for their records (I guess when scanning). So, I'm uncertain if there is an exception for sofrim in certain occasions and, whether only an erasable marking may be used (like an erasable marker or pencil) or may one use a permanent marker as well?

Answer

The sefer Piskei Teshuvos (OC 32:12-13) writes that l'chatchila one should not write anything on the margins (or anywhere else) of the sefer torah. If one did write something, even a sofer marking a mistake, he should erase it.

However, as he writes there, b'dieved it would not be a problem.