INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
How is に used in にできる here?
Slight disclaimer. I did read the following post, Meaning of in , but did not see it's reasoning directly translating to my sentence.
Here is sentence in question:
>
So the speaker is saying that since these girls are quintuplets, if one of them can do something, then the rest of them should be able to do it too. I've seen that can mean "to decide on something" or "to make" and is the potential form of , but I can't see how that would work here. What is it that the girls can do/make? How does as a the location particle work here?
Any help would be much appreciated. I feel that there is something that has gone unsaid here and I can't put my finger on it.
**EDIT.** Or is all what comes in front of just a descriptive clause and what she can do/make is the abstract ?
|
Because they are quintuplets, anything Miku can do, the other four can also do. The should be used in a similar sense to , and is exactly as you say.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
会社での出来事を引きずったままだった私 passivity
speaker doesn't want to trouble her only family member, A, with her tough day at work. A however, does notice something wrong.
> A
I find this statement is confusing since it isn't used in the passive voice.
in other words: I who was tired out("influenced") by the things that happened at work
vs
what is actually written: I who "prolonged" the incidents at work
This doesn't really make sense since a lot of bs that was out of the speaker's control was thrusted upon her at work.
Thanks for any clarifications.
|
'Schlep' or 'drag' are probably more appropriate here than 'prolong' or 'influence'.
A noticed that B(?) had a lot on her mind regarding things at work, she had 'dragged her problems home', rather than 'leaving them at the office'.
Another sentence in the same vein:
> When Japanese write in English and drag along Japanese sentence structure, verbose and complicated sentences are created.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "parsing"
}
|
Trouble understanding のも in this sentence
I am having trouble understanding the significance of in this sentence:
|
means “It’s natural for you/him/her/them to think so.”
makes a verb a noun. In this sentence, is the noun.
almost has the same meaning, but there’s little difference. sounds like the listener doesn’t know or think that it’s natural for you/him/her/them to think so.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle も, nominalization"
}
|
What does なんだって mean in this case? 「そういう子なんだってだけで...」
I saw this sentence in manga and I had trouble with it:
>
I would like to know how we can translate in this case.
|
> **** {}{}
in this sentence is the informal form of .
Thus, in the first half of the sentence, someone is being described as / (" _ **S/he is just that type of kid/person**_.")
Having said that, this sentence can still mean _**two**_ different things without further context. Those are:
> 1. "S/he is just that type of kid **and** there is no point in me getting angry (about it)."
>
> 2. "There is no point in me getting angry **only because** s/he is that kind of kid."
>
One of the two should fit the context. There could not be another meaning.
_**Other common usages of :**_
Synonymous with (" _ **anything**_ "). Informal form of
{}{}{} ****
Synonymous with (" _ **why**_ "). Informal form of .
**** {}{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Is there a kanji term for a leaf blower?
What is the Japanese word for a leaf blower? I am searching for a kanji term.
|
, and are used though all of them are not common for people who doesn’t have it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -6,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
How's ちゃわなきゃ working in this sentence?
I have a question about the usage of with in the following sentence,
I believe that the is for things that must not be done, but I have no clue what is doing here.
I think the speaker is trying to tell the person she is talking to that he must not fall asleep in the middle of the activity like he did last week. I'm not quite sure what the may mean here either. I think it is separate from but I'm not sure what purpose it serves if someone MUST do something. Literally, it means good but... .
Anyways, if anyone could help me out, I'd appreciate it. I feel that there may be a level of slang here that I cannot grasp.
|
is a very contracted form.
Starting from the fully expanded version, this developed roughly as:
*
*
*
*
~~I presume you understand the + construction, so I won't explain that here.~~
In response to your comment. :)
is what you get from + conditional , and it means "if isn't the case / if doesn't happen". So + means "it's good if isn't the case / if doesn't happen". When you're talking to a person, this can sometimes be translated as "you shouldn't do ".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, etymology, contractions"
}
|
trouble translating/parsing sentence with katakana that is confusing
I'm reading a manga and am stumped on what this sentence(s) is saying:
The previous sentence talks about someone at work who is like a Grim Reaper.
I don't even know if this is one long sentence or two. Is the first half talking about lockers? or maybe rockers? Is the second half saying something like the grim reaper/other employee (not sure who the subject is as I can't parse the sentence) isn't homicidal, but a normal regular employee. I can't infer much as this is literally the second sentence in the manga.
The sentence following this one states that there is a man called the Grim Reaper (pretty much the same information as the first sentence).
Please note, I spelled the katakana as but in the manga, it looks more like I couldn't come up with a word for the second one so I think it's actually spelled the first way.
|
It means he neither lives in a locker nor is a murderer but a normal employee.
It may be clearer in this way.
>
This is a long sentence. means “locker” in this sentence because means a place where someone lives.
Perhaps looked like due to the font.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, katakana, manga"
}
|
Break down the phrase "[失礼]{しつれい}しなければならないんです"
I've just heard the phrase []{} (shitsurei shinakereba naranaindesu) used as _Excuse me, I have to leave_. The explanation said it literally translates to _If I don't leave, it won't do_ , but I need help on breaking it down precisely.
What does each word mean and how does the grammar work here?
|
> {}
(shitsurei) is "rudeness".
(shitsurei suru) is "to be rude"
(shitsurei shinai) is the negation "to not be rude".
(shitsurei shinakereba) is a conditional form of the above "If I am not rude"
(shitsurei shinakereba naranai) I'm now sure how to break down meaningfully but in this context it kind of means "It's no good".
So literally the whole thing means "If I'm not rude then it's no good". Really you should think of (nakerebanaranai) as a unit in its own right. This attaches to the negative form of the predicate and means "must do"/"have to do" etc, which is the logical implication of the expansion "If I don't do, then it's no good".
Overall then, the sentence means "I have to be rude", which is what you might say if you were leaving.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations, phrases"
}
|
What is the correct term for "contractor" in Japanese?
The company A (client company) needs to add more people than they have to their workforce in order to get a project done, so they make an agreement with a company B (consultancy, temporary employment agency, etc) that provides the extra people they don't have.
Those contractors from the company B work alongside other people at the company A, doing the same tasks and under the same premises, but they have a contract with the company B so they are not employees of A.
How do you call such people? I think the word in English is contractor. I have looked up its Japanese translation in dictionaries and they translate it as . However it seems to be related to jobs like traders or real estate agents, so I'm not sure it is the word I'm looking for. Is the right term to label the people described in the scenario above (regardless of the industry) or there is a more appropriate term?
|
If you work at the Company A but have an agreement with the Company B, the following are the good terms.
> * `[]{}`
> * `[]{}`
>
`` means `workforce` here.
Though if you work at the Company A as a contractor, you are called:
> * `[]{}`
> * `[]{}`
>
In the first example, you could be either an employee (`[]{}`) or a contractor(``) in the company B.
By the way, `` means the people who run the business. You can say traders or real estate agents are ``.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
What is the difference in usage between 闘う and 戦う?
I would like to know the difference in usage between these two godan and intransitive verbs :
> {}
>
> {}
When is one chosen over the other? Is more related to the _war_ and to the _fight_?
|
According to **The Kodansha Kanji Usage Guide** dictionary:
has these meanings:
1. wage war, fight
2. contest, contend, play a match [game]
And is:
(struggle with) fight (against), contend with, strive against
The following examples are given:
fight one's enemy
have a discussion
Let's play the game fairly
struggle, conflict
contend with difficulties
Sanseido’s Daijirin has this notice:
> “” “”
So it seems that is more suitable in military, sports or political contexts (win or lose against an opponent) and in the context of struggling with or overcoming difficulties.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, words, kanji choice"
}
|
一つしか違いません in this context,
A is the sempai of B, both are girls
> A‥‥
>
> B
>
> B **A** ‥‥
>
> A
>
> B‥‥
me and A only have 1 thing (age/grade?) different?
* i don't think this is true, since there are big differences in terms of between A and B as well.
otherwise, how should i interpret A?
thank you
|
This refers to an age (difference). Also note that can mean "how old" in Japanese.
> How old are you now?
> Three!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
弾く/弾ける in 何か楽器をひけますか
>
appeared in ISBN-13: 978-4828867588 on page 102.
Question 1: Is the kanji form of the verb _to play (a stringed or keyboard instrument)_?
Question 2: If the answer to Q1 is yes, why is it conjugated ?
> a) Because it is "Non-past, polite: "? (Jim Breen)
> b) Because it is "Potential, polite: "? (Jim Breen)
Question 3: Does one read the first kanji as or as ?
|
1. **`Is the kanji form of the verb to play (a stringed or keyboard instrument)?`**
Yes. {} is the correct kanji for playing keyboards, and stringed instruments.
And you should say
> {}{}{}{}?
for any musical instrument.
However probably not correct usage though, I often use
{}{}? "Do you play some instruments?"
for any musical instruments like even drums, flutes, etc.
2. **`If the answer to Q1 is yes, why is it conjugated ?`**
> a) {}{}?
It implies "Do you usually play any musical instruments?" or "Do you want to play/try any musical instruments? (Probably at music shop)"
> b) {}{}?
It implies "Can you usually play any musical instruments?" As you quote, it is talking about the ability to play instruments.
3. **`Does one read the first kanji as {} or as {}?`**
{}is a colloquial form of {}. So you can shorten the sentence to **{}{}?** to form the heavy metal band.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
Use of 抱く in "聞かせていただいてありがとうございました"
In my textbook the sentence:
>
is translated as
"Thank you for telling us about all these things"
I know:
* is "various" so probably means "all these things"
* means "Letting me hear"
* But , here , means "embrace"?
I'm not really sure how to understand this. Is it simply an expression? Any help would be appreciated.
|
You're not parsing the sentence correctly, I'm afraid.
>
It's +[]{}, not +.
is the form of , which is the humble form of .
These threads might be of help:
* Difference between and and when you should use it
* How do you (not using keigo) thank someone for giving you permission to do something?
* Confused about
* Is it ok to use instead of ?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs, phrases"
}
|
Validity of て-form of i-adjectives + も
I already know of the construction that takes the -form of a verb + and means "even if". But can this construction also be used with i-adjectives? For example, would saying the following be correct?
>
> I want to go to that restaurant, even if it's expensive.
|
Yes, it also works with na-adjectives and nouns.
> {} I want to buy it, even if it were a snake.
>
> {} I am unable to study, even if it were quiet.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, i adjectives, particle も"
}
|
How to say "too quickly", "too recklessly" etc
When I want to say that something is too quick, just as an example, I can simply say
>
However, I don't quite know how I could express sentences with "too" adverbially, such as in "I became sick because I ate the cake too quickly".
I came up with these two translations for the example above:
> 1.
> 2.
>
Do these convey the intented meaning? What would be more natural alternatives? And lastly, and I'm sorry for straying a little bit away from the original question here: Is a natural way to say "become sick" in this case?
|
Your sentences are grammatical and natural-sounding (except for the use of , which I will come back to later).
We say:
> Action A + + + {} + Action B ← The is a nominalizer.
> Action A + {} + + {} + Action B ← Use the continuative form for the verb in Action A -- , etc.
> Action A + / + + / + + Action B
Your two sentences are good because you used the first two of the three patterns above.
The mistake I occasionally see in Japanese-learners trying to express this is where they directly translate from English and end up saying it like:
Those sound highly unnatural and ungrammatical. **In Japanese, you cannot use to directly modify a verb the same way you can use "too quickly" to modify a verb in English**.
Finally, regarding . This phrase sounds far more serious than the English "to become or feel sick" for eating something too quickly. means none other than "to incur a disease".
The verb phrase that would fit in your sentences much better would be {} / {}{}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does this Kanji mean in this historical book?
I was at a bookstore looking at some old books and saw the following weird Kanji between and . What is its reading and what does it mean?  way of writing . In the title of this book, it would be an abbreviation for {}. I found the following image showing the evolution of the Kanji from this website and it feels fairly convincing.
![Kanji evolution](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
What is the meaning of ケタ外れ in this situation..?
I have a sentence which says,
> 2030
The dictionary says the word means; incredible, extraordinary, exceptional or phenomenal, but it doesn't really make sense when translated into English. What does mean here? What does it imply?
|
is which in this context can be understood as "standard/norm" or "reference frame" and means something like it "falls out of the reference frame" — like when people use 120%.
You can see how in some contexts this could be translated the way you listed (incredible, extraordinary, exceptional or phenomenal), but here it should probably be translated in a more neutral tone.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, expressions, adjectives"
}
|
what is その効力 in this context?
super popular dude XXX disapears, start of an epilogue
>
>
> XXX
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ‥‥
A testament to Xxx's lasting impact would be the worshiping of XXX from all the attention this has gotten; and that if he disappeared before our eyes, it would be premature to say that it would be surprisingly become ineffective.
totally lost when it comes to the 3rd sentence here, i don't think it is refering to any specific thing prior to the epilogue, but i may be mistaken.
Thank for clarifying
|
It would be helpful to know which part of the sentence you are having trouble with specifically and why you add things like 'a testament', 'Xxx', 'premature', 'attention this has gotten', and 'ineffective', which don't appear in the Japanese.
I would translate it slightly paraphrased as:
> 'An 'idol' is worshipped/adored **_because_** it is plainly visible to all, and if it disappears from sight that effect dissipates especially quickly.'
Highly paraphrased:
> 'Even the most popular boy, taken out of the mix for long enough, will be quickly forgotten.'
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
What does 見受ける mean?
I have found several related words that I think I have a better grasp of such as:
> is just simply visually seeing something
>
> is close to , right? Seeing something that gives you some kind of knowledge or understanding, or that allows you to reach a conclusion.
>
> has a huge number of usages, but limiting the discussion to the subset of its definitions that apply here, it means seeing something and acknowledging that that is the case.
But I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how fits in.
In the example sentence
>
it _could_ just be translated as "seen" but I feel like something is missing.
The definition given in the is `` which doesn't help. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand ``
I am not looking for a simple translation but an explanation of the word and how it is used.
|
The verb is used usually in the rareru-form, , where this is (). It has two different meanings:
1. ,
"It appears (to me) that ", "It looks like ", "Judging from the appearance, "
>
> It appears to me that he is angry.
This pattern is mainly used in business settings to avoid saying something too directly, by describing it in a more subjective manner. In this sense, a humble version, /, is also used.
>
> It appears to me that there is nothing wrong.
2.
" is found", "I see ", "I'm seeing ".
>
> Unfortunately, I see some spelling errors.
This pattern is about identifying something within a larger group/object. It has nothing to do with "". In this sense, is interchangeable with , but / is a highly stiff expression mainly used in academic or legal contexts. has the nuance of seeing or noticing something by chance (e.g., on the street).
> *
> *
> *
Your example about corresponds to the latter, "such-and-such a scene is found."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "definitions"
}
|
What is the word(s) for fast food?
What is the word for fast food? Food prepared quickly. I saw the term used, but wondered if there is a kanji term to reflect the definition. I used the katakana term in a chat and it was not understood by the reader.
|
We use so often. Most Japanese people know what it means.
Both and can be pronounced as “” although I’ve heard some pronounce as “”.
In Japanese, there’s no kanji term that has the same meaning. But is close, which means light food.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
占める and particles
My book says that
> AB[]
is a structure used to say
> A accounts for [fraction] of B
So far, so good. But it also provides the following two alternative structures, which bother me:
> AB~
>
> BA~
What I don't really understand is why in the first structure `B`, that's supposed to be the whole which `A` is a part of, is marked with the particle ``, while `` is used in the other two structures.
Moreover, I could not find any example that uses the second structures.
Are these alternative structures commonly used? And how can I wrap my head around which of the whole and the part is marked by what particle?
|
> A **** B **** [{}] **** {}
>
> A **** B **** ~
>
> B **** A **** ~
Before saying anything, I will say that B represents the whole and A represents a part of it. means "percentage".
The next thing I am going to say is that all three phrases above are common, grammatical and natural-sounding.
Now, moving onto the nitty-gritty..
> ****
We use when preceded directly by the percentage/fraction.
* ****
* ****
> ****
We use when preceded directly by the object being discussed.
* ****
* {}{}{} ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, particle に, particle を"
}
|
What does 「花に育てる編集」 mean?
I encountered this line while reading a passage. Context:
>
>
> ****
I understand first sentence of second paragraph as
> If you go there, finding flowers that have not bloomed yet, tending them with warm spring air (so that they can grow into flowers) is also an art in itself.
I understand as an attribute clause which describes but I don't understand why is used here instead of . Does using here add any nuance ?
|
> **** ****
The direct object of is left out. It's , i.e. , "firm buds".
It's (=) **** **** , "bring up (firm buds) into flowers".
* * *
>
Means something along the lines of...
In contrast, the work of editing [where you find firm buds, tend them with warm spring air, and raise them into flowers] is an art in itself.
The part in brackets is a relative clause that modifies .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, phrases"
}
|
Why is に used with this verb?
I just read a manga where by context a girl broke up with her boyfriend. She says this.
>
>
>
Why is used alongside the verb?
|
>
As you've noticed, this is an inverted word order of:
>
here is Suffering Passive (), which is a kind of Indirect Passive ().
As you know, in passive sentences the agent () of the action is marked with . eg → **** . Here the agent of is , hence:
(active) _My boyfriend ran away._
→ **** (indirect passive) _My boyfriend ran away from me (which affected me in some way). / My boyfriend up and left (on me)._
For more on Suffering Passive / Indirect Passive:
* How to interpret indirect passives?
* versus
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, particle に, passive voice"
}
|
Is there a term used for a new kanji that replaces an outdated one?
Is there a term used for a new kanji that replaces an outdated one? and are good examples.
|
Old-form
New-form
Source: Just look up or somesuch on Wiktionary.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -4,
"tags": "kanji, dictionary, writing identification"
}
|
「ないことはない」 Example sentence
I believe the general grammar for means "can; it is not impossible". However, I am having hard time trying to translate this example sentence:
>
Mostly I cannot figure out who the subject is. My tentative translation is "You can speak if you are asked to do so." Pretty sure this is not correct and would be grateful for a more accurate translation!
|
>
Your TL attempt of that is:
> " **You** can speak if **you** are asked to do so."
The truth is, however, that the subject throughout the sentence is the unmentioned " ** _I_** ", the first person.
is in the passive-voice form -- "If I were told", "If I were asked", etc.
The subject of is also the speaker himself.
Thus, an example TL would look like:
> "If I were desperately asked to tell, it would not be impossible for me to tell."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the difference between 「名前【なまえ】」 and 「名称【めいしょう】」？
I am learning the word . According to the dictionary, it means "name", but so does . What are the differences in terms of meaning and usage between both words?
I noticed that the entry for states that it can mean "title", yet I can't figure out how to use the word properly.
|
The differences come from the fact that:
{} is an originally Japanese word while
{} is a Sino-loanword.
**_Formality:_**
For the reason above, is more formal, academic and technical than . Think about "chat" vs "conversation", "deep" vs. "profound", etc. in English. In both Japanese and English, the big words have mostly come from "somewhere else".
**_Meanings:_**
means the name of a thing or organization -- almost anything, really. **The only thing it does not mean is a personal name**.
can mean any kind of name **including** personal names.
For the particular meaning of "personal name", we use {} to sound more formal. We never use for that purpose.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "word choice, synonyms, wago and kango"
}
|
Meaning of "くらいいる"?
Read this sentence in an article. <
>
Why is used here? I've only seen used when speaking about quantity. How does it function here?
|
> {}
, in this context, is nuanced. It does not mean "approximately", which the word most often means.
Here. means " _ **at least**_ " or " _ **at the very least**_ ".
means " _ **to have**_ ", " _ **to possess**_ " here.
For the part, you may want to read:
The meanings of
It is the second usage (general tendency) in this sentence.
> "If you are around 30 (years old), you would probably have at least a boyfriend." or
>
> "If you are around 30, one would generally expect that you would have at least a boyfriend."
"a BF if not a husband" would be the implicit nuance.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, particle くらい"
}
|
Which is the more common reading of 仏陀 - ぶつだ or ブッダ?
I realize that is probably more common in writing where the reading is ambiguous anyway, but I am curious to know: do people tend to read it as or ? For what it's worth, my IME recognizes both, and the one time I did hear it in speech it was .
|
Aeon.
Before you learn which is better, you have to know that _furigara_ is not the same as pronunciation. Certainly _furigana_ shows us how to read its _kanji_ , but we sometimes don't write small _hiragana_ or _katakana_ because we didn't have such sounds before Kamakura Period. _Hiragana_ and _katakana_ are not so precise phonograms.
The answer is Buddha, . I've never seen the form, , but it may be a sort of old way to write or miswritten.
Furthermore, most of people do not call him Buddha, but _Hotoke(sama)_ or _Oshaka(sama)_ instead. _Sama_ is a suffix like title which used to call someone else out of respect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pronunciation, readings"
}
|
Understanding ~きて in おいてきて
A
B:
I don't really understand the function or meaning of ~ here. Could someone help me parse this part grammatically? Why instead of ?
|
This ~ means ~ (to come)
) literally means (I put and came here)
Putting it together:
> I left my phone at the store (lit. I put my phone at the store and came here unintentionally)
Japanese often indicates the motion following the verb:
- to buy and bring a pen here
- to go to the toilet and come back
This might help you understand.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
What does "何か他" mean?
I've seen in dictionaries but I just found this sentence.
>
Does this mean "It'd be fine if you eat something else"?
Can the sentence retain the same meaning if you just used without
|
Adding to an interrogative pronoun, turns it into the Japanese equivalent of a "some~" pronoun:
> who → someone
>
> where → somewhere
>
> what → something
So, if you remove the from your sentence, it does **not** retain the same meaning because it would miss the "something" part.
Let's compare:
> Where do [you] go?
>
> Do [you] go somewhere?
>
> Do [you] have questions [at all]?
>
> Do [you] have any (literally "some") question?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does "観終わる" mean here?
I read a comic where a character is being scolded by her mother for binging tv shows but she says this line which confuses me.
>
(My translation is something like "To begin with, I'm here to appreciate all the 8 seasons of this drama.)
>
The second line I'm definitely confused with. Is "" separate from ""? I'm also asking about the meaning of "". Since it looks like there' different usages of .
|
is a compound that means "to watch until the end".
As for the 2nd line, I'll take a stab at it and guess that you confused the kanji of (seat) for (degree).
>
I wonder why you have to keep standing until you finish watching. (mother's line i suppose?)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Meaning of song title まるつけ from the anime Given
As the title suggests, I'd like to know the meaning of the ending song from the anime _Given_ titled .
Does the first part mean round/circular or more appropriately, calm, since this more of an emotion than "circular" is? I don't know what the second part means.
Below are the lyrics I grabbed from a site (with source info at the end) if it helps in interpreting the meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Source: <
|
{}
= "to mark"
= "to mark with a circle"
is the noun form of above -- " ** _circling the correct answer_** ".
In Japanese culture, means "correct" and []{} means "incorrect" on tests and quizes.
Thus, in the song lyrics you provided, would mean something along the lines of " **calling our life, love, way of living, etc. as 'alright'** "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, song lyrics, anime"
}
|
What does "先が気になる" mean?
Found in this tweet:
>
I always have to do a double check with because the possible meanings can be very opposite one another.
I've also found other tweets with the same hashtag, like this.
>
|
{} here means " **the future** ", " **the future events/developments** ", etc.
therefore means " **(I am) curious about the future developments** ".
**Pitch accent is king:**
{HL} (high-low) refers to a **past** event. {} ("the last national assembly")
{LH} (low-high) refers to a **future** event all by itself.
Native speakers would never say to refer to a past event.
We _**do say**_ , however, **** with the small to refer to a past event. " **I am worried/curious about what happened a while ago**." Again, that is "high-low".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 19,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
When is 前 read さき?
I’ve noticed that Daijisen lists as kanji for together with the expected . However all compounds at the end of the article include only , and I don’t think I’ve ever seen with furigana . EDICT only lists it as nanori. Is it actually used?
|
pronounced as was not very rare in the past, but in today's standardized Japanese, it's almost never used. You can usually expect comes with furigana if it's intended to be read . You can still see it in some proper nouns (e.g., )).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
How would a Japanese woman hyphenate her last name?
Women frequently hyphenate their last names like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. How would a Japanese woman with a Japanese maiden and married name added, hyphenate her last name?
|
Legally she **cannot** do this. Under Japanese law you can only have one surname registered on your residence and family register documents. If her husband is Japanese, then she will have to change her family name to his (as he is head of the household). If her husband is a foreigner, she is permitted to keep her family name (and is legally head of the household).
What she is known by informally is up to her but it's not her legal name in Japan. Japanese culture _does not_ have a tradition of hypenating family names (or middle names). These are only permitted for writing foreign names in Japanese.
There is a convention for writing hypenated foreign names in Katakana but there is not one for hypenating native Japanese names in Kanji (as this never done).
Note that Japanese people have their _family names_ first before their _given names_ (so calling it a last name is discouraged to avoid confusion).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "grammar, names"
}
|
What is the difference between お風呂 and 銭湯?
I saw that the term can refer to both and is apparently used for a public one. I see the term bath listed in Jisho. Would I take an at a ?
|
The word `` itself is generic: it can refer to a bathtub, a place for bathing, or the act/practice of bathing. In practice, it almost always refers to a bath at home, except for some set terms like (bathhouse) or (open-air bath; can be private or shared). You can still say (take a bath) even when not doing it at home (it can also mean "take a shower").
is specifically a communal bath open to visitors for a fee (see Wikipedia). Strictly speaking it is also a type of (since it's used to bathe).
Then there is (onsen) which is a bath that uses hot spring water, and is usually public/shared among multiple visitors, although private ones are possible too.
See also Public Baths by japan-guide.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
What is the meaning of 置いてっちゃいますよ?
I have the sentence . I think this sentence means "Don't act quickly and you'll be left behind but I'm not sure why , which I believe to be , is used with the form. I thought that when you change ~ to ~, the is taken off. I believe that to be what is happening here. Something along the lines of the "unintended action" and how it would be regrettable if the person were left behind. If in this sentence something else is happening, then it would be new to me and I'd be happy if someone could explain what's occurring here.
|
> {}{}
First of all, let us make sure **_who does what_** in this sentence because as usual, none of that is mentioned in it.
Listener's action:
is conditional
Speaker's action:
So, **the grammatical subject changes mid-way**. The main clause is the second half, so the subject of the sentence as a whole is the unmentioned "I/We".
" ** _If you ~~, I/we will ~~._** "
is how we colloquially pronounce . It literally means "I/We will leave you here and go."
Thus, the sentence means:
> "If you don't hurry up, I/We will go by leaving you here."
More naturally:
> "Hurry up or I/We'll leave you behind!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does おけない mean in the following sentence?
I'm having some trouble finding out what means in this sentence, .
In the second clause of this sentence, the speaker is saying something about his peace of mind and entrusting his daughters and their studies to their tutor (the person with whom he is speaking to). I'm a bit confused what means here though. Entrusting his daughters is the topic of this clause but I don't know what this verb is saying about the topic. My jisho and google searches have come up empty. If anyone could help me out here, I would really appreciate it.
|
is an emphatic form of , where is a negative of (potential of ).
There are other questions on the site dealing with ~ so I'll skip the explanation but the general meaning of the sentence seems to be "I can't very well leave [my] daughters in [your] care with such conditions".
Step by step breakdown:
- leave in care/trust
- able to leave in care/trust
- unable/cannot leave in care/trust
- definitely cannot leave in care/trust
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "subsidiary verbs"
}
|
〜を限りに/で (Full range of meanings)
I wanted to double-check the translation of the below sentence:
""
I believe it means Ms. Yamamoto will retire starting this month. However, I have seen others translate a sentence like this as "Ms. Yamamoto will retire just for this month". Just to verify, is my translation accurate?
|
> Time Word + {} +
means:
> "at the end of [Time Word]"
I could not think of another meaning since this is pretty much a fixed expression.
A little more formal and fairly stiff expression with the same meaning would be:
> Time Word + + {} +
Therefore, the sentence:
> {}{}{}
can only mean:
> "Yamamoto-san will leave (our organization) at the end of this month."
This would mean that your translaion is much more accurate than the other. Of course, whether Yamamoto is "retiring for good" or going to work for a new organization cannot be known from this sentence alone.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What’s なく after a verb for?
Given the following text:
> 20171023[]{LL}[]{«»}[]{}
What’s the grammar for after? (e.g passive form or negate form, for further googling)
Also, would that be different if I use ?
Thank you.
|
As you (probably) know, means "to become". For -adjectives and nouns, it is preceded by , such as , , etc. For -adjectives and words that conjugate like them, it is preceded by the "adverbial" form; , , ("become wanting to go"), etc.
This is just a case of the form of the verb (which conjugates like an -adj.)behaving "adverbially" in front of . So it would translate as, "A Tokyo woman became un **able** ( is the potential form) to be reached after 2017/10/23, and her whereabouts were unknown".
> Also, would that be different if I use ?
You could not just use here because of the in the sentence. It's saying that _starting_ on that date, contact with her could not be made, and continued on for some time. If it were instead of , then you could use because then it's just a one-time action.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
}
|
What is a proper response to こちらこそ?
When chatting, after is used, I will say or . Is this appropriate or should I say nothing and just start chatting?
|
That's generally the end of it. Someone replying to your 'Thank you' with 'No, thank **_you!_** ' doesn't require a response.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
ならでは (uniquely applying to, special to)
I am studying Japanese grammar and believe that generally translates to "uniquely applying to" or "special to" the noun that proceeds it. I can translate most example sentences but had difficulty translating the below sentence:
My tentative translation of this sentence is: "This is **not** the same taste that is special/unique to my mother's handmade food."
Does this seem like a reasonable way to interpret this sentence?
|
On my phone so this will be an abbreviated answer, but has two (related) usages:
> …. ……
You are probably trying to apply meaning 1, but it’s meaning 2 here (as can be seen by the accompanying negative). It is indeed odd that the meanings are almost opposite one another, but I think it can be sort of unified if you think of #1 as ()→()→(). I don’t know if that’s the etymology but it seems possible. Perhaps it’s useful to imagine an abbreviated or after the .
This makes your sentence mean something like
>
> “This taste doesn’t exist outside of my mother’s homemade cooking” (loose translation)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is "屁理屈" redundant in this sentence?
Came across this.
>
I found out that and means "to argue for argument's sake" (while one is noun and the latter is verb.)
My question here is can be dropped entirely and still have the same meaning?
Oh and just in case, am I correct in assuming the meaning is something along the lines of "I'm old enough not to argue for argument's sake."
|
{} is almost a set phrase. {}{},{}{},{} are similar set phrase as _"to argue for argument's sake"_ . You can't omit {} to mean it, but you might replace it into "" for the children to imply similar things.
itself is normally used in making Bread, Hamburger patty, etc.
: to mix, to manipulate like kneading, etc. + : do not + : the request, somewhat imperative way.
So,
> _You are old enough. So, try not to argue/advise you stop arguing for argument's sake._
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Pronunciation of [ 男爵 / だんしゃく ]
I was watching JoJo's Bizarre Adventure where Baron Zepelli introduces himself, and it sounds like he says ”Zepelli”. Here's a link to the scene I looked up the word for baron and found / . Am I hearing it wrong, or is the trailing dropped? If it is dropped, then is it just some Japanese dialect or is there a rule for it?
|
The {}, voice actor pronounces {} as in the original scene. But he uses turn of the phrase from the noble. It might sound more different to your ear than as usual.
And the assertion **** sounds stronger than **** to emphasize dignity and his upbringing.
It might confuse you.
The original scene from Jojo below actually put furigana-ruby for in .
** {} {}{}{} {}**
![enter image description here](
©&LUCKY LAND COMMUNICATIONS/
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "pronunciation"
}
|
What is the conjugation in the word 「起たんか」and what does it mean?
The full sentence is This is older Japanese by the way, so and are pronounced and Anyway, I was wondering what the conjugation in means. I'm guessing it's a command or something, but I'm not sure.
|
> []{}
> _Get up! / Stand up!_
It consists of: verb + literary negative + question particle
It's a literary version of []{}.
expresses (strong) command. From :
>
>
> **** ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjugations"
}
|
Explaining "向けてじゃないよ"
I watched a song "", and there are these lyrics:
>
>
(Youtube link with timestamp: <
My question: I have never seen a right after a te-form. I get the meaning of the lyrics, but the grammar gives me difficulty here. Is it not normal to write "" here instead?
|
> {}{} {}{}
>
> {}
The in is _**not**_ negating the verb , at least not directly. A direct negation of would be , , etc. instead.
The here is negating that the girl's facial expression is being made specifically for/toward the speaker .
To use the actual words, the is negating the (somewhat conceited) idea .
In other words, it is saying [].
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "て form, negation"
}
|
How to say "In Japan, I want to ..."?
I want to say
> In Japan, I want to ride a bullet train.
I have
>
Is correct? Should it be ? Or perhaps something else?
|
>
is a nice attempt.
I would, however, like to address two items here.
simply means " ** _will ride_** ". If you want to say " ** _want to ride_** ", you might want to say .
> Verb in Continuative Form + means "to want to [verb]".
is the continuative form of .
The next thing I need to point out is the particle choice. We say **** and not **** . That is because is an intransitive verb and thus, it cannot take .
> is correct? should it be ` "? Or perhaps something else.
It is correct. You cannot use unless the verb is "stative". / is not stative.
Stative verbs are (to live), (to be),(to stay), etc. Those should take .
Therefore, the correct (by any standard) sentence will be:
> **** **** **** ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "translation, particle に, particle で"
}
|
「その＋名詞」ｖｓ「この＋名詞」
I am currently working through the N1 grammar preparation book and one of the later chapters of the book deals with the difference between and.
There are two examples given:
For :
> **** ****
>
> explanation:
and for (both can be used):
> **** **** **** ****
>
> explanation:
Even with reading the explanation and the two sample sentences, I do not fully understand the difference between cases where onlycan be used and cases where both are correct. Can anyone clarify?
|
In the former example, is working like _its_ in English, where is _it_ and is possessive _-s_. In the latter, / is like _the/that/this_ in English. Compare:
> * **** → = "its (roof)"
> * **/** → / = "the/this (house)"
>
When is working like _its_ , it is not interchangeable with . When is working like _the_ , is also grammatical, although there is an obvious difference in mood (similar to the difference between "the house" and "this house" in English).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, demonstratives"
}
|
Can you help me understand this sentence please?
I just came across a sentence about the National Flag of Japan. I don't think I fully understood it. So here it is:
> 12(345)67891616
What I understand is this:
> The topic is The Rising Sun Flag. The rising sun flag used by army support organization in the Nagano Prefecture's Shigeno Village (now Toumi and Komoro city). Before the battle and in case of the battle(?), this flag was used commonly. There are 16 shining lines around the rising sun flag and the armada of Imperial Household is a gold chrysanthemum consisted of 16 petals. This chrysanthemum is in correlation with the 16 shining lines in the flag. Because this symbol symbolizes that the Emperor has a direct control over the army.
Did I understand it well?
> ''''
And does this phrase grammatically state a probability because of ''deshou''?
Like, Probably the flag was used commonly...
|
The word normally refers specifically to the pre-WWII period. To say "before the battle", or is used.
>
> In the prewar period,
>
>
> if an organization was military-related,
>
>
> I suppose the use of The Rising Sun (as the flag design of the organization) was taken for granted.
Your rough understanding of the remaining sentences seems okay. ( seems to be a typo for or something, although its meaning is self-evident in the context.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, japanese to english"
}
|
Need help with translating a sentence
The sentence is:
> {}{}
For context, this is a short story by Naoya Shiga, the name is . Right before this sentence, the subject of this sentence trips and falls face down and is very exhausted. He has someone trying to help him up, and he is trying to get up as well.
I know the meanings of the words individually or the probable meaning for those that have more than one, however, I'm unable to picture what the author is trying to say.
Later on, the author describes this action as
> {}
I took this to mean "In a play, when the guy who gets killed is lying face down, he often does this action."
However, I still can't put together what the author means.
|
("to elevate one's hip/pelvis a bit") from the ("flat prone") position should look like this:
![](
In a movie cut scene, we often see a dying person who doesn't have enough energy to stand or sit does this.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What is the meaning of 「ほう」in the following sentence?
> ****
I guess the sentence means something along the lines of "Even within the [whole] world, the working hours in Japan are long". But I think it could be expressed simply without thebit:
>
I know that can mean direction; side; way or manner, but none of these meanings seems to fit well here. According to the dictionary, there is also the meaning "type, category" which could be a good candidate. I'm thinking of something like working hours of the "long type" (), but I'm just speculating.
I also have the feeling that some sort of comparison is happening here as is used for comparison in patterns such as ( ), where the working time in Japan is being compared to the working time in the world, but I can't figure it out.
Mind I'm not sure about the part, so if my "even within the world" translation is not right, please feel free to correct it as well.
|
If I were translating these sentences naturally but relatively 'faithfully' into English, I'd probably go for the following:
>
>
> Working hours in Japan are on the long(er) side, even globally.
>
> Working hours in Japan are at the long(er) end, even globally.
>
> ~ ~ ~
>
>
>
> Working hours in Japan are long, even globally.
I translate as 'long(er) side/end' to give a sense of direction, which expresses. As you note, often crops up in comparisons, because it indicates the choice of one way or one thing _instead_ of another - perhaps you can think about it as one choice that is directionally different from another choice.
For the same reason, you use () for expressions like "On the one hand ... on the other hand" : {}{}.
N.B. I know you said that you didn't think 'side' was a good fit here, so apologies that I used it above -- the sentence I suggest would be well understood in (British) English, I think!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word usage"
}
|
~てからでなければ vs ～なければ
I'm learning the ... grammar pattern, which my textbook defines as:
Until/unless ~ happens or is done, ... cannot happen or be done either. Used in negating or negative statements.
One of the practice problems is as follows (pick the best answer):
A:
or
B:
The answer key says A is correct, but I don't understand why. Is there something grammatically wrong with B or is there a semantic nuance difference?
|
> Until/unless ~ happens or is done, ... cannot happen or be done either. Used in negating or negative statements.
I agree with the definition of in this sentence.
****
_Until/unless you wake up at 4 o'clock, you cannot arrive the time of departure of flight._
This is a weird situation isn't it? If you wake up before 4 o'clock say at 3 o'clock, will you miss the flight?
****
So, this is conditional sentence.
_If you don't wake up at 4 o'clock, you will miss the flight. ⇨ If you wake up before 4 o'clock, you can get on the flight._
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, conditionals"
}
|
What does "やる事ブレない" mean?
I ran into the word when looking for cameras. But after searching I've also seen it in this usage, like in here: <
> ****
Does this have to do with the "deviation" meaning as japandict says? <
Like "" is "To not deviate from what I'm doing."
Am I wrong?
|
The "physical" meaning of is "to deviate (from the correct position)" or "to be blurred". also has a figurative meaning, "to waver", "(for one's opinion, policy, etc.) to become inconsistent", etc. Note that is an _intransitive_ verb, and in your example is not its object.
>
> = **** ****
> (Literally) I want to live so that what I do or say does not waver.
The nuance is "I want to have a consistent principle/policy and live up to it."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Should I use 正解 or 当たり to mean correct in a testing situation?
I want to use the term(s) when indicating a correct answer to a TEST question. I am thinking that one term may be preferred in TESTING situations, over the other.
|
As a Sino-Japanese compound, is more formal, and this is the word used in serious examinations and serious quiz shows. is more casual and colloquial, and it's mainly used for a riddle, a quick quiz, a "guess what" type question, or such.
also refers to a completely random "win" or "hit" as in roulette or lootboxes. In this case, is not interchangeable with .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "words, usage, expressions"
}
|
Does "朝か晩に” as an expression exist?
I am currently studying for JLPT N5 using Nihongo So-Matome, and one of the practice questions requires me to choose a sentence with a similar meaning to the one that is given, which is
Which i interpreted as
"Usually, I sleep after doing homework, sometimes I do it in the morning"
This itself already sounds a bit wonky to me, but the answer given is
I'm not sure if is a short for here, but even if it is, the 2 sentences don't seem to share the same meaning? Is this a case of a bad translation from the textbook, or am I missing some basic grammar that is preventing me from understanding the sentence.
Thank you!
|
Welcome to Japanese stack exchange!
Your understanding of the sentence is correct, though you should be sure to translate the , as "but", which I think adds the contrast needed to make your sentence sound less "wonky"!
The answer provided by the book is fine, too. can be used between two nouns can mean "or", in an exclusive sense. As such, would mean "morning or evening", but not both. This would align with your translation of the more complex sentence.
You can use just between the two nouns, as it is here i.e. N1 N2. But, you might sometimes see it used after both nouns i.e. N1 N2 too, to mean the same thing (perhaps with more emphasis on the separate alternatives than the single usage).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of 「一人」in the following sentence?
> **** Now, the amount of women that give birth to a child is decreasing. That is to say, the declining birth rates are advancing.
What is the role of ? To me, the sentence still makes sense without it.
What is the difference between the following sentences?
> **** …
>
> …
|
I would interpret it like this:
>
The number of children that women give birth to.
> ****
The number of children that **one** woman gives birth to. In other words, the number of children born per woman.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, word usage"
}
|
Whats the difference between yama and san in the title of a mountain?
Whats the difference between yama and san in the title of a mountain? and Toyama and Fujisan for example? Is one simply a mountain and the other a volcano?
|
According to Jisho.org the Kanji in question (), has only one meaning: Mountain. That has no distinction between a volcano (which is written ) or a regular mountain.
As @Leebo has pointed out both readings ( and ) are used in mountain titles. I personally would take that to mean that there isn't really a dramatic difference between the two. The difference in reading may stem from how kanji got integrated into the Japanese language, but that is mostly conjecture on my part.
The only way to know which reading is correct is experience. Usually one will sound better than the other.
Be aware that not all mountains have the kanji at the end of its name like on Shikoku, and some will have the ending like on Kyushu.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, words, kanji"
}
|
What does "引いた" mean?
I've checked plentiful translations but none of them fit this word. They keep showing "Pulled out" but it's more of a word that means annoying or distasteful, I think. Can someone please clarify and direct me to a translation tool with accurate sentences?
Basically, it was two people chatting about pineapple on a pizza. One of them goes, "" and the other one says, ""
|
So the person who said thinks having pineapple on a pizza is disgusting, right? If that is the case, is the ta-form (past tense) of the verb , and one of its meanings is "to be turned off", "to be made to lose interest/passion/love", "to be dampened", "to wince", etc. So means "Were you turned off?" I feel this meaning is particularly common in Kansai.
* It turns me off!
* Hey, wait, listen!
* 2 I flinched to hear I had to wait for two hours.
This slangy meaning is not listed in the 19 definitions of on jisho.org (which is a bit surprising to me), but explains this as one of the 43(!) definitions of :
> ###
>
>
And says:
> ###
>
>
See also:
* What does mean?
* What is the difference between and ?
*
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Why is there a が in 深淵に臨むが如し?
In the sentence why is there a particle after the verb ? Shouldn't it be ?
|
I suppose the simple answer is that the grammar of the past is different.
First of all, in Classical Japanese would be the (basically dictionary form). Unlike in modern Japanese, the doesn't have to be nominalized to be used with .
Secondly, the classical worked a lot like the modern day to attribute things. From (emphasis mine):
> ④ **** 131
>
> ⑤ 155
Lastly, is the classical way to say . Again from (emphasis mine):
>
>
> ①… **** … 1
>
> ② … ****
>
> ③ … **** …
One other note: The thing before must be in or a (basically nouns). And then after those, there can be an optional or for emphasis.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, usage, particles, particle が, classical japanese"
}
|
Meaning of 作った人たち
I ran recently across the following sentence here: <
****
The text is about an anime-movie. Does mean in this context "the people who where drawn(made)", i.e. the characters? Meaning that the students could sense or feel the feelings of the characters in the movie?
Thanks a lot!
|
In this context, I think that
>
means
> the people who made [the movie]
I will guess a translation for your sentence:
> The university students that watched the movie were saying that "they experienced the feeling of the people who made [the movie] through the lovely pictures and the detailed expressions".
The caveat here is that, in verb sentences that come just right in front of the noun they modify, the noun can be either the object or the subject, and you need to rely on the context to figure it out.
For example, consider these sentences with the verb
> ① The book [someone] bought.
>
> ② The person who bought sushi.
At ①, the noun () modified by is the object. At ②, on the contrary, the noun () modified by is the subject.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
How would I say "This place is Heaven on Earth"?
How would I say "This place is Heaven on Earth"? Would
>
be correct?
|
I would say...
> []{}[]{} /
* * *
means "recently" "lately" "these days".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "set phrases, phrases, english to japanese, idioms"
}
|
what doesかどうかという mean in this sentence?
I've been watching anime and came across this sentence:
> 15
I can't understand the meaning of in this sentence.
The context is that the village is isolated, and it only has one classroom and one teacher. This is the MC monologue about this.
|
`verb + ` is a grammar pattern that roughly means either of:
* (forming an embedded question) "whether or not"
* What does this usage of mean?
* VV-neg vs. V | V-neg vs. V
* (forming an no-adjective-like phrase) "may or may not", "problem of whether or not", "whether-A-or-B situation"
* Understanding
In your example, is used in the latter sense. For example, means "We may or may not survive" or "We are in a life-or death situation". Click the above link to see some more examples.
Therefore:
> 15(/)
> (literally) As for this settlement, even if we counted everyone, there may or may not be 15 people.
> → There are only 15 people or so at most in this settlement.
>
> 15
> a settlement which has only 15 people or so at most
>
> 15
> (literally) It's the deserted-ness to the point where there are only 15 people at most.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
}
|
Could you please help me understand this sentence from NHK News?
, or does it mean plant-growing (in this case, growing)?
Could anyone help me with this question? I just registered this account to ask it. Thank you soooo much!!!
|
So you are asking which of the following two parsing strategies is correct:
1. ((→)→)
2. (→)((→))
And the correct answer is 1. is modifying as a relative clause, and this means "(for a plant) to grow". The whole phrase means "food which is made from tubers which grow in hot places".
Why? Because 1 is simpler in that each relative clause is modifying a single word right after it. You don't have to think of the possibility of 2 when 1 makes perfect sense. ( **EDIT** : In addition, if 2 were the intended meaning, they would have simply said or .)
Ultimately, when there are two or more modifiers, including relative clauses, you have to determine the correct meaning from the context. For a detailed discussion about this, please see: Are Japanese modifiers "greedy", "anti-greedy", or do they mean whatever people choose them to mean?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, usage"
}
|
Do any other widely used romaji based acronyms besides KK and NHK translate directly into Japanese words?
Do any other widely used acronyms besides KK (Kabushiki Kaisha) and NHK (Nihon Housou Kyoukai) translate directly into Japanese? I have seen DIY, SS, NTT, JR, and LDK to name a few, but the terms would have English word meanings. Thank You!
|
I don't understand why you ask "why". There is no such a rule that Latin acronyms must be made only from pure English words. Here are some nationally- or globally-known organizations based on romanized Japanese:
* **YKK** = **** **** **** , world's largest zipper manufacturer
* **SNK** = **** **** , game software company best known for _King of Fighters_ franchise
* **TDK** = **** **** **** , best known as a compact cassette manufacturer
* **DNP** = **** (P = printing), Japan's one of the largest printing companies
* **KNT** = **** **** **** , travel agency
* **DHC** = **** **** **** , now known for cosmetics and supplement
And there are also many slangy romaji abbreviations like KY () and JK ().
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words"
}
|
Translation of my name
My name is Joe Tailor. I tried to translate it to Japanese and got this:
Is this accurate? Or are there inaccuracies like it being “Joe Taylor” for example? It has to be with an “i” please. Thank you.
|
is one correct spelling with the middle dot or interpunct added. can also be a spelling based on personal preference. After researching the most common spellings of both names, I realized that the name Tailor is considered a profession, spelled the same way, and that indicates the way it would be spelled as was indicated in the question. The name Taylor however, is more commonly recognized as a first or last name. The two terms are written differently to reflect the difference between the profession or the name Tailor, and the name Taylor. The difference in spelling is determined by the user.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": -1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Do na-adjectives have an attributive negative form?
Assuming present tense, we can use i-adjectives in an attributive context both in the affirmative form:
> - there's an expensive chair
And in the negative form:
> - there's an inexpensive chair
* * *
I know we can use na-adjectives similarly in the affirmative form:
> - there's a pretty person
But for the life of me I can't find any info on whether using na-adjectives in the negative form is allowed in an attributive context (i.e. modifying a noun rather than as a predicative with a copula). So is the following grammatical?
> - there's a non-pretty person
|
Your guessed-at negative attributive is perfectly correct. The only caveat I'd add is that is a somewhat-informal contraction for , and thus you should probably use the full form in any formal spoken or written context.
> []{}
> ↓
> []{}[]{}
Happy studying!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "negation, na adjectives, attributive"
}
|
Can I use the title san if I refer to myself as an ojisan?
I know that the title san cannot be used when referring to myself. It seems appropriate to use if it is with a title of some sort. I just wanted to clarify. Thank You!
|
** is "uncle", but is not necessarily "(Mr.) uncle" any more.** usually means "middle-aged guy", and you can refer to someone as even if he is not your uncle. You can even say ("I am no longer young"), referring to yourself, and this has no honorific meaning. The same can be said for ("middle-aged lady").
This process is called **lexicalization**. In short, was initially ` + `, but this combination became a new word with its own meaning. has become an integral part of the new word. This also means dictionaries have a dedicated entry for (see it in jisho.org, goo).
Note that you can still address your real uncle with , too. When you talk to your young nephew, you may call yourself , and this is in the same vein as calling yourself //etc when talking to your child. In my case, I don't have a nephew and I haven't met my real uncle for decades, so whenever I say , it almost certainly means "middle-aged guy".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, usage"
}
|
What does 1500万0000円 mean on a price display?
I'm a bit confused by the price display in a sushi restaurant video, see <
Do I misread the number or is this a joke (the video has an unusual cut there)?
It shows the price as 15000000, which I would read as 15,000,000, approximately 150,000.00$ (with exchange rate 100 yen = 1 dollar). Does have another meaning differing from ten-thousand here?
|
You have read it correctly. 14850000 is indeed 14,850,000 yen, which is way above the average annual income of Japanese people. , , and so on can be inserted to help readers quickly grasp the number. (See: <
This restaurant is , and you can play various mini-games using their touch panels, including something like a slot machine. See this video. I may be wrong, but this 1485 may be from one of such games. Or it may be from something entirely different. Either way, it's not the actual charge.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "numbers"
}
|
「所定」と「固定」の違いは何でしょうか？
Google translate gave be result below
> = Predetermined
>
> = Fixed
Which word is used when?
|
* is a no-adjective. is a transitive suru-verb and no-adjective.
> : OK
> : OK
> : OK
> : NG
* Obviously, fixation of a tangible object is but not .
>
> The picture is fixed to the wall.
* means "it's been already determined/established by someone", means "it won't change". A may be revised in the future, whereas a is, um, fixed.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Is ためか the same as ために?
I think this sentence:
>
means something like "Since they get too much sunlight, they are shabby trees", but while I know `` I can't find anything about `` in my grammars; I was wondering if they have the same meaning.
|
No, and don't mean the same thing -- just as and do not mean the same thing.
The in is the same used as the verbal question mark. This indicates uncertainty and indefiniteness.
_(Separately, I'm pretty sure you have a typo, where should be instead.)_
If the sentence said []{}, that would be a definite reason. However, the sentence instead says []{}, indicating that the speaker is uncertain, and is proposing a possible theoretical reason for the observed result. In English, we would use words like _maybe_ , _perhaps_ , _possibly_ , and the like to express a similar idea.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, particle か"
}
|
Is a 模合 considered to be a type of クラブ ？
I posted a question a while back concerning the term moai and I am trying to explain it others. Would it be considered a type of club?
|
I knew nothing about because I'm not from Okinawa, but judging from the description on Wikipedia and some other articles on the net, I think it's **not** safe to start your explanation like "…". Instead, you can say "…" or "…".
The main two purposes of seem to be "to help one another financially" and "to hold drinking parties regularly". The former is the original purpose, and the latter is often the "true" purpose today :) However, neither of the two is associated with what people usually imagine with the word . While there are many different types of (including sport clubs and even nightclubs), they are generally for entertaining or socializing people via some shared interest. A typical is not for mere casual drinking or for helping people financially. is a very broad and vague term which can refer to any type of organization/group/gathering, so I think this is suitable to start your explanation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
What does 待ってるから mean?
I know what both words mean but I'm not sure what's implied here.
Context: I'm reading this from the manga, A girl said this to a boy after she asked him to dance at a campfire with him, . Also, the campfire would be the next day and this was the first encounter between the two people. They don't have an established relationship.
I think the subject of the sentence is the speaker and she's saying I'll be waiting. What's the doing here though? The unsaid subject is "I" (the speaker) not something like . Are we also supposed to assume that means the current place in time in this situation? "I'll be waiting from now on."
I feel there's a simple explanation for this but I think I'm just missing something obvious here. Or perhaps I'm right but I find that unlikely. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
|
I'm assuming you already know the reason kara, which is the one being used here... basically meaning "because".
There could be a lot of things implied here that are not being said, but with the context in hand I would guess the following.
> ()() - **Hey come, I'm waiting! (Implying that because she is waiting for him, he should go and dance with her already.)**
**Edit:**
With the context you provided I would translate it as:
> 1 - ...()(- **Won't you dance with me? ... I'll be waiting for you (and because of that, come and dance with me).**
or
> 2 - ...()(- **Won't you dance with me? I'm waiting, answer me! (So because i'm waiting answer me, don't leave me hanging)**
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Japanese N1 practice questions help
Taken from question 4 and 5 of this URL: <
QUESTION 4: The audio starts with: I usually feel pretty confident with spoken Japanese contractions, but I can't make heads or tails of what this statement is. What is "" short for?
QUESTION 5:
The statement and three possible responses are:
1
2
3
The correct answer is 1, although I'm confused why 2 wouldn't be the better answer.
My translations are: This meal wouldn't be enough for two people. 1: Yeah, but I'm not feeling hungry. 2: It was plenty for one. 3: I really can't eat it all.
What am I missing here?
|
**QUESTION 4**
is short for . becomes , which becomes (`re`-to-`n`). But since this is a colloquial and slangy expression, we see this almost always in the contracted form. Variations include , , , , etc. It's a set phrase meaning "I can't stand it anymore", "I've had enough", "I'm so tired of this", etc.
**QUESTION 5**
The options actually mean:
> 1: Yeah, I don't feel like I ate anything.
> 2: (Ordering just) one serving/dish would've been enough.
> 3: I really can't eat it all.
So 2 and 3 mean they ordered too much. Here 1 ("one person's worth/portion") is the same as 1 ("one serving (of food)"). "It was plenty for one" would be something like 1.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "jlpt, reading comprehension, spoken language"
}
|
How is the と particle working in 「意外と早かったね」?
>
The speaker is saying this in what I would take as a form of astonishment at how fast the students moved the wooden logs out of the warehouse.
In the sentence is a noun, , meaning "unexpectedly" or "surprising", and an adjective "was fast". And a sentence ending particle. Lastly, the unsaid subject is the activity of moving the logs.
I'm unsure of what the particle is doing here though. This isn't a conditional and I know that is used for quoting things. I also know that those things don't necessarily have to be said either. They can be thoughts, sounds made by actions or the manner in which something is done. Would this be a case in which the particle is "encapsulating" the manner in which something was done? If so, what purpose is serving? It seems to be used in an adverbial sense. I don't believe this to be 's "and" or "with" usage for keeping a reciprocal relationship with the subject either.
|
works as an adverb here, and it's not + . has almost the same meaning as , so in this case, means "it was faster than I expected."
For the slight difference between and , see this post (Is there any difference between and ?).
In some cases, adverbs end with . For example, and has almost the same meaning.
* <
* <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle と, adverbs"
}
|
What is the proper way to address the Emperor in person？
Is there a proper way to address the Emperor of Japan when meeting in person? Is he addressed as or ?
|
He is addressed as []{} ("Your Majesty"). Directly calling him []{} would be rude. Princes and princesses are addressed as []{} ("Your Highness").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
Why does "arimasen" mean "there's no hope"?
Why is arimasen, which means "is not" the same thing as there's no hope?
> I am so lazy, **so there's no hope.**
>
> ****
>
> Watashi wa totemo namakemononanode, **kibō wa arimasen.**
I would have thought that a one-to-one translation of "there's no hope" would have made more sense, but Google Translate tells me that "arimasen" pretty much means "there's no hope". Is there a reason for this?
The translation used was from English to Japanese, and I used the sentence:
> I am so lazy, **so there's no hope.**
|
The crux of the matter is that you are focused around , but you should be focusing on the entire phrase , which you have in bold.
**** means (as pertaining to an intimate object) to exist; to have, among other things. is the negative form, don't have/does not exist. You should also check out this webpage about usage for existence verbs, as it might clear up some confusion.
**** means hope.
**** is your topic marker.
Doing a linear translation we get the following:
>
> (lit) hope (topic) exists not.
In more natural English:
> There is no hope.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What's the meaning of か and も in this sentence?
This is a sentence I'm struggling to fully understand:
> **** **** ****
I think it's about things high school students have to do as regulation, and it's saying that would be a lie to say there were no issue about what regulations permit or ban; but I'm not sure about the meaning of `` in ``, and of `` in `` (something like ``, meaning "or/something like", maybe?).
|
In this context, emphasizes the meaning of the sentence. As seen in definition 1 in this dictionary, and can work together to put stress on the word .
Let's see the slight difference between and using your example.
* **** ... tells us just the fact that the school (or somebody) makes their female students wear a uniform.
* **** ... means that even the high school girls have to wear a uniform. Sometimes, the sentence implicitly includes the writer's opinion such as "high school girls are matured enough, but they have to wear a uniform (like children)."
In this context, expresses doubt rather than "or/something like", and it can be replaced by .
**** **** means that people interfere with how the girls wear their uniform, for example, **whether** they properly button up their shirt, or **whether** they tie an approved tie.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Are groups of kanji classified as on or kun'yomi overall or individually?
Individual kanji have on and kun readings. Which character in a multiple kanji word determines if the word has an on or kun reading? is a better example, on on kun. Would Nichiyoubi be considered an onyomi or kunyomi word?
|
Most multi-kanji words have either only on-readings or only kun-readings, but there are exceptions. For example, is neither purely kun nor purely on. ( is a kun-reading, is an on-reading)
Words like are called **kun-on compounds** or ****. Likewise, words like is called **on-kun compounds** or ****.
See: Can a Japanese word combine both on'yomi and kun'yomi characters?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "words, kanji, readings"
}
|
What is the meaning of 「ぞんぞん」?
In the following exercise, I'm asked to choose between , or to complete the sentence:
> ____ Do not hesitate, eat ____ (adverb) please.
I think that neither (rapidly, steadily) nor (gradually) fit well in this sentence, do they? Therefore, I think that the correct choice is . However, I can't find a proper definition for in English. I found an article where they talk about , tried to read it but the required level is way too high for me that I couldn't.
To sum up,
1. What does mean?
2. Is the right answer of the exercise?
|
1. I don't know what means. (I'm from Kansai, by the way.)
(In the article you found, they say means in dialect.)
2. The correct answer is . can mean not only "rapidly" "steadily" but also "one after another" "do...more (and more)" "do...a lot" "keep on doing" "continuously" etc.
> "Eat a lot." "Eat more."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, adverbs"
}
|
Why is 探そう not 探しそう?
In a manga I am reading, I came across the following sentence.
The speaker just crashed on his skis and a crowd of people started to gather around, thus garnering a lot of attention to what just happened. The speaker is somewhat stealthy leaving the scene and saying that it seems he should look for .
My question is that I believe this to be a case of where it should be connected to the verb steam in order to mean seems or like. Is that not how this is working here? If this is the case I suspect it to be, why did the get dropped off of ?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
|
This is the volitional, formed with after a verb, as in or , and after , as in or . It is not the of .
It has a number of uses, but one of the most common, and the one here, is roughly 'I should', 'I will', 'we should', 'let's' and such.
{}= 'I'm drawing a lot of attention. I'll go and look for Miku right away.'
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations"
}
|
What is the function of と in this sentence?
> ****
This doesn't seem like the ... pattern:
> Expresses the idea that when arises or happens, it will definitely lead to ...
|
In this context, is used to refer to the preceding phrase, or . This is because we can consider that is a part of and that is omitted from the sentence. Indeed, by inserting , we can paraphrase the sentence as follows:
> (1) **** ****
>
> (I should have studied more in my school years. Now I deeply regret **that**.)
Now, for a quick understanding of how works, consider a simplified version of sentence (1):
> (2) **** ~~~~ ****
>
> (I think **that** I should have studied more in my school years.)
In sentence (2), is indeed used to refer to the preceding phrase.
Next, for a further understanding of how works, consider an expanded version of sentence (1):
> (3) **** `` ****
>
> (I should have studied more in my school years. Now I deeply regret **that** `I did not study more in my school years`.)
In sentence (3), is essentially used to refer to the preceding phrase. This is because what I deeply regret now, or ``, can only be inferred from the phrase preceding .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
Which one is the correct usage for "迎えにいく"
3.
4.
(2) is the correct answer according to the textbook, but I think that (1) is also correct, in terms of grammar and meaning.
|
I believe #1 is incorrect because of the verb .
When you describe someone else's movement with the verb , it feels as though they are moving away from you. So, in the first sentence, it sounds like, at the very least, you are not in your parents' home country at the time, and thus going to pick them up at the airport would be strange.
I believe that if the sentence used , it could be correct. This would imply that they are returning home and that you are where they are returning to, so you would be able to greet them upon their arrival.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is として in this sentence adverbial?
I was trying to get a full understanding of this sentence's structure:
> **** NGO
I know `` as "As; In", like in ``, "as a teacher", but in this sentence I don't think it has that meaning; I found other meaning (apart from; even; from a viewpoint), none of which seems to apply here.
I'm guessing the `` part is meant to be adverbial, i.e. ` (slow) > (slowly)`, but if that's the case I'm not sure about the `` part.
I think I get the meaning (The goverment has plans to build [a school], but since those were proceding slowly, on-site NGOs associations assisted in building it"), but I'm not sure how `` fits in.
|
So, the simple answer to your question is that is a set phrase, and is used commonly enough with `` that the whole thing is in the dictionary as a set phrase.
That said, it's also worth keeping in mind that not every instance of `` and `` necessarily have to be mean `as`. has quite a few different usages, and it can also just come about coincidentally with adverbs taking ``, which is what happened here.
You might see constructions like
> (to speak endlessly)
or
> (a vague suspicion)
both of which are not instances of `` meaning `as`, but the result of and being adverbs which take ``.
Edit: Just for clarity's sake here, these two examples are slightly different things. `` is just a -adverb in the middle of ``, whereas `` is a common pattern where `` is used after a -adverb to qualify a noun. For the latter pattern, you can also find quite a few examples with an quick search, but trying to explain this construction is beyond the scope of this question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, grammar"
}
|
What is the difference between さしあげる and あげる?
I realize that both words mean to give. What is the difference between and ? The word was used in a chat with an elderly person.
|
{}{} is the honorific version of : it os used to show respect to the person you're talking to.
It is used the same way as in combination with the form of a verb to express that the speaker offers an action to the interlocutor.
>
>
> Shall I help you?
On the other hand, {} can be used to express the action of giving, but to a person of lower status.
I have never seen used with the form of a verb though, but ~ can be used to express the same meaning as ~ but toward a person of lower status.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
Difference between 虫取り and 虫取りをする?
I'm a beginner, so I'm sorry if this is obvious: I was just reading a text which said
>
which, according to google, means "I took insects", which confused me at first because is already a verb, isn't it? What would it mean if instead of that, the text had said
>
what role does the verb play in the sentence if is the main verb in the original?
|
I couldn't find "{}" (and so "{}") in any dictionary.
"{}{}" is a noun, composed of "{}" which means insect, and the nominalization of "{}" which generally means "to take", but in this case can be interpreted as "to catch". "{}" is nominalized by taking its stem, ie. turning its to a .
So in the end, "" is a compound noun that means "catching insects", and can be turned into a verb when used along with ""; therefore "" means "to catch insects", or more literally, "to do insect catching".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
がる passive form
In the following sentence, the verb appears to be used in passive form when the speaker is describing herself as a child:
>
What does indicate when used in passive form? Because the verb normally indicates a quality someone is displaying, I don't understand how it can be put in passive form.
|
In this context, is the one **** by others/someone around me. In other words, `/` (by others/someone around me) is omitted from the sentence, as follows:
> `/` ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "passive voice, auxiliaries"
}
|
Explanation of 申し訳ございません
In email communications, I have seen use of when saying sorry. How this phrase has been constructed and how it is different from
|
It literally means "There is no excuse", or "I have no excuse". Let's break it down:
* {} is the humbling version of {}
* {}{} means "excuse, explanation"
* so {}{} is kind of a humbling version of {}{}
* (or {}{} in kanis but that's very rare; in plain form) is polite version of , so is a more polite way to mean "there is not"
As a result, {}{} literally means "I have no excuse", and therefore is a very polite way to say "I'm sorry".
On the other hand, is written {} in kanjis. {} can mean "to feel at ease", so {} might be translated as "I feel bad [for what I did]", which basically means "I'm sorry".
To sum it up:
> {}{}
>
> _I have no excuses_
>
>
>
> _I feel sorry_
Now as you may know, {}{} is much more often used in formal contexts than , which is not rude _per se_ but would be considered not respectful enough in a working context, especially in emails.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What term is used to mean the game of American football?
I see terms for soccer and football and they seem closely related. What is the term used to clearly indicate American football? National/American Football League football. Thank you for your time in answering this question.
|
From my experience, is almost exclusively used to refer to the one you use your foot for most of the time, and for the handegg version.
As some fun examples of usage, you might want to check NFL Japan's site or read some of Murata Yusuke's Eyeshield 21.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "meaning, words, usage"
}
|
What is the meaning of 上げて落としたみてー?
I'm reading this manga, and came accross the following monologue:
>
>
>
>
> !!!
I can't understand what means. Is this an expression? Are those verbs all changing each others meanings?
I've found those translations so far: "I'd feel bad if I were to leave now", "you make me feel bad just looking at you, and gives me a bad feeling"
|
is a contracted form of ("is like "). It's an instance of /ai/-to-/ee/ contraction. is the te-form of , and is a verb. Therefore a very literal translation is "It's like I raised it and then dropped it".
is a slangy expression which may be called an idiom. It roughly means "to set someone's expectations and then disappoint them", "to praise something and then disparage", etc. basically means "to elevate", but it also has slangy meanings like "to praise", "to flatter" or "to hype". is to "to drop", but it also means "to say negative things about something", "to disappoint", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning, verbs, syntax"
}
|
Can さくじつ and きのう be used the same way?
Can and be used the same way? I know the terms mean yesterday. Thank you!
|
It depends on the context.
and both mean yesterday (and the same Kanji is used for the words). A major difference in their usage is that is almost always used in a **formal** context (written and spoken), while is often used **both** in formal and informal contexts (written and spoken): Using in a casual conversation seems weird. You can hear not only in a casual conversation but also in the news.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, words, usage, wago and kango"
}
|
What is よって doing in the following sentence?
I have a sentence that I came across in a manga I am reading. The male speaker is speaking to five girls (one of whom he met 5 years ago but doesn't know which one) and says, ?
I understand that manga doesn't have the best punctuation but I believe that the complete logical clause before may be a clause describing the and since this is casual speech there is no need for the copula or to be used for question form. I just can't seem to figure out what the is doing. I would appreciate any help on this one. Jisho says that means "therefore; consequently; accordingly; for that reason."
Could these just be two separate sentences where the second sentence is just "Therefore, that person is?" With the unsaid subject being the person he met before (introduced in the previous clause).
|
You have parsed it wrong.
> ?
> (Is there) anyone who has met me long ago?
So is an (indirect) quote, and is a sentence-end particle within the quote. This is a very casual variant of used like this:
* (= )
* (= )
* (= )
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
How would a native speaker correct themselves when they misspeak?
Once, a long time ago, someone asked me to tell me how I thought something went in Japanese. I replied
>
Quickly realizing my mistake, I corrected myself like this:
> …
But I'm not sure a native speaker would correct themselves this way. Is there a more natural way?
|
There is no one fixed phrase that everyone uses to correct their own misspeech such as "I mean" in English. In such a situation we usually say:
* Formal settings
> …………
> …………
> …………
> …………
* Informal settings
> …………
> …………
> …………
> …………
> …………
> …………
> …………
Especially in informal ones, the inserted phrases are uttered extremely fast so that you may only hear something like "choo" () or "j'nut" (). Besides, meaningless fillers are often put in the place, sounding like "ah", "umm", "nnn", "eh", etc.
* * *
**PS**
@jogloran has reminded me of the word [ (or []{e})]( which is worth learning but no longer used actively when you correct yourself except those who speak in an overly pedantic way or fantasy world nobles. In modern usage, it becomes more a rhetorical device that roughly means "rather", "or to say", "more correctly" etc.
>
> _That (boy/girl) is their idol, or you might say, guru._
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Formation of word "何となく"
I think, the word "" means as below
> somehow or other; for some reason or another;
However, how it has been formed so that it means like above?
|
is made up of:
* : contraction of...
* : question-word "what"
* : quotative particle "(call/say) that"
* : adverbial form of i-adjective ("not be"); "not being, without"
As a whole it means "without 'what'", or in more understandable English "without naming what (it is)", thus comes to represent a feeling that you can't pinpoint the specific reason.
Note that this phrase is already an idiom, with an undivided accent {LHHHL} instead of etymological {HLL}{HL}.
Similar constructions:
* "without (pointing) 'that'" → "implicitly; subtly"
* "without 'how many times'" → "countless times"
* "without any specific" (a JLPT N1 grammar)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What are the meaning and the usage of 体 【てい】?
I came across the following sentence. It is one of my Japanese assignments explanation:
> **** **** Let's write and exchange the following text inform to the form.
Although I understand the assignment, I'm struggling to figure out what exactly means. According to jisho.org (bold added by me):
>
> Noun
> 1\. Appearance; air; condition; state; **form**
> 2\. Voice (grammar)
So I believe that in my sentence, means "form". However, as the second entry states "voice", which is a linguistic term, I wonder if can be used only in linguistic contexts such as my assignment statement. Is that so?
If not, what are other contexts or situations where can be used? I could not find example sentences either, I would appreciate it if you provide some.
|
I think the in is read as .
"Voice" as a linguistic term is []{}, as in []{}, []{}.
[]{} can be used like...
[]{}
[]{}
[]{}
[]{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What is the difference between these sentences?
I was trying to write "Half of the population will die" in Google Translate. I wrote
But Google decided this was better:
Are these just different ways to write the same sentence, or is using the noun and verb better for this sentence?
|
Neither is better than the other per se, but there is a clear difference in formality. As usual, the kango version () is more formal, whereas the wago version () is more common in casual speech.
See questions tagged with wago-and-kango.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, wago and kango"
}
|
Do the terms 紅葉{こうよう} and 紅葉{もみじ} mean the same thing?
What is the difference between {} and {}?
I want to chat about the autumn colors of leaves and I found these terms in Jisho. The definition reads only or only which is confusing to me. I was directed to the same page for both terms. Can I use them the same way? Thank you for answering my question.
|
Both readings are valid for the kanji ``.
According to this page, the usage is as follows:
is mostly used to refer to the red/yellow autumn leaves before they fall, as well as to the scenery/images [involving them].
is mostly used to refer to the tree itself, or especially to the tree(s) that show the autumn colors
The first word can be used as a verb, the second cannot, i.e.:
{}{} Autumn-colored maple tree(s)
× [wrong usage]
However the other way around is possible, i.e. you can call the trees _kouyou_ when they show autumn colors.
The page then goes on to cover more related words, e.g. difference between and trees and leaves.
P.S. To describe the activity of maple-tree viewing/hunting, say {} and **not** {}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, word usage, wago and kango"
}
|
What is the middle character in Todd (Katakana)
While learning Katakana, I was instructed to try and translate my name Todd. I ended up with .
When I look it up online, I see everywhere. appears to be 'tsu'.
I think I am missing something about combined characters. Can anyone provide some clarification?
|
The "small _tsu_ " is not pronounced _tsu_ , but rather represents gemination.
The rule of thumb is that a final D gets transliterated as (and a final T as )
* bed →
* pad →
* good →
* god →
As you probably learned, this is part of a set of rules of thumb, which deal with final consonants in transliteration, since (except for ) there are no _kana_ without a vowel at the end.
As Japanese phonetics allow for /u/ to be almost silent, naturally _kana_ from the /-u/-column in the _kana_ chart (e.g. , , , etc.) would be good candidates to simulate final consonants. However, for /du/ or /tu/ this does not work, as these are pronounced _zu_ and _tsu_ and so here one uses the _kana_ from the /-o/-column instead.
I guess the small _tsu_ is added to make the sound more "dry", i.e. more like a consonant and less like a syllable.
See also
* How did "little tsu" become a lengthener?
* Why was originally used to mark consonant gemination? When was that?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, katakana, names, orthography, gemination"
}
|
ください without て form and auxiliary verbs
I read the following sentence on the shinkansen:
I looked up on Google but I could not find any mention of being used without the form. So why is it the case in that sentence?
Also, why is the stem of used instead of the dictionary form? Why isn't there any particle indicating motion towards the train? Why is the noun at the end of the first sentence instead of the beginning? Why is used?
In my mind, this is what I would have expected:
|
>
+[]+ is an honorific language of . So is an honorific, politer way of saying . It consists of: the honorific + the continuative form of + the imperative form of .
For more on /, you may want to see:
v.s.
Is "" dropped in this phrase "{}"?
* * *
>
It should be a typo of **[]{}** []{}. means or /.
is a compound noun () consisting of and . is a noun form of (deriving from the continuative form of ), which is a compound verb () made of the verbs []{} + , literally "run/rush + go into" → "rush in".
Compound nouns with a (probably) similar structure, off the top of my head:
>
For more on compound words (), these threads might be of help:
Meaning of
Dropping particles in casual speech/songs
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "て form, auxiliaries"
}
|
The suffix くん with a girl's name
> ****
I know that the suffix is used with boys' names, while is used with girls' names. But I've just listened to a dialogue between two girls, and one of them is talking about what her boss said to her.
Why is , not , used with the girl's name
|
> one of them is talking about what her boss said to her.
This is very important context. `` can be used by a boss for a subordinate regardless of their gender. Outside of workplace, it can also be used in other hierarchical settings, e.g. a teacher talking to a student or a school club's president speaking to a club member.
However, as mentioned by @naruto, especially in workplace it seems to be going out of fashion, in part exactly due to the potential confusion about the person's gender. The gender-neutral is likely the better option nowadays.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "suffixes"
}
|
What Japanese term would be used to describe the image that Japanese see when they look at the moon?
What do Japanese see when they look at the moon? In America, we see the face of a man. Is it the same in Japan? A fellow Japanese learner asked me this question online.
|
It's usually seen as "mochi-pounding rabbits" -> (<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -6,
"tags": "meaning, words, culture"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.