INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Do all な-adjectives come from Chinese?
In this video it is said that "-adjectives come from Chinese and tend to be written in all kanji or sometimes in hiragana because the original kanji is too complicated." But -adjectives are written in kanji too, aren't they? (e.g. So, in terms of writing, is there really a principal difference?
Is it true that all -adjectives come from Chinese? It's rather surprising because some -adjectives express such common concepts (e.g.etc.)...
|
The answer is no. Some na-adjectives are from Western languages (e.g., , ) and some are from native Japanese words (e.g., , ). As an aside, there are also a few i-adjectives coined from English (e.g., , , ), although they are mostly slang.
As for spelling, it is true that the dictionary forms of most na-adjectives are written in **all** -kanji (e.g., , ), whereas the dictionary form of i-adjectives contain at least .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "adjectives, na adjectives, chinese"
}
|
Can someone help me identify the handwritten kanji?
. Note that the bottom stroke of the angles up not down.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, handwriting, writing identification"
}
|
Is 忍者/忍び also used for women?
I was discussing with a friend, who asked me if `` is also used for women, or if `` is used/preferred. I know `` means "person", so it seems to be neutral; and Weblio defines the word using ``, which again seems to suggest it can be used for women; but I noticed in **Basilisk** female characters are called ``.
I wasn't able to find something definite about this: can `` be used for women, or does it sound strange/wrong?
Edit: Another friend of mine said that `` is used for men, but weblio doesn't say anithing about that, and it being an abbreviation for `` it does seem neutral; not sure if it can also be used for women.
|
I hate to sound realistic here, but the concept of the female ninja is basically all fictional to begin with. If I am not mistaken (which I do not think I am), there exists no record so far that proves the existence of a female ninja in real life that performed the same tasks as a male ninja such as surveillance and destruction.
That being said, the word {} can technically refer to both male and female ninjas **in fiction** , but when the gender is of importance to the story, the words {} and []{} are often used.
The word itself is as old as you expect a Japanese word to be, but it has only been several decades since it started to be used to refer to a female ninja in fiction. Before that, was only a slang word for .
, and are the components/strokes of the kanji . That is in the correct stroke order, too.
In conclusion, , {} and {} are all gender-neutral. If the author sees it fit, however, s/he will use or to refer to a female ninja in fiction.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 21,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
The construction をしてほしいものじゃ
> ****
The sentence is from an old folk tale.
Is the construction in bold suitable only for the folk tale style? It means "I want you to be...", doesn't it?
|
> {}{}{} ****
>
> Is the construction in bold suitable only for the folk tale style?
No. Only the sentence-ender has anything to do with stories. The rest of the part in bold is just very normal.
As discussed in this Q&A, is a common sentence-ending used by older characters in stories. It is role language that means the same thing as in Standard Japanese.
> [Noun] + +
means:
> "I want you to do [Noun]"
When the noun denotes a position or role as in the sentence in question, it means:
> "I want you to be/become a/the [Noun]"
as discussed here, expresses an exclamatory declaration in this context.
> "I really would like you/someone to be the young lord's playmate!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Disambiguation of 大抵
I am having problems with when to understand as:
a) ( (or as defined in Apple's dictionary)
b)
While I am aware of the difference between noun and adverb I saw the sentence:
1) ** ―…**
translated as: "In general they are experts in using magic"
However I initially understood it as: "Most of them are experts in using magic" (especially sticking to the definition referred to in the Mac-dictionary)
I first came across this word in:
2) ****
In that case the meaning was pretty clear to me and according to its meaning here I thought in **…** its meaning is the same as in 2).
Context: (Season 1 Episode 2 of ) The "race" of Crimson-Demons is explained and general characteristics of them are listed and the this sentence is some kind of "conclusion" to it.
|
> However I initially understood it as: "Most of them are experts in using magic"
I don't think you are wrong. Actually you got the gist except the actual sentence technically doesn't say so. is basically a quantifier today whose core meaning is " **most times/cases** (of)" instead of "most part" or "most people". But when you catch any random guy and ask them if they are a magic expert, and if "most times" the answer is "yes", then logically "most of them" is so.
I don't know to what degree the translation is authoritative, but if the translator chose the wording "in general", s/he probably took the "typical(ly)" sense of ; this is also a natural derivation from the "most cases" sense, thus both of you seem equally correct. After all, the described situation (and the truth condition) wouldn't change much either.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, nuances, particles"
}
|
Mysterious も in この郊外も地下鉄が来て不便ではなくなった
When casually browsing through _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ , one of the example sentences for __ has left me puzzled.
> {}{}{}{}
>
> This suburban area is no longer inconvenient because there's a subway now.
My understanding of this sentence is as follows:
* (this suburban area)
* (?)
* (because the subway comes [cause])
* (stopped being inconvenient any more)
Is the meaning of the one of a "non-assertive subject"? Seems somewhat odd to me, but then, I'm a beginner.
|
is a very common particle. Some describe it as "inclusive", and it's often translated as "even / also / too".
In this particular context, the implies that " **even** this suburb[an area]..." The underlying value judgment is that the subway is just so darn convenient, that it makes things so much better **even** in this area outside of the downtown.
**Side note:**
Don't rely (just) on translations to try to understand the nitty-gritty of Japanese grammar. There are so many things about Japanese that just don't fit very well into an English sentence. (Vice versa too, where English grammatical concepts don't translate well into Japanese, such as the "a" vs. "the" distinction, or plurals, or gender, etc.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, particle も"
}
|
how much use of カタカナis good or bad in Japanese?
While learning Japanese we students have a secrete weapon called We use katakana words even though there are perfectly fitting Japanese words which we obviously don't know. Just because we understand English better than Japanese we cant use English words written in as means to overcome the hurdle at the moment.
So my question is how much is acceptable by Japanese people?
|
This depends on the topic and the type of what you are writing, so it's impossible to generalize. An article about programming or Disney characters will naturally contain a lot of katakana words, whereas you probably want to intentionally avoid katakana words when you are writing a samurai novel. You can see a statistical analysis based on a newspaper corpus here.
Still, it can be said that sentences with too many katakana loanwords can look absurd (see examples here), and you eventually have to master how people normally describe each concept in Japanese. Meanwhile, of course it's perfectly logical to use some English for difficult concepts if you think your listener understands it. If I, a native Japanese speaker, said (katakana for "optimistic") in a casual conversation, I would definitely sound snobbish, but that may not be the case with you.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What is the meaning of "と" in 「言っておくと」?
I was going through the sentences and explanations of "" when "" caught my eye. It repeatedly showed up as an alternative to "". I think here is somewhat like "you know" in English. But as for I really can't think of any usage that could fit in with the sentence. (Not if/when/quotation, definitely not and/with, and then I am baffled...)
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
|
> ****
simply means:
> "Just so you know, ~~~."
The here is a conjunctive particle used to form a light and casual kind of introduction before stating the main point.
Thus, **** and **** mean fairly different things from each other in that the latter is used when you want to **_warn or caution_** the listener in advance about something that will be stated only a second after.
**** generally has the nuance of " **I've got to warn/tell you beforehand that ~~~**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
Casual way to say: ''See you tomorrow at (some time)''
Lets say 11am
How would you say: ''See you tomorrow at 11.'' ?
All I have is :
ashita wa juuichi ji ni ... what now ? ...
I found this expression online :
11
|
Roughly in the order of informality, native speakers would say:
{}[]{} **** (no verb)
//{} (with verb)
The last phrase above is already "borderline formal", but for many adult speakers (if not for teenagers), it would sound fairly informal. An example of the formal phrase by anyone's standard would be:
/{} **** ****
Notice that I dropped the option as it is too informal to go with this level of formality. Notice also that is read here to fit better in the formal phrase.
> I found this expression online :
>
> 11
That is just _**complete**_ gibberish, period.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 23,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "time"
}
|
Couple of questions about a passage
I was practicing the jlpt n3 audios and found the next passage:
**** 6
****
1)Why is it saying "Is it okay if you don't go home?"
2)What does mean?
|
> **** 6
>
> ****
>
> 1)Why is it saying "Is it okay if you don't go home?" {}
Yes. It is saying "Don't you have to leave?", "Don't you have to go home?", etc. My assumption here is that this conversation is taking place at the workplace.
> 2)What does {}{}{} mean?
in this context means {} ("the second train station (from here)"). The Hall is only two train stations away from where the conversation is taking place.
For those unfamiliar with this use of {}, this Q&A might be of help.
Japanese is an extremely contextual language, I must keep reminding everyone, myself included.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Connotations and use of 日本晴(れ)
I know that (it can be , but is most commonly ) literally means "sunny Japan" and gives the sense of a clear sky, but I was wondering: are there any other connotations of this? I was wondering since I have seen it a lot recently, like in songs (some of which are quite patriotic, so I am not surprised), but it is also a name of a section of a soccer magazine, or a magazine as a whole, I believe. Thanks in advance, everyone!
|
To me, (usually read rather than ) is nothing more than a catchy recurring phrase heard in lyrics, titles or such. It refers to a beautiful clear sky, but I have never wondered or sought its meaning deeper than that. I was aware of no particular connection between and soccer prior to this. Of course it's never used in serious meteorological contexts. By the way, if you are curious, this chiebukuro question says this phrase is very old.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "usage, connotation"
}
|
Alternative reading of 額
In from , there's the following line, around 2'41":
> {}
The furigana are from the video's subtitles, which are **not** automatically generated by Youtube, so this is definitely intended by the authors.
I couldn't find any reference confirming that `` had any readings other than `` and ``. Also, I thought it could be a play on word (1) of some kind, but I couldn't find any word that reads `` that would make any sense.
What could be the meaning of reading `` `` in this context?
* * *
(1) _You know, that thing when you attach totally different furigana to a word to express the true meaning of that word in a context, like`{}`, but I forgot how it's called_
|
is an old-fashioned reading of , which is commonly today. That information is pretty easy to find if you type in both and in a search engine.
At the bottom I believe you're talking about (ateji), but that is not relevant to the question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "readings, song lyrics"
}
|
される and られる confusing meaning
I have some trouble with my Japanese studies. I am stuck on some causative passive meanings.
So far, if I am right, there are 3 causative-passive forms:
: X is being ... by Y
: Y forces X to .../ X is forced by Y to...
: X makes Y to .../ X allows Y to ...
However, I am not able to understand the .
For example:
: Let me think about the story
: I can think of that story a little more
: English is spoken all over the world
: English is spoken all over the world
I can't seem to associate to any of them. I can understand that is somehow related to the subject, but in what sense? How does it differ from ?
|
If I understand correctly, your problem is with the in
> ****
But this just comes from the part of . To make the passive form for group 1 verbs you take the stem for negative verbs and add . So for example the negative of is **** , the stem is , and then we add to give .
For group 2 verbs you take the masu-stem and add which is the form you talked about above.
Finally, your last sentence:
> **(?)**
is ungrammatical because you have missed the part (or a modification of it) from .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "passive voice, causation"
}
|
Grammar explanation for ~よし
Studying for the N1 with sample questions I stumbled across this grammar construct `~`. However I am unable to find any explanation online or in any of my grammar books - probably I am searching for the wrong expression, but maybe anyone here can help.
Here are a few sample questions, that I could not answer so far:
> This summer, I will reach the age for retirement (?). Thanks for taking care of me for so long.
>
> Next month I will be in Japan (?). I definitely want to meet you.
|
First of all, this is in kanji. (It has nothing to do with {} meaning "good".)
All by itself, means "reason", "circumstances", etc. Notice the kanji is surely used in the word {} ("reason").
{} is most often used in **formal or business** letters in the form of:
> Mini-Sentence + +
meaning:
> "I hear that [Mini-Sentence], (so I am replying.)"
This pattern is rarely, if ever, used in informal letters/emails between two young friends.
> This summer, I will reach the age for retirement (?). Thanks for taking care of me for so long.
It is **not** the writer who has retired. It is the receiver of this letter. is honorific.
"I hear that you have retired this summer."
> Next month I will be in Japan (?). I definitely want to meet you.
It is **not** the writer who is coming to Japan. The writer is already in Japan.
You would not use the honorific to talk about your own action.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Translation of beady-eyed
> ****
> If someone were to peer out of the window now, even Mrs Dursley (whose eyes shone like beads) probably wouldn't be able to see what was happening at all in this darkness.
Clearly was beady-eyed in the original English. As a native English speaker when someone says beady-eyed I don't think of this literal meaning but something more like this.
Is a natural phrase in Japanese or is it just a poor, literal translation.
If it isn't natural is there a better translation?
|
, to me, sounds like a mediocre direct translation because it is a fairly ambiguous expression. Frankly, not having seen beads up close in decades, I do not even know exactly what could mean.
I could not say it is such a natural phrase, either. I feel like the translator went for a "safe or harmless" phrase choice there.
Not that I am or ever was a translator of any kind, I might opt to use:
{}{}
{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, set phrases"
}
|
Who is performing these actions
In the extract below I am a bit unsure as to who is performing the parts in bold. Story is told from 's point of view.
doesn't look like something I imagine someone would use to describe their own actions (although I could be wrong). This leads me to think that the actor for is , however I am thinking that it could possibly be referring to them both.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
|
> {}{}{}{}{}
>
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
The key word here is / in **** . It is written in kana because it is a subsidiary verb in this phrase.
It **always** takes at least two persons to:
> Verb in Continuative Form +
>
> "doing something **to/for/with/toward each other**."
If you are performing an action _**solo**_ , you cannot use / in the first place. So, we say , etc.
Thus, it is most natural to conclude that the unmentioned subjects of all of the verb phrases should be the _**two characters**_.
= "to be reluctant to leave (each other)"
= "laced our fingers (and)"
= "held our hands"
= "and let go of our hands"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Can you say“ 何が貴方のお名前はですか”？Or does 何 have to come before です？
I’ve read that what’s your name is ““ but can you also put to the beginning or is that incorrect? So can it be:
|
First, as a basic rule, the polite copula must be preceded by a (pro)noun or an adjective (eg , ). is plain ungrammatical because is directly preceded by the topic marker .
How about ? This is actually grammatical, but almost always nonsensical, because this uses exhaustive-listing- _ga_ and thus sounds like "What is the one that is your name?" This question may be used in a very special context, for example, when you are irritated after talking with a confused person who is referring to himself with various different names. Otherwise, you must say .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, particle が, copula, word order"
}
|
Romaji and Hiragana seem to disagree
I encountered `` (``) during my studies today. Google Translate shows romaji `dōrohyōji`. However, based on the hiragana alone, I was expecting to see `dōrohyōshiki`.
Why is `` romanized as `ji` instead of `shiki`? Are there different standards of romanization being used here?
|
They are different things, but very similar. dōrohyōshiki is road signs. () dōrohyōji is road markings.
Google doesn't know the difference.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "rōmaji"
}
|
珍 vs 珍しい (na-adjective and i-adjective)
is a noun but also a na-adjective while is an i-adjective. In terms of usage, is there some rule of when we should use one and not the other? For words that have a i-adjective and a na-adjective form is there any general usage rule?
|
{} and {} are two fairly different words in terms of usage.
("rare", "uncommon", etc.) would be much easier for Japanese-learners to use as it can precede and modify almost any type of noun -- wago (originally Japanese word), Sino-loanword and non-Sino-loanword.
When you find something to be rare, uncommon, etc., you can describe it as + Noun. It is that simple.
Note that 'mezurashii' is a 100% originally Japanese word. Don't let the kanji fool you as that was only adopted later.
{}, however, is quite different in its usage if not in meaning. You cannot just say + any noun every time you find something to be rare.
is most often used like a prefix that precedes an **on'yomi noun** as in:
{} = "rare guest"
{} = "rare confection"
can precede non-Sino-loanwords as in:
= "sports bloopers"
= "rare or strange dish" ( does not mean "menu" here.)
I, however, could not think of a common term that takes the form of + wago noun. On-kun combinations are
rare to begin with.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "adjectives, i adjectives, na adjectives"
}
|
Understanding めちゃくちゃ and 内容 in this sentence
I saw this sentence on twitter and kind of cannot wrap my head around its meaning...
>
I suppose that **** refers to the males of a certain group; however in connection with **** it seems to me the it means something like "content not directed at the males (of the person's twitter followers)".
I don't understand what is meant by the next part at all. I used to understand **** as noun but here it seems to be rather used in an adverbial sense (?).
For me it seemed as if the person wants to express that something not "fitting" the typical "male interested content" is going to be published on the person's twitter; however she is hoping that it will find great appeal anyway.
So how is **** to be understood in this sentence? Is my interpretation of **** to me it sounds like as if I am not getting what truly means here.
|
This () is a subject that corresponds to , and the is interchangeable with . ("..., although there is no content/substance, ...", "despite emptiness") refers not to but to something non-substantial, such as a superficial announcement/speech, a purposeless party or an idle talk. It may or may not be specified in the previous context.
here is just a slangy adverbial intensifier ("extremely", "insanely", "super"). It safely works as an adverb although a few dictionaries seem to say it's only a na-adjective/noun.
>
>
> * _[if there is no particular previous context]_ I envy how guys can get super excited without reasons.
> * _[if there is a concrete "empty" thing in the context, for example]_ I envy how the male players can get super excited for this empty announcement.
>
This may be a sarcasm depending on the context. To say "content targeted at male members", you have to say **** or something.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words"
}
|
How is this sentence/saying structured?
I have problems understanding the correct grammatical structure of this saying:
![enter image description here](
I kind of understand what it is saying. I think its something like "At a time where there is money to be taken, you should take it all". But i struggle with the parts like
* what meaning has kara in ****
* what does this mean
* what means ~ in **** . Is it like the structure "verb + te + oku" or is it okumono -> a thing that was placed?
This saying appears multiple times in the manga and it starts to bug me. If somebody is interested to explain this I would be very happy about it ;]
Greetings
|
> {}{}
I shall insert commas so that the sentence might look somewhat more manageable to some.
>
The core of this sentence is:
> ("One should take/earn money.")
The original sentence adds three qualifiers to the core as below:
> (when) (from where/who) (how much)
= whenever one can take it
**** = **from** wherever/whoever one can take it
= as much as one can take
> in . Is it like the structure "verb + te + oku" or is it okumono -> a thing that was placed?
The former. Latter makes no sense for the context.
> "Money is something that you should take whenever possible, wherever possible and as much as possible."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, syntax"
}
|
屁の一つをひるのも惜しがるような様子だった
In a short story I'm reading I found this sentence:
> **{}**
This is the given translation:
> The humans cry and generally make a tremendous fuss when one of them dies, but it seemed as if they didn't give a fart when the babies were born
I don't really understand the part in bold: `` means "to fart" and `` means "To appear to regret something"; so the best translation I can come up with is something like "They looked like [literally, I think "They had an appeareance"] they seemed to regret to fart once", which doesn't sound right, and in this I'm ignoring `` since I'm not sure what it means (`` I'm guessing nominalize the previous sentence, but I don't know what `` is supposed to mean).
|
> {} **** {}{}
I will just start with the . The nominalizes the preceding verb phrase . The here means ("even").
in this context means " **not willing to spare the time to** ", according to me. Your (or is it another person's?) TL "to appear to regret something" would not fit the context. Yours would only work when regretting something that has happened in the past.
Thus, a super-literal TL would look like this:
> "it appeared that they were unwilling to spare the time to even fart once"
Since it only takes a half-second to fart once, what this phrase really means is that they just don't give a damn.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
The grammar/syntax of 前進あるのみ
* ****
* ****
I would like to ask if I can replace the bold part with "" or "" / "" or "" (and if the substitution changes the meaning), and a more puzzling question to me, what does "" mean and/or why "" is acceptable there?
|
> {}
>
> {}
Replace the part by the other words you mentioned and these phrases will lose the nice literary and/or old-fashioned 'feel' that was intended by the author/speaker. In other words, one should not try to make these phrases look or sound unnecessarily more conversational.
> [Noun] +
should be left alone as a common fixed expression used in mottoes and slogans. A strict grammar analysis would be somewhat fruitless because the expression already lacks the important particle between the noun and in the first place.
here simply means "to be" or "to exist". This verb choice is completely acceptable and totally natural for the expression because what it literally means is:
> "Let there only be [Noun]!"
which in turn means:
> "The only thing to do is [Noun]!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
Japanese idiom for "don’t get your meat where you get your bread"?
There is an idiomatic expression in Portuguese:
> _Onde se ganha o pão não se come a carne_
Literally, it would translate to _"where one earns their bread one does not eat the meat"_ and it relates to a common sense advice against trying to woo/seduce/conquer someone whom one meets on a very frequent basis (esp. at the workplace). The closest English equivalent seems to be _"don’t get your meat where you get your bread"_.
Is there an equivalent idiom or perhaps _yojijukugo_ in Japanese for this?
|
Unfortunately, there is no such expression in Japanese that I could think of. (Or am I the only native speaker who does not know of one?)
The saying would work only in the languages where the colloquial/slang words for both "flesh" and "income" belong in the same group (as in English where those are both food items).
I also highly doubt that there is a {} for the same or similar meaning. If there were one, a Chinese-speaker here would have posted an answer long ago.
If I were to **_create_** one for fun, however, I could come up with:
{} meaning literally "Office romance prohibited".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "phrase requests, idioms"
}
|
What's the difference between 繁盛 and 隆盛?
According to Jisho they both mean "prosperity; flourishing; thriving", but unfortunately it doesn't give any example for `` and a Google search isn't helpful, I wasn't able to find any discussion about how they differ. I tried Weblio too, but as far as I can understand it I wasn't able to find an entry for ``.
|
{} and {} "feel" quite differently from each other. The former is a household word even 10-year-old kids know how to use, but the latter is a much 'higher' word.
is most often used to refer to the success/prosperity of a business. If a burger joint has plenty of customers, we would say {}. You would sound **_extremely_** weird if you used to say that.
is a fairly formal word generally, if not always, used to refer to the prosperity of a (historical) family, clan, empire, etc. Using the everyday word in that type of context would simply be out of the question.
You would say, for instance, something like {}{} ("The prosperity and downfall of the Roman Empire")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Differences Between 興味深い & 面白い?
has the meaning of fun or interesting, whereas appears to represent a similar state of "interesting".
What are the differences between these two adjectives, and when should be employed?
|
The differences are two-fold.
**_Scope of meanings:_**
(I do not use kanji to write this word.) has two different meanings. " **Funny** " and " **interesting** ". Which one the word is being used for depends totally on the context/situation.
{} only means "interesting", "arousing one's curiosity", etc. **It can never mean "funny"**.
**_Formality:_**
sounds much **less** formal and stiff than .
is not really an everyday kind of word for many native speakers. If you want to use it, you might do so in at least a little bit formal settings. It sounds heavier than "interesting". It is kind of closer to " ** _intriguing_** " in feeling.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
How to use お[構]{かま}いなく？
>
Google gives translation `please, don't fuss over me.`
Can this phrase be used at work? If so, then should it be used as
Does this phrase go from bottom (e.g. to ), or from top to []{}?
|
Here is an article about it.
My own explanation is: It's a relatively rare phrase and it's almost always said in the form `` ("" would be odd). It's used to decline somebody's offer casually, and hence it can be rude if the offer is not something trivial (like making a coffee), especially if you are "below" someone.
For example, this would be rude:
> →
>
> →
while this would be fine:
> →
>
> →
The "triviality standard" does depend on your relative status. For example, `→` might be fine while `→` _could be_ rude (because an offer from somebody "above" is inherently "more valuable").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "japanese to english"
}
|
"One step behind" or "one move too late"
I heard this phrase that sounds like **** , which in the context should mean one is one step behind, or one move too late, or being overtaken by someone else in doing something. But I cannot catch what the last part (after means. I don't actually know for sure if the first two is , but it looks to me the only possible fit. After it might have been instead of , but I cannot search online with just this.
I am fairly sure this is not slang/colloquial, so I doubt it's a modification that does not appear in dictionary. What is the exact phrase, and if I heard wrongly what is the closest to this?
|
> {} **** {}
It seems your listening comprehension is good. You caught every single word at least.
It is just that the is {} meaning "difference".
The word is not used here.
, therefore, means "by the difference of a single move".
> "It is our victory by the difference of a single move."
No part of the sentence is indeed either colloquial or slangy.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
How to parse the following から and is the もとで a noun?
The following sentence appears on a page in my book:
> **** ****
I think the above has the meaning of "after"; but the suspicious possibility of the being a questioning with the suffix of niggles at the back of my mind. So I must ask, is it parsed as or is it a questioning + suffix?
**Secondary Example of -Suffix**
> (Found on Jishio.org)
>
> ****
Jishio.org has various definitions on , however; I decided the following definition of is the most applicable to my sentence based on context ( **** = ...training under Ein...):
> Noun
>
> 1. under (guidance, supervision, rules, the law, etc.)often or
>
Is the reason the dictionary claims / is a noun because the given definition of "under" can be loosely considered a 'place' in the physical direction sense, or is it a cross-language-barrier issue (I.E. considered a noun in one language but not the other)?
|
> **** ****
The is a (particle), meaning "after~" (or "from~" "since~").
(The plural suffix should be attached to a noun or pronoun.)
* * *
> Is the reason the dictionary claims / is a noun
I don't think they claim is a noun. They're saying () is a noun, and that can be used to mean "under~~".
I think you could think of it like this:
++ _lit._ "at + the foot + of~" → "under~"
Compare:
++ _lit._ "at + the front + of~" → "before~"
++ _lit._ "at + the proximity + of~" → "by / beside~"
++ _lit._ "for + the sake + of~" → "for~"
( are nouns.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "usage, parsing, nouns"
}
|
夕立: why 立 if the word means "a sudden evening shower/rain"?
means _(sudden) evening shower (rain)_.
is for evening, but means to stand, doesn't it?
What's the connection between a sudden evening shower and standing?
|
The verb {} has so many meanings/usages, not just "to stand".
Goo lists 16 of them (while Jisho, people's favorite dictionary, only lists 3). 16 vs. 3. Are you kidding, Jisho?
Definition #6 in Goo says:
> {}{}{}{}{}
>
> {}{}{}{}―{}―
>
> {}{}{}{}―{}―
The first line means:
> "(Of a natural phenomenon) to appear in a significant manner."
So, we say as in the examples above:
> The rainbow, haze, wind, sea waves, etc. + +
when those occur.
Thus, literally means "occurrence of the evening (meteorological) phenomenon".
For those of you who did not know, here actually refers to 'late afternoon' rather than 'evening'.
There is Ghibli film named and its title has been discussed here:
Meaning of added to / masu-stem, as in
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Correct translation for application user roles
I'm working on an application which has user roles such as "admin", "customer", "contractor"and would like to add localisation to the app.
On my main menu I have:
Users
Roles
Tenants
and the default `ja-JP` file provides these values:
What would be the corrent title for the `Roles` section here?
Can I just use ``, or should it be something like `{}`?
More broadly, is there some resource with common translations for this type of situation?
|
Can I assume the main users of your app are IT workers? If this is an admin panel for something like RDB, VCS or headleass CMS, **** is the go-to translation (don't elongate ). Using a non-katakana word might even confuse users. For example see this. As an alternative, WordPress seems to use **** (literally "privilege group") as the translation of _Role_. I'm not sure this is a good translation, though. If your app is targeted at unskilled laypeople, may be another possibility.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, loanwords"
}
|
Meaning of いやしません
> ****
> A cat that sits so rigidly ???
I can't figure out what this is.
Since the negative form of seems like a ridiculous proposition in the context I can only assume that it is + , and that is possibly something to do with being disagreeable, but I really can't get it to make sense.
What is this ? Is it common? Any more examples?
|
I think I might know what it means, but I apologize if my explanation is not that good. I believe the verb here is (iru), thus, your sentence would translate like "There's no way that there is a cat (or cats) that sit in such (stiff) manner."
is not written a lot of times with its kanji so maybe that's why it was not so clear at first. In the sentence, there is the verb masu stem ( from +.
This is related to the ~ grammar which you can read about here if you would like.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle は"
}
|
とまで parsing and usage
In no game no life, this is one of the first things that is said about "blank", and it is supposed to translate to:
"Among gamers, they're said to be unbeatable.
(cuts to next scene)
winning is impossible=
get said gamer story=
How does link this together, and how is to grammatically correct here, and how do I parse this type of grammar consistently?
|
This (no. 4) is what is being used here.
In English, this would be translated in most cases as "even". just is quoting what is . Without context, therefore, I would translate your phrase roughly as:
> The story of the gamer(s) () (against whom)
> people **even go so far as** ()
> to say ()
> that winning is impossible ()"
As far as is concerned, without further context, we can only say for sure that it is marking the 'story' as an object for a verb, be it implied or explicit.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle と"
}
|
What is 上がり refering to in this sentence?
I came across the following paragraph in a book.
> {}{}{}{}{} **** {} **{}** **{}**
Is being used as a noun plus noun compound with in reference to a "risen floor", as seen in these online images?
Or is being used as a reference to the author's moving body as him exercising contextually produces a downward () then upward () motion, as further evidenced in the following excerpt taken from heretomurimudamura's answer?
> " means that something is going up in reference to a past position."
|
Here is connected not to but to (). is a set phrase meaning "to be out of breath". and mean the same. Perhaps it's related to the thirteenth definition here. The masu-stem is used to connect two verbs (you know how this works because you asked about it before).
>
> (Someone) repeats the muscle training until she/he's out of breath and grovels on the floor.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, compounds"
}
|
How can this sentence be understood?
I'm reading by Mishima Yukio, and I came across this sentence:
>
I would like to understand how is this sentence made by the particles and and by the use of verbs like and in their terminal form.
The first part () seems right to me, with a relative clause () modifying and then a particle (), wich I believe needs to be at the end of the clause, and so , but why is in its terminal form and not in its past - form if this is a literary text?
The second part () seems more complex to me, with another relative clause (), this time with its verb in its past - form, modifying , but then followed by another verb () and then a particle () and then one last verb (). What is the purpose of and in this sentence? I think they are related to , and even .
Also, I noticed is used in the first part and then in the sencond part. Does it mean this is a contrastive construction?
Thanks.
|
* Regarding this , I initially thought this was a typo, but this seems to be a valid construction taken from an archaic grammar pattern, meaning "Speaking of " or something. See @goldbrick's comment. Usually ("As for ", "As ", "From 's standpoint", "As far as is concerned") is used in modern standard Japanese.
* is "there is only " or "all that is there is ". It's semantically the same as .
* is in the past tense because of this rule.
* is used in the first part of the sentence because of this rule. is used near the end of the sentence simply because has not been introduced in the discourse. There is no contrast in particular in this sentence.
All in all, a literal translation would look like:
>
> Speaking of things that covers his naked body, ...
>
> ((→))
> there was only a white rag loosely wrapped around his waist.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, usage, particles, verbs, syntax"
}
|
What does どおし mean in this song?
In the song Chercher by Kotoko there's the line
>
And in a subtitled video it gets translated to: "Even if you say I'm a worrier, you're anxious with me"
It all makes sense expect that part... Is it supposed to be } ? But if so, how come it's written with a different spelling that my IME doesn't acknowledge?
I tried researching this and the best I found is this < but I don't know. Does anyone know what this is supposed to be and why it gets spelt this way?
|
It is from the verb {}.
> Verb in {} (continuative form) +
means:
> "to continue [verb]-ing to the end"
In , the first is the of the verb . is the of . The -to- change is rendaku.
Thus, has nothing to do with -- none.
is written in kana, not .
My TL of the line:
> "Even if they call me a natural worrier, I just can't stop feeling uneasy!"
Other examples:
= "to keep on drinking till the dawn"
= "to continue to pitch till the 9th inning"
= "to completely finish one's work"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "syntax, hiragana, song lyrics, compound verbs"
}
|
A little help with a sentence and also the meaning of だと
One of the characters says "Is he really not here?". I get the first line, but the second not so much.
>
First of all, this means 'except for here' or 'other than here' or 'aside from'. But, what does mean in this case? I read about it, but not sure if understand it well. (it can have the meanings of 'if' and 'when, right?)
Then, is it "If it's aside from here..."?
Then is the following part
>
"it's going to get pretty distant"...? I don't know just what is supposed to become that, I'm stumped, thus I'm kindly asking for opinions/interpretations. Thank you!
|
can **serve as a noun** as well as an adverb. It can mean "something/someone/somewhere other than ". For example:
* **** It's dangerous except for here.
* **** I want to live somewhere other than Tokyo.
* **** I want anyone but him as the leader.
* **** I defeated everyone except the boss.
Naturally, a noun can be followed by because this is a copula. Also note that / can directly follow a place name in Japanese (e.g., "She is _at_ school."). Thus, the literal translation of is "If s/he is at somewhere other than here".
As for , it's used to casually list a reason. See: grammar question
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Meaning of だとでもいうかの
I found this sentence, in which I'm not quite sure about the `` part:
> **** !{}
I found this reply in which it's said that `` is a set phrase meaning "Are you really saying...?", and `` means "as though"; I'm not really sure if that's the case in the above sentence, though: the first meaning, "Are you really saying", doesn't seem to fit well, while the second is given for `` (without ``), so not sure if that's the case, and while "as if to say" could somehow fit ("As if to say the bycicles where there in place of the taxis"; a bit odd, but I could kinda understand it), `` means "as if", so it would seem redundant.
The `` I guess is a copula, while `` is used to connect to ``, but I don't really understand the rest of that structure.
|
`noun + ` is a literary way to say "like ".
> * to dance like a butterfly
>
`clause + + ` is "as if ". is a question marker that can form an embedded question or work like "whether/if".
> * to talk as if he had actually seen it
> * to move as if it were alive
>
Thus, is "as if saying ''". is the "quote", and here it means "(these bikes) are replacements". is simply a quotation marker used with . here means " or something".
>
> Many bikes are placed as if (someone were) saying something like "These are the replacements (for taxis)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does …て…て mean?
I have the following sentence.
>
I understand the use of ~ in ~, but I'm confused by two consecutive verbs using ~ as in **** **** . Should I understand them just as two separate yet consecutive actions? Or does one complete or modify the meaning of the other?
|
> ****
I'm assuming that is a typo for . (Maybe it's a variant spelling, I don't know).
This is simply 'and'. So **** is nothing more mysterious than "was set and was shining".
You ask about whether one action modifies the other. Many times a clause in -form can adverbially modify the following clause, e.g.
>
Could be "he sat on the wall and ate" or if you treat the first clause as adverbial it would be "sitting on the wall, he ate". But I feel it would be a bit of a stretch to claim this was the case with your example sentence.
The bit that puzzles me is , which I'm assuming means "without equal". So altogether we have:
> That matchless white body was placed in front of a twilight background and was shining.
Weird sentence. What's the context?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, conjugations, て form, compound verbs"
}
|
A little help with the usage of 「……わけだよ」
I came across the following sentence in my dictionary :
>
Because of the absence of context, I imagined one by myself. Suppose I ‘m cooking unskillfully and a friend who sees that says ,“”. Then to make excuses I say, “.”
The above is the context I imagine, but a native speaker said that in this case in which I want to make excuses for myself, is not suitable, and is OK.He didn’t explain more.
I know the nuance between the following two sentences:
A. ****
B. ****
I just want to know why the usage of such as in sentence A couldn’t be used to make excuses for oneself. It’s very anti intuitive to me..
Thanks in advance, and sorry for my poor English..
|
In my opinion, it should be (It's natural that I'm poor at it, isn't it?) , which can barely be interchangeable to , but not .
Neither or are really correct because (No wonder that's that) can only work when you provide information the listener isn't aware of or when you hear the reason you haven't been aware of, and is only synonymous to the latter beside assumption.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, usage, nuances"
}
|
鋭い牙が meaning in human nature
> ****
It was a sentence in a light novel ( **** ) that I've been reading, and I have an impression that it should be some kind of idiomatic words.
> **** (from **Jisho.org** ) : perceptive; keen; quick (mind); astute; shrewd; discerning.
I was wondering what the true meaning of **** ( **sharp fang** ) in human character.
Can it be translated as **sense of perception**?
Sharp also has a meaning of fierce, so I was thinking an option like **fierce personality**.
Thank you in advance for your kind guidance.
|
For reference to other readers, here's the Jisho.org entry for .
I think you're overthinking this.
As seen in the entry, the topmost sense and core meaning of is simply "sharp", not "perceptive". It _can_ be used to mean "perceptive", but that's the same as saying that "someone is **sharp** " in English can mean that they're quick on the uptake, they're smart, they're shrewd.
In the specific case of your sample text, can really only mean "sharp fangs". And, like in English, when we refer to someone having "sharp fangs", we don't (usually) mean that they literally have sharp fangs -- instead, this expression is used figuratively to mean that someone can be vicious.
> ****
> "Even though they look calm, that doesn't change the fact that they've got **sharp fangs**."
> → Even though they look calm, they **can be vicious**.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, idioms"
}
|
Question about ほど in this sentence
I wasn't able to find any explanation of in these constructions...
> ****
In any case I would like to ask whether I am getting the general meaning right. Besides that I would like to ask if there is a certain nuance implied by the **** here
With nuances I mean if it rather means:
a) Even if your struggling to that extent
or
b) With that amount of struggling (rather "neutral")
|
The answer in the linked question basically applies here as well except that what comes before does not have to be a noun for the sentence to mean "No C is as B as A." It can also be the attributive form () of a verb. But you can make your sentence structurally the same as the ones in that answer by nominalizing the verb with :
>
> ****
And they mean the same thing:
> Nothing is as infuriating as being opposed by you.
> There is nothing as infuriating as being opposed by you.
In other words, the speaker is saying that being opposed by the listener is the most infuriating thing in the world.
In English, it might be more common to use a comparison of inequality in this situation:
> Nothing is more infuriating than being opposed by you.
> There is nothing more infuriating than being opposed by you.
(P.S. Unless space is an issue, is usually written in kana when it is used as a formal noun.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, nuances, particles"
}
|
Meaning and origin of 「退がる」
I was reading a manga and a character said:
>
>
After they noticed that the person they were talking to didn't move, they said:
>
>
>
That's why I'm guessing reads and means the same as {}, but I don't understand how it came to be. It's hard to find something about it on the internet.
{} comes up. It seems to have the same meaning as {} in this context, as well as the more modern word {}.
|
### Reading / Spelling
As you noticed, is not a normal collocation of kanji and okurigana.
Referring to my copy of Shogakukan's _Kokugo Dai Jiten_ (online version here), has the following recognized _kun'yomi_ :
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Despite the impressive number of potential readings, none of them end in , nor even .
### Origins
As you guessed from the context, this appears to be author's license in choosing a non-standard spelling for the verb ("to draw back, to leave"). A common synonym for this is indeed . This kind of cross-use, where the author uses a reading from one word and the spelling from another, is very common in manga. Usually, you'll get furigana to help with the reading, but sometimes those will be omitted.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words, etymology"
}
|
Meaning of "煩悩は使えば使うほど増えていく”
What does mean?
My understanding is "The more we give in to our earthly desires, the more they increase."
However, I'm confused by the use of the verb . Does anyone have any thoughts?
Thank you!
|
> {}{}{}
While "earthly desires" seems to be a common translation of , it can also justifiably translated to " **negative/destructive emotions** ".
Then, by using "apply" or "employ" for instead of "to give in to", the phrase in question could easily be translated.
In fact, "to give in to" is **_not_** even what can mean all by itself. Rather, "to give in to" was selected forcibly to go well with "earthly desires", IMHO.
> "As for negative emotions, the more one applies, the more they increase."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Construction behind 「やり」in this sentence
> ****
I am having trouble with the **** in this sentence. I believe that it is a verb and possibly takes the same tense as **** (similar to verbs linked via the "-form" or similar ways)
Long story short, my question is which grammatical construction is behind that sentence.
|
>
Allow me to first insert a couple of commas for easier reading.
> **** {}{}{}{}
This is a 100% informal **spoken** line; therefore, a serious analysis of its grammatical construction may or may not prove very productive. So, I will try to keep it light.
is the {} ("continuative form") of the verb meaning "to do". As you can see, the sentence still continues after the .
, in this sentence, is tense-less as far as its physical form (as there is no for verbs in past tense to begin with), but the action certainly took place in the past. Thus, it means " ** and then** " here, and that in turn means the same thing as .
**Cause** : "I did it", "I am the one who did it."
**Effect** : "You were up against the wall."
**Conclusion** (in speaker's opinion): "It is the same thing as my attack", "I should get the credit as my attack."
Hope this makes sense. If this is from a game, I know nothing about games.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
}
|
Nuances of「すらさえも」?
I came across this construction in the following sentence:
> ****
I've learned that they mean (mostly) the same, but haven't come across them in immediate succession; therefore I'd like to if there are any special nuances to the use of **** and **** in combination?
|
is only a highly emphatic form of:
or
Combining the two does not produce a "new" meaning of its own.
You should, therefore, just think of it as an emphatic way of saying "even" in English.
> "Even the lolicon bastard who (had) kidnapped a kid kept making fun of me, too."
The original sentence is in the passive-voice form while my own TL, in the active voice.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "nuances, particles"
}
|
Question about the use of 察す
I was reading a light novel, and this sentence came up, is here working as quotation with ? and what can the verb in this situation mean?
|
is the te-form of , and it is one of the verbs that take quotative-. The meaning is "to notice/understand/guess (some fact, indirectly via a circumstantial evidence, a facial expression, etc)". The -clause contains what is noticed/understood.
>
> to notice they are chased _(not by actually seeing the chaser but by seeing some indirect evidence)_
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs, particle と"
}
|
Can I omit the second noun in どのかばんが森さんのかばんですか？
I know in the sentence pattern: Noun Noun, you can omit the second noun if the context clearly tells what or whom you’re referring to.
becomes
Can I do the same with to .
|
> becomes
Right. That is because {} can denote both the adjectival "Mori's" and the nominal "Mori's belonging". This is the same when a personal pronoun is used instead of a name. can mean both "my" and "mine".
It is also because it is a bit awkward to use the noun twice in such a short sentence.
> Can I do the same with to .
Yes, you can. is a perfectly-formed sentence.
Another natural-sounding way to say that would be
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle の"
}
|
Does 々 have a kanji grade level?
doesn't seem to be a real kanji, but at what grade is it taught?
I'm trying to work out the maximum grade level for , so I'm wondering how to classify something like with the first three characters having grade levels 5, 3 and 8, but what is the fourth?
|
Since is not a kanji in the first place, there is no rule regarding in which school year it is taught. The official kyoiku kanji list does not mention this symbol at all.
Still, there are many easier two-kanji compounds including , such as and , and is a relatively difficult set of words no matter how easy their kanji are. For example, you cannot assume a first grader knows the meaning of even though and are very easy as kanji. It's hard to imagine someone who can read a does not understand . If you are specifically working on , I think you really don't have to worry about the "grade" of this symbol.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kyouiku kanji"
}
|
Sentence ending でな
> ****
> A lemon sweet. It's a sweet thing that muggles eat. I like this ???
I understand the concept of role language for portraying different kinds of character. The speaker (professor Dumbledore) is an old man so he ends sentences with instead of for example.
I'm assuming that the ending is something like this.
The English translation is "I'm rather fond of them" (actually "it's a muggle sweet I'm rather fond of"). So, I can't see what function is performing.
Maybe it's not role language. Maybe it's just -> implying an unfinished sentence, with the sentence ending particle on the end (a particle I've never got to grips with). I can't see why the translator would do this though.
In either case I can't understand what's going on here.
|
This is indeed the te-form of , followed by , a masculine sentence-final particle.
A sentence-end can have several different roles. Here, it may be a reason marker (i.e., explaining to someone why he has a sweet), in which case the combination of + roughly corresponds to "you know" in English. Or it may be a simple "continuation marker". As this answer suggests, this is a common pattern in Japanese, and this use of / can make the sentence sound simply more natural.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, sentence final particles, role language"
}
|
で in 前回で in this sentence
> ****
about a the 4th game of a series
feels very unintuitive to me, compared to `` for instance
|
This represents a relatively minor usage, which can be translated "at the point/stage", "at the time when", or "when in/at" (often with implicit contrast to some other points).
> **** _unimpressive features **of/in** the previous (game)_
> **** _unimpressive features (existed) **at the point of** the previous (game)_
Of course, in this case, the meaning does not change much as to what is referred, but:
> × **** …
> **** … _Bugs fixed in (the time of) the last release..._
> ≒ …
> …… ... _has occurred again._
>
> **** _the last episode's digest_ (= in the last episode...)
> × ****
> cf. **** _the digest as of the last episode_ (= previously on...)
So the overall translation would be like:
> The down-to-earth fourth title of the series (franchise). What's admirable about them is their quickness in reworking of unimpressive features seen in the previous one.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle で"
}
|
How does this passive sentence work?
I'm confused with this sentence.
>
I would like to understand how it's constructed.
I think is the passive subject of as is its particle, but the problem comes with the first part of the setence.
Verbs suffixed by and then followed by may function as an adverb, but then how does it relate with , which is followed by ?
|
> {}{} {}{} {}{}
You ask:
> **Verbs suffixed by ** and then followed by may function as an adverb, but then how does it relate with , which is is followed ?
is a **noun** here, not a verb. can be preceded by either the of a verb or a noun.
**** adverbially modifies the following verb phrase .
, of course, is a relative clause modifying .
is the subject of the passive-voice verb phrase.
Thus, the sentence structure is:
> (description of head/face positioning + ), (qualifier + ) + + (qualifier + passive-voice verb phrase )
My own TL (which is not the main part of this answer):
> "With his/her head mostly facing upwards, his/her eyes that gazed out at the heavenly glory were widely opened."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs, particle に, adverbs, suffixes, は and が"
}
|
What is the difference between 刹那主義 and 快楽主義?
The dictionary says that means "principle of living only for the moment" and means "hedonism/epicureanism", but I also found entries that say epicureanism for the former. I don't think they are interchangeable, but I can't seem to grasp their nuance very well. I found these words in a character's profile and this how his description starts (,).
Calling the character just hedonistic would be accurate given his personality, but, does it sound alright if I translate as "A hedonist who lives for the pleasure of the moment"?
|
If what you want to say by the word "hedonism" is:
> living and behaving in ways that mean you get as much pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself
then you understand both words correctly. "Epicureanism" as an English word is a popularized metaphor which is often not even true to the philosophy Epicurus himself had advocated, not to mention translation. (The "real" epicureanism as an ancient Greek philosophy is called .)
> _does it sound alright if I translate as "A hedonist who lives for the pleasure of the moment"?_
Yes, you are right about this interpretation of , because, as the dictionary says:
> ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, nuances"
}
|
Figuring out what 「言わないまでも」means in this sentence
> ****
Does this pattern have the same meaning as the one explained here: meaning?
I think it is different from the explanation linkend above. The linked example ‘includes’ statement A and B as true, while here statement A () is ’excluded’ while statement B () is ‘included’ as property/"feature" of (Translated along the lines of "not going as far as to say that something/someone/etc. is X but something/someone/etc. (obviously) is Y ")
Context:
The speaker talks to a female prisoner that was caught in a mysterious incident (invoving around 50 deaths) within the prison. She herself is not the culprit in this but at the same time the only person that survived the incident...
(Preceding sentence: Original "separation" of the sentence": )
|
AB and AB are usually interchangeable, and they mean "B, if not A", "I don't mean A, but B" or "I won't go so far as to say A, but (at least) B". This is an old way of saying "even though", so you can think of it simply as (). Your sentence roughly means "I'm not saying she has killed them, but (at least I would say) she's the only person you can interrogate".
The linked example is the same; read the answer carefully. The sentence means "It's **not** something that can fulfill every wish, but still it's more than valuable for a magician."
* * *
By the way, many J-E and E-J dictionaries list "not to say A" as a valid translation of A, but according to this and online E-E dictionary definitions, it may be a mistake. (Isn't this English idiom counter-intuitive?) For example, means "It is warm, if not hot" rather than "It is warm, or even hot".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
"予備あるしさ" What does this phrase mean? I was reading the manga and I didn't understand
!enter image description here
If you can help me with this translation.
|
I think it means, that she has some extra knitting material. And now she is searching for it in her bag, so that he can try to knit as well. means reserve, spare.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
grammar of 前の誕生日プレゼントにもらった彼女の絵
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
i'm not sure if ... is saying "her drawing that she got as a birthday present (from her father)" or "the drawing she drew that her father got as a birthday present".
Given how the first part of this is extolling her brilliance as a musician it would only be fitting to also suggest her mastery of other arts, but the start of the 3rd sentence makes it hard to absolutely assume that.
Since marks the source of something is received from but is marking in this case, i find it awkward to rearrange this relative clause.
the ambiguity of make it harder to decifer.
if someone is a "", can they be someone only "has a taste for painting"?
thanks
|
can mean "last, latest, previous" (≂) or "recent, sometime ago" (≂/).
means "the drawing that she draw" in this context.
The subject of is the speaker. It literally means "I received as my last/recent birthday present".
The means **"as" or "for" (≂)**. For this usage of , see: to indicate the role you want something to play?
> **** ...
Literally: "Her drawing that I received from her **as** my last birthday present was so wonderful..."
→ "Her drawing she gave me **for** my last birthday was wonderful..."
* * *
The is the continuative form of the copula . Considering the context, the topic of this sentence should be . You could split it into two pieces, like this:
> ****
> → +
_Lit._ "(Speaking of her), the father is a famous painter." + "(She) enjoys painting."
For more on the structure XY~~(eg), these threads might be of help:
* Can / be omitted before conjunctive ?
* Can two clauses joined by masu-stem form have a reason-action relationship?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Do native speakers learn consonant and vowel length easily, or is it difficult?
Just want to ask if this is normal or I am just fighting the wrong way.
`` say this word has the final 2 `` which shall take 2 length of the `i` sound.
I am struggling to keep trying to speak with 2 length letter period. I think this is crucial to the meaning also to grow some sense of awareness about this.
Will this be ever a problem for local Japanese to learn to speak? I mean if with this type of word with 2 consecutive length of same sound, when you teach how to say word without knowing the spell, is it even detectable by the child or student? Is it some issue as well so you need to remind them that this needs to pay attention?
I am not sure if I need to use my head for this because it becomes such distraction as well. So it needs to become a habit for sure or sub-conscience coordination of my brain and my mouth.
Anyways, just wondering how local Japanese teach this kind of word to children.
|
I assume that you are asking whether native speakers can detect, as a child, whether a vowel is long () or short (). The answer is yes, infants can detect it by age 9.5 months according to the paper by Sato, Sogabe, Mazuka, "Discrimination of phonemic vowel length by Japanese infants" American Psychological Association, 2009
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation, phonetics, linguistics, gemination, long vowels"
}
|
Is 人孔 from English?
I was discussing with a friend about the word ``, and I know I read (or was told) that it's taken from the English "manhole", literally juxtaposing the kanji for "man" with that for "hole", since for a while that's what Japanese did, giving a kanji writing to new concept/words instead of just taking them (like with ``); I was unable to find where I read/was told that, though, and searching on Google was unhelpful. I was just able to find that in Chinese the word is different, so it's not a loan from there.
Can someone confirm or deny this etymology? Is `` a native word, or does it derive from English?
Edit: in the comments Leebo stresses that Chinese is listed in the Wikitionary entry for ``, which I misread in my research.
|
This is a linguistic phenomenon called " **calque** " or "loan translation". In Japanese, it is called {}.
A calque is a word that has been borrowed from another language by the method of literally translating the foreign word "component-by-component".
This is, therefore, a completely different method from homophonic translation (aka 'katakanization'), which takes the form of, for instance, "manhole" to .
The more 'famous' calques used in Japanese include:
{} from "Eisenbahn" in German (literally, "iron" + "road")
{} from "footnote" in English
{} from "keyboard" in English
Whether {} was calqued directly from English into Japanese or it came via Chinese, it would be safe to label the word as a calque.
By the way, is not a common word **_at all_** in Japanese. It sounds terribly technical. Wonder why you were discussing it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords"
}
|
強がる usage and meaning
~ is used to describe third person's feeling but today I found this word "" I don't know why is used with first person like .
Is it because the speaker speaks in other point of view ?
|
If there is a reason, you can safely use for a first-person subject, because the basic meaning of is "to show signs/indications of ". See:
* Another example where I don't know if or is right
* Can and be used for a 1st/2nd/3rd person's desire?
* When to use instead of
Here is basically a lexicalized verb and thus has a negative overtone, but this still means "to show signs", and there is no reason you cannot use it with a first-person subject.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, suffixes"
}
|
appropriate sarcastic "almost died"
Would "()" be an appropriate translation for "looks like you almost died (there)"?
Imagine you throw your scarf around your neck and almost hit a person. Except a scarf hardly hurts and actually it was so far away it could have never hit the person. Yet the person looks at you as if you almost killed her/him.
|
Among the most common and natural-sounding phrases for that type of situations would be:
>
>
>
>
>
I would personally recommend the second one above.
"()" would not work because it expresses hearsay meaning:
"I hear (someone) was already dead (then)."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "colloquial language"
}
|
Is the yasumi in oyasuminasai the same as yasumi (day off / break)?
I have known oyasuminasai (good night) for around a year now.
Today I learned the word yasumi (break / day off).
It instantly rang a bell and then oyasuminasai sprung to mind.
Is there a connection here?
It would make sense as oyasuminasai is kind of like saying ''take a rest now for the night'' or ''take a break for the night''.
|
You are essentially correct. The phrase if you are choosing to write with the charactersis a conjugation of the verb (rest, take a day off, lie down etc.), from which the noun is also derived. So, the link is a direct one.
To be specific, is a (one of various!) polite imperative form of the verb . The and also the more polite suffixes** mean something along the lines of 'you should do that' or 'please do do that'. Putting that all together, means something like '(please do) have a rest!', as you guessed. You probably won't use yourself, but you might hear it as a customer, for instance when a clerk hands your keys to you, as you return to a hotel at night.
** These suffixes are derived from the verb , which is the honorific form of ... I've not gone into detail as to how you actually form these conjugations, as you will doubtless study keigo (respectful speech) in depth in due course, but if you are interested, Coto Academy has a good, fairly clear introduction.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, etymology, nouns"
}
|
Can 決めてない mean "crazy"?
Context: after the commander of a platoon () says some apparently incomprehensible things, one of the soldiers whispers to another:
> {}
What is the meaning of / here? Considering the context, I guess it could mean "crazy" or "lunatic". Is it correct?
|
> {}
If I were to trust your guess from the actual context, I think I know exactly what the phrase would mean. The verb I am thinking of is more often written rather than , but that is not a rule, so here I go.
has a slang meaning of " _ **to take drugs**_ ". Thus, the sentence would mean:
> "Isn't he on some kind of drug?"
has a few important meanings that have nothing to do with " **deciding** ". Read definition #11 from which says:
> 11 **{}{}{}**
meaning:
"To drink and/or eat. To dine. Or to consume illegal drugs."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, verbs"
}
|
Te form for consecutive verbs
I came across with this term "". It was translated as "Started to use". My question is why the first verb is not in TE form, ie. ?
Thanks a lot.
|
>
Two points to note here:
1) The construction for "start to verb" is
> masu-stem of verb +
e.g. etc. This is what is happening in your example. is the masu-stem of . Which brings me to point two.
2) The translation of should be "start/started to be used" rather than "start/started to use". is the passive form of .
Finally, if you'd inserted you would have a different grammar point. ... means something like "it was not until ...". So would mean "it was not until it had been used that ..."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
}
|
Is there any difference between 旅行者 and 旅人?
Is there any difference between the words and ? Which one is more frequently used?
|
The difference is rather huge.
{} sounds neutral/bland, businesslike and matter-of-fact with virtually no nuance. It is like " **tourist** " in English, or somewhere between "tourist" and "traveler".
{} sounds poetic and a bit profound. It is more like a " **pensive type of traveler** " or " **wayfarer** " than a "tourist" or "average traveler".
For that reason, is used more often as it is just easier to use than , which is full of nuances. The latter, of course, is the original Japanese word.
Furthermore, {} ("life") is often likened to {} and virtually never to {} for what I have discussed above. You would sound like a comedian (or a funny travel agent) if you likened to .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 25,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, word usage, wago and kango"
}
|
Confusion on imperative forms?
I have heard of all of the following conjugations as being imperative forms in Japanese by various texts.
> →
>
> →
>
> →
Are these all part of the same category of imperative forms? If so, are these irregular conjugations and/or are they distinct from the -style imperative?
|
They are irregular conjugations. Copying from Wikipedia:
> 5 ****
There is a sound shift to using for both the (masu-form) as well for the imperative form. As Wikipedia mentions, using the "correct" form sounds very old fashioned.
Here's another question about this:
* Proper form of - or
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjugations, imperatives"
}
|
Multiple verbs in one sentence using ことがある
I'm studying for an upcoming exam, and in our study guide for the essay section there is a prompt to write about "I have the experience of ....ing, .....ing, and so forth." We're supposed to use , but I'm unsure how to list multiple verbs using this form. We're also learning and as well. (This is for Lesson 11 from Genki I)
The "...ing" makes me think it is something like {}{}{}{}{}
Is this close at all?
|
As your textbook probably explains, you have to use the ta-form, not the nominalizer-. A ta-form can directly modify as a relative clause. If you want to list two verbs, you can 1) use /, or 2) use two or more 's and join them with .
> *
> *
> *
>
Note that the verb must be in the ta-form. would mean "I sometimes/occasionally swim".
If you're trying to make a formal sentence (like in a job interview), a more direct and preferred translation of "I have experience of " is (). Then you can also use any noun-based expression (incl. suru-verb) as well as the ta-form of a verb.
> * JavaScriptPython
> * JavaScript
> * JavaScript
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning and use of またと
> ****
> There's no one as different from us as the people here.
This is how I would translate the sentence without . Am I correct that this sentence works without ?
I'm assuming that means "in addition/besides", but I'm struggling to understand how it fits into the sentence grammatically, and what extra nuance it adds.
|
The usual form is:
> [Object/Situation/Event] + + **** \+ [Verb in **Negative** Form]
The here functions to (emphatically) deny the likelihood of the [Object/Situation/Event] occurring again.
It is synonymous to {}, etc.
Therefore, the basic meaning of the sentence will pretty much stay the same even if you dropped the , but it is often used to make it sound emphatic.
> I'm assuming that means "in addition/besides"
Not quite. As I explained, it means (used in conjunction with a negative verb) something along the lines of " **(basically) never again** ".
> {}{}{}{}
therefore means:
> "You shall never see/find a couple (or "people") as completely different from us as the married couple here."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Why are these adverbs being used?
I was reading this section of an n2 book
**** ****
And a few doubts came to me:
1)Why is **** being used here?
2)Why is being used ?
3)What is the meaning of this passage **** ****
Can someone help me?
|
1. is an adverb/no-adjective that modifies some valuable chance which one failed to take advantage of. For details, please read any introductory article about it, like this. Here a snowfall is the "chance" being missed. The sentence still makes sense without , but it adds the feeling of disappointment.
2. It's part of the construction.
3. Roughly, "unfortunately, snows often end up being blown away before they start to pile up." Note that and are two irrelevant grammar points.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, words"
}
|
What does 「選挙を追った」 mean here?
>
>
> ****
Source: <
An enclave town with a quiet election campaign without any cars running had a voter turnout of a whopping 89.41% following the somewhat strange election.
I haven't seen used like this before. Can I translate the part as "following".
|
{} here means " ** _to observe and analyze_** " or just " ** _to investigate_** ". The verb is frequently used for that meaning in news coverage, documentaries, etc.
To use a stiff expression, here means "to inquire into the truth of the matter".
IMHO, "to follow" would be too weak a translation for the context.
Weblio gives "to observe" as one of the definitions.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, verbs, word usage"
}
|
Why 「と」 in 「行為と受け取り」? (And 「洞察」)
Same short story, another sentence I kinda get (maybe), but I'm missing something:
> **** ****
If I understand it, it means something on the lines of "Although he interpreted their action as extremely rude, Thomas Iguchi didn't mind and went straight inside the store to where the register were". In this sentences I have two problems:
1) What's the meaning of ``? I know it as "discernment, insight", but I can't understand what does it mean in the sentences; I tried looking on Jisho and Weblio, to no avail, in my translation I just ignored it.
2) Why ``, with ``? I would expect ``, so I'm missing something. I tried looking here in SE for question about this but I could find any. (I did find this, but I don't think is relevant.)
|
1. I have never seen used like this, but judging from the context, this seems mean something like "(penetrating) gazing". Normally, does not refer to the physical act of observation itself.
2. is one of these "AB"-verbs. AB means "to interpret/take A as B", but A has been omitted in your sentence. In other words, A means "to take it as A". On the other hand, A just means "to receive/take A" (e.g., "to receive money").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, words, particle と"
}
|
How to write a bulleted list in Japanese
What's the correct way to show a bulleted list of items in the Japanese language? Considering the fact that interpuncts are often used to separate and identify foreign words, I'm not sure of the correct way to do this. I want the English translation to be shown alongside the Japanese. Do the Japanese use a symbol other than a bullet point?
**English**
Science Museum (London)
Science Museum (Miami)
Science Museum (Minnesota)
**Japanese**
() - Science Museum (London)
() - Science Museum (Miami)
() - Belleville (Minnesota)
|
You may ignore the following paragraph. I wrote it because many users seem to be interested in the historical aspects of the language.
Most traditionally, the common way to make a bullet list was to use the kanji number one, which is , on top of each item of the list. It is not , etc. but all 's. For this usage, is read and not . I said "on top of each item" because vertical writing is our original way of writing things.
For horizontal writing, we currently have more choices for forming bullet lists.
* Use the same bullets as in English
* Use Arabic numerals with periods -- 1. XXX 2. yyy
* Use asterisks -- xxx yyy
* Use katakana with periods -- . xxx . yyy
* Use Roman alphabet letters in parentheses -- (a) xxx (b) yyy
The safer choices would be the first three IMHO.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, english to japanese"
}
|
「和む」is a common word?
[]{}is a word that you can hear in everyday conversation? Or just in poems or songs?
|
can be safely used in conversations just like other simple wago. You may say while you are at an animal cafe or enjoying a ("slice-of-life") manga/anime, for example. Some people are too busy to use it in "everyday" conversations, but that's another story.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, verbs"
}
|
エラーにする vs. エラーをする
In XXX case, the app gives an error.
1.
2.
|
("to do an error"?) is ungrammatical regardless of the context. can mean "to make/call/consider it an error", but it does not make sense in this context.
Instead, this "gives an error" can be translated like this:
* **** (or )
* **** (or )
* **** (or )
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Parsing and meaning of まいとしているふう
I'm trying to understand the part in:
> ****
As far as I can understand:
* : Although he should quickly have done as told
* : the clerk for some reason grimaced and stubbornly
* : "To comply", and I'm not sure what the rest means.
I think means "doesn't intend to" (second meaning); maybe is part of the various meaning of , but I can put my finger on which one. Here l'électeur said all of the different meanings of share a meaning of "making a decision of some sort", so maybe shows that the clerk decided to not comply with the request?
As for , is it the same as in , meanning "manner"?
If I'm on the right track, the sentences would mean something like "he didn't intend to comply"; still I'm not sure about the interaction between and ("he decided to not intend"? Kinda awkward and wrong-sounding), and about how fits, I basically ignored it.
As per , I guess it's > copula + explanatory.
|
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ****
The simpler part first.
in kanji = "behavior", "manner", "style", "appearance", etc.
Next, .
> Verb +
expresses ' **negative volitional** ' meaning:
> "to not intend to [Verb]", "to try not to [Verb]", etc.
is a subsidiary verb expressing a negative intention or supposition.
Thus, the phrase:
>
means:
> "it appears as though (the clerk) would not intend to accept (the other guy's request)"
It seems you are over-analyzing the . It is simply the present progressive form of the expression .
Your understanding of the looks good.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
difference between 呼ぶ and 言う:
What would you say is the difference between:
>
And
>
I saw there are some similar questions about this topic, but I think none answers this especific matter. Thanks
|
> 1) {} **** {}
>
> 2) **** {}
In **meaning** , the difference between the two is minimal.
In **grammar** , however, the difference is somewhat bigger because is an intransitive verb in 1) and , a transitive verb in 2), which is why the two verbs take different particles -- and respectively.
1) means "to say to/tell you that you are a fool"
2) means "to call you a fool"
Hope this helps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
"に"の連続使用は避けるべきでしょうか？
A {
B {
C {
D
}
}
}
ABCDABCD
|
> ABBCCD
* (Japan { Kinki { Kyoto-pref { Kyoto-city }}
* DNA (cells { mitochondria { DNA }})
* 12
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Question about 「並の上」
I am not really sure if I understood the following sentence correctly:
> ****
The pattern in bold is what makes me struggle here. I found this explanation of the last part of the sentences < in which **** was described as being used for expression amounts that are not very high. Judging from that I believe that the amount of power is not exceptionally large here. However, the **** would be indecipherable to me without the meaning of ****. When checking the dictionary entries I felt like picking exactly what I had to in order to "make the pattern fix the situation".
The problem is matter not very complicated but I feel like I am missing something about the pattern.
|
> {}{}{}
{} means "average", "regular", etc. Look at the image in this question where the word is used to indicate the regular-size beef bowl.
, therefore, means " **above average** ". The connotation often associated with this phrase is " **not great** ", but without further context, I could not tell if that is the case with the sentence in question.
Seeing in conjunction with , however, I would tend to think that the speaker is not too impressed by the attack power.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Difference between 店{みせ} and 店{てん}舗{ぽ}
What is the difference between {} and {}{}? Both mean shop?
|
In short, there is no real difference in meaning between the words. Both mean 'shop' or 'store'.
As for the tone of the words, you could argue that is more commonly used in spoken Japanese and that is slightly more formal sounding, making it more likely to be seen in written Japanese.
Conceptually, there is also an argument that refers more to the 'store' as an abstract idea and that refers to the 'store' as the physical building. But I doubt it makes any difference in practice, even if true.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, wago and kango"
}
|
Difference between 帰りました and 帰っていきました?
To be more specific, why can I say,
> {}{}
and not,
>
Thanks in advance!
|
If this were part of a conversation between two employees working in the same office/place, then it would be extremely weird to say:
> {}{}
unless Kimura commuted from the moon or someplace unusually far away.
describes the **_long_** process of (gradually) going away from a place back to one's home or original location. The verb phrase even has a somewhat poetic or dramatic feel to it. It almost feels as if you might not see that person again very soon.
That is why you would sound strange to say to someone who simply wants to know if Kimura is still around. is way too nuanced for that purpose.
If, however, Kimura were not a regular employee and came to the office only once a month from a distant region, then you might utter that sentence.
Otherwise, the far more natural-sounding sentence choice would be:
>
because carries absolutely no connotations and therefore, it is perfect for an everyday conversation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
A question about 依り代
I was reading a few articles about and there's one thing I'm wondering about. Most of what I read say that 'yorishiro' are objects or sometimes people that attract kami. The following is just my assumption because I did not find something that would specify, but, I wondered if the objects or 'vessels' (this is how I would translate in a particular context) need to have certain qualities/certain aspects in order for the kami to posses it?
I'm asking this because it might help me with something I came across for which I have formed a theory.
Thank you!
|
Today, is broadly used in any context related to spirit possession, and it can be anything or anyone. It's also commonly used outside the contexts of Japanese _shinto_. It can be a piece of paper, a sword, a tree, a rock, a doll, an animal or a human being. I think it's perfectly fine to use to describe some ritual item used by a Voodoo priestess, for example.
According to sources, the word was invented in the early 20th century by an ethnologist Shinobu Orikuchi to explain a certain aspect of religious belief of Japanese people. It's not a traditional _shinto_ term, and by its nature, the word will not determine what a concrete must look like.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "culture"
}
|
best phrase choice for a derogatory reference to the "young generation"?
which is the natural way to refer to the "young generation" (ex: now its the "millennial generation") in a derogatory way:
****
// don't say the
Maybe say something like:
|
To be honest, none of the five words/phrases you listed sound derogatory. {}{} might to a very small extent, but the rest sounds just normal.
The real question, to me at least, is: "Should you really use a derogatory term to refer to a group of millions of people?" Not sure what the answer would be in your language and/or culture, but in Japanese culture, I can guarantee that that would be considered highly abnormal. It is not like using a derogatory term to refer to a group of several that you personally know.
I would stick with myself. If, however, you still want to know some derogatory terms for future reference, then we have:
* {}
* {}
*
*
* {}{}
Somebody stop me!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Meaning of "仕掛ける機会"
I was reading something and I came across this sentence:
> ****
My problem is that I don’t understand what **** means in this context. I know that **** is something like chance or opportunity, but the verb doesn't make sense to me. Sorry if I can't ask this here.
|
means ''challenge'' or ''set traps'', but it's hard to tell which is correct from only this sentence. It's depends on what ''(=it)''in sentence is talking about.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, verbs"
}
|
Is it appropriate to say おじゃまします when entering one's own room?
Let's say my friend is in my room and I am out in the kitchen.
At some time I decide to enter my room.
Is it appropriate to say when I am entering my own room?
|
It is not appropriate to use the phrase in that situation. {} means " **to bother** ", " **to disturb** ", etc., which one would not be doing when entering one's own room.
A more suitable situation to say it would be like this. Suppose there are your good friend and his/her gf/bf in your room when you are somewhere else. **_As a joke_** , you might say upon entering the room.
Outside of comedy, you will basically never say in your own home, even including when entering your parents' or sibling's room.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
Applying the same adjective to multiple nouns
Let's take an example where a woman have a red _bag_ , red _shoes_ and red _glasses_ (multiple items (nouns) described by the same adjective : _red_ ). To describe her, if I write :
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}
I feel like it's not clear that the woman wears different items but all of the same color ( _red_ ). This sentence can imply that she has a red bag, but black shoes and blue glasses. To clarify that all of the items listed are red, I think it is grammatically correct to write :
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
But I feel like the {} adjective is redundant here.
I can probably reformulate my sentence and write :
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
But I'm wondering if, without reformulation, I can apply an adjective ( _red_ ) to a list of multiple nouns without any ambiguity. Kind like mathematically :
> {} * ({} + {} + {})
|
As long as you are inserting the **adjective ** in front of only the first noun or each of the three nouns, you will not be forming an unambiguous, natural-sounding and adult-speaker-like sentence. At least I could not think of such a sentence.
Instead, what most adult native speakers would do in this case would be to use the **noun ** and form sentences such as:
* **** **** or **** {} or
* **** or **** {}{} **** or or **** {}
I did not use because it can suggest that all or part of the items are in the closet at the moment and the woman is not wearing any or all of them.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "adjectives"
}
|
What does 付き合わされる身になって mean?
I've come across two lines in some dialogue that used as follows:
1.
2.
So far, I've only been able to find that is used to ask someone to put themselves in the speaker's shoes. I'm unsure on the part, but would it be wrong to guess that the two lines above meaning the following?
1. Put yourself in my shoes, having been forced to play along with this prank.
2. I'd like you to put yourself in my shoes to see how I've been forced to play along.
|
> {}{}{}{}
>
>
This is a surprisingly tough one if literal translation is what one is after because even though is a set phrase, is a noun and therefore, one can grammatically insert the relative clause to modify it in Japanese. This sentence structure works with no problems in that language.
In English, however, how do you modify the noun "shoes" in the expression "to put yourself in someone's shoes" by using a relative clause without creating any grammatical clumsiness? Perhaps English-speakers would know how, but I do not.
All I can say for sure is that from your TL attempts, you clearly seem to know what these sentences mean. As long as you know that is in the **causative passive-voice** form ("to be forced to play along"), actual translations can come in different forms.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
How is 懐く read in this case?
I came across this word in a manga page, on the top right speech bubble. I'm not sure whether this Kanji should be read as or . Moreover, neither of the readings make too much sense to me, should I interpret this phrase as "Aren't you getting too attached?" or something along these lines, since it's (apparently) in the passive form?
![manga page](
|
It is .
> {}
means:
> "You are not liked much by (someone), are you?"
here means "to take to (someone)".
is in the passive-voice form.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, readings, reading comprehension"
}
|
Another meaning of 回{かい}転{てん} in phrase 回{かい}転{てん}寿{ず}司{し}チェーン
means rotation. How to understand this phrase: ?
|
are those sushi restaurant with the conveyor belt, while can mean a store chain, so it seems to mean a chain of conveyor belt sushi restaurant; does it make sense, given the context?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
}
|
I-adjective in く form modifies a noun/adverb
In the song **** by WANIMA, the chorus goes:
`` is in `` form, which means it's modifiying a verb. However, `` is nowhere near a verb, but might be an adverb (which if it is, isn't modifying any verb)
I thought there might be a verb `` but I tried looking it up and there's none.
Is this just a common grammar rule break in songs? Or am I missing something here?
Thanks!
|
This is like an adverb, but I think it is modifying not a single word but an entire clause, like an English disjunct) (also known as sentence adverbs). This is emphasizing as a whole. A similar example is:
>
> =
> He is definitely the culprit.
Note that the ku-form of an adjective can also modify another adjective, e.g., ("terribly stinky").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, parsing, song lyrics, reading comprehension, i adjectives"
}
|
ファーストネーム vs. 名/名前 for first name?
I'm in the middle of doing a translation project for a website that has UI elements for filling out forms. The pre-programmed UI has , but I would think or would make more sense. Which variant sounds more natural in this case?
|
In web forms, you can use single-kanji **** ("last/family name") and ** ** ("first/given name"). We normally say and () ("(given) name", literally "bottom name") in most situations, but these are too colloquial in web forms.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Why is kiru represented as kiri in おじいさん が 山 へ 木 を きり に いけば
I can't fathom why the verb kiru is in the masu form without the masu attached in this sentence:
> {} {}
What is the purpose?
|
You may make sense of this grammar pattern if you know the masu-stem of a verb can act as a noun. As you probably know, is a particle that usually takes a **noun** representing a destination, a goal, a resulting status, etc. It roughly corresponds to the English prepositions _to_ , _for_ or _into_.
So you can use with simple nouns and suru-verbs:
* to go for shopping
* to come to take a job interview
Likewise, when you use with a verb representing a purpose, a form that has a noun-like quality is expected, and this is where the masu-stem comes into play:
*
*
That being said, I think this `masu-stem + motion verb` construction should be learned by rote. So-called "masu-stem" has various usages, and it may not be always possible to explain it logically. After all, "masu-stem" (or ) was named after its most important function, but its usage is not limited to what the name suggests. See this for details.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "renyōkei, verbs of motion"
}
|
行く 帰る 来る + time expression - how it works
Phrases like 5[]{}[]{} or 3[]{}[]{} or 8[]{}[]{} are the very basics one can find in a beginner's book. And despite that, I have yet to see an explanation what exactly they mean. Let's say, that going home takes 1 hour and someone says: 5[]{}[]{} Does that mean he arrives home at 5 (and departs at 4)? Or maybe he departs at 5 (and arrives at 6)? Or maybe you can say both just by swapping particle for something else?
Does it work the same way with other movement verbs?
|
For and , they operate pretty much like their English counterparts.
'John is coming here at 5:00 (.' 5:00 indicates his arrival time.
'John is going at 5:00.' 5:00 indicates his departure time.
With , however, it could indicate the time at which John left or the time he arrived home.
**_Situation A (said by a work colleague):_** 'Hey John, what time did you leave (to go home) yesterday?'.
**_Situation B (said by a roommate/parent,etc.):_** 'Ah, it's you John. When'd _you_ get home?'.
So, there is a bit of a necessity to read the context behind the question or statement when it comes to . If you want to be more specific you can always use clarifying words like and (or and ) to specify the departure/arrival time(s).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage, time"
}
|
How to translate “ghosting” (the dating/social term)
I’m summarising a film for class and there’s a pivotal scene in which someone gets “ghosted” by their lover, but I’m not sure how this concept translates in Japanese. I could use a workaround (“she stopped contacting him”), but I’m curious to know if a slang term exists for this in Japanese and what it is? Thanks!
|
If you really want to sound slangy, you might want to use the slang verb to say:
= "A was ghosted by B." or "B ghosted A.".
Whether you could successfully use this expression would depend on how fluent you already and actually are in Japanese slang. You definitely should not throw in a phrase like this into the rather formal-sounding context which many Japanese-learners would tend to write.
In case your Japanese is nowhere near naturally slangy, a far safer choice would be to use a "normal" verb phrase such as {}{}{}. Another safer choice might be to use the less slangy expression {}.
comes from ("to play innocent"), which is a 100% originally Japanese verb.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, slang, english to japanese"
}
|
How to say "hard working person" in japanese
I am preparing Japanese resume and i want to mention my skills in Is “” a correct word to say that i am hard working???
|
Yes is a common na-adjective that means "hardworking", and you can consider using it in the / section (or something with a similar name).
However, it usually does not count as your because refers to some uncommon/special ability. Writing just or in the section might look as if you were a boring hobbyless person. In your case, probably you can list at least as your . You can list your other abilities/hobbies such as , , , or whatever that may interest the interviewer. (Well, if you can add some interesting episode that can prove your outstanding hardworking-ness, or might count as your ...)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
Use of です after plain form verb conjugation
> ****
> No sir. The house was almost completely destroyed but I took him out safely before the muggles started to crowd around.
I'm assuming that is simply colloquial for , but I'm puzzled by the part. It was always my understanding that you could not add onto a verb to make it polite. I would have expected to see .
What is implied by this use of ? Is it someone realising that they used the wrong verb ending to add politeness and then compensating by adding ? Is it a regional variation? Something else?
If it helps, the character speaking is Hagrid from Harry Potter. He uses pretty colloquial speech in the original book.
|
In the standard grammar, `verb + ` is clearly wrong. It should have been either or .
However, in fiction, you can see broken, peculiar or dialectal Japanese spoken by various types of character. This sentence is indeed a little broken, and that's where we can notice this person is trying to be polite but not very good at speaking in a sophisticated manner.
This type of misused is also characteristic of stereotypical gaijin speech, and it's also common as a for fictional girls (see this).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the meaning of "迷い" in the phrase 夜の街迷いし穢れの乱歩
This phrase is from a song the translation of
""
would be: Lost in a city at night, I take a random impure walk.
The question is: "" in the dictionary means hesitation, perplexity, which does not look like its meaning in the sentence. So I was wondering where did "" come from? comes from the verb "" if yes how did it become ""? and yet how does it bind directly to no particles? I know they give a lot of questions, can anyone explain me? my language is portuguese so sorry for any grammar mistake.
|
is an archaic variation of . It's still common in fiction, especially fantasy. See these questions:
* Grammar of (verb)(noun) such as in
* [In "[V stem] + + [noun]" what does mean?](
* What does the kana do in this phrase?
As for itself, I personally feel its meaning is closer to "to wander about" rather than "to be lost" here, because it's clearly moving (). See .
Note that is a relative clause that modifies , so it's the ("impurity/corruption") itself that is wandering about. It's "steps of wandering impurity" rather than "I take an impure walk".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, song lyrics, classical japanese, auxiliary き"
}
|
Would a native say 心底から申し上げる? What's a better way to say "speaking with genuine sincerity...."
I've always thought / said that "" means "I am saying this with highest level of sincerity (bottom of my heart)"
"" _I very sorry for what I have done._
Google search says "" is used only 650 times, which suggests and is very rare and not a natural pairing of words.
So, if I want to express that apologies, respect, love, condolences are coming from my "inner most thoughts", "bottom of my heart", "not superficial", is there a word to substitute for ""? Is it so context based on each emotion, it is on a case by case basis and there's no simple answer?
And, what impressions does "" give?
|
>
This is at least grammatical, but sounds like something awkward like "I put it honestly, and (then) I apologize" or "I apologize by saying it from the bottom of my heart".
The common expression is simply . / is probably not wrong, but it's much less common than /.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Usage of むこう to describe sunrise
> **** ...
> The sun rose on the same tidy gardens and ...
If I were to translate this word-for-word I would get "the sun climbed from the opposite side of the same tidy gardens".
Maybe I'm thinking about this too literally but the picture in my head is that maybe I'm stood on the west side of the garden and the sun is rising on the opposite side (east). But if I now watch the sunrise from the south side of the garden, the sun is no longer opposite me, so it seems that is inappropriate.
Is X a standard way to talk about the sun rising over X? Perhaps my understanding of is too narrow. Is there a better way to think about it than just 'opposite'? I'm aware of it's usage as 'over there', but that seems to fit even less well in this context.
|
Your understanding is basically correct, but perhaps can more loosely be interpreted as “across” or “beyond” as opposed to necessarily “opposite”. That is to say, as long as the garden is between you and the sun to some extent, is understandable. If the sun is positioned entirely behind you when you are facing the garden then it’s unusable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
準備は丸一日した is there a particle missing?
I was wondering for this line:
>
Let's say A says this line to B. Does it sound alright id I say:
"You prepared the whole day, didn't you?." (so, why are you nervous?). If I rearrange the sentence as is it the same meaning?
Is an adverb here? Kinda feel that maybe the particle was left out, is it the case? (the character A who speaks has a colloquial way of talking, with many informal, shortened phrases, so I'm thinking that leaving out some words is appropriate for him).
|
is not an adverb (it clearly includes which is a verb), but is adverbial. Nothing is omitted after because it works as an adverb on its own. Remember that `number + counter` works as an adverb that describes an amount in Japanese:
* 2
* 1
The same goes for a time length:
* 3
* 15
* 10
is in the same vein. (//φ) means the same thing. is used to describe _when_ something happens (e.g., 1998 = _in_ 1998; = _on_ Sunday), but it never marks a time length.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
What tense of a verb should be used in the subordinate clause?
In the following example, what tense of the verb should be used: past or non-past? If both are possible will the meaning change?
Children will eat anything their mother brings home.
|
> {}{} **{}{}** {} **{}**
>
> **** ****
In both sentences, the main verb is and the tense of the main verb is the tense of the sentence.
That means whether you use or as a relative clause to modify the , it has no effect at all on the tense of the sentence itself, which is present. In other words, it is not of much importance because it does not change the meaning of the sentence.
It is nothing like the choice between and , which will change the meaning of the sentence in a major way.
I just could not find a difference worth mentioning between and . You would probably hear slightly more often from us native speakers. If anything, using would make the sentence sound just a wee bit more informal or colloquial, but again, the difference is minimal and people would not even notice it most of the time.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, tense, relative clauses, relative tense"
}
|
What does the word 「ものかねえ」mean?
The word comes from the below sentence which is said by a frightened boxer who was going to box with his very strong opponent.
> ****!
|
> {}{}{} ****
The pattern:
> [Noun] + + + //, etc.
is an informal expression meaning:
> "I wonder if there really is no [Noun]"
The noun phrase here is , meaning "way to lose easily without getting punched somehow".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, manga"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.