INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Is "不特定多数" slang for "date more than 1 person at the same time"?
Is "" a slang term that means to date more than 1 person at the same time? For example, Tanaka-san would date person A on Monday, person B on Wednesday, then person C on Friday and Saturday. ""
This phrase was used (by me at least) a long time ago, and my memory is poor. It _seemed_ to get my intended meaning across... but I don't remember native speakers saying it, yet its a very weird thing to say. I've no idea how I might have "learned" the phrase.
|
is a stiff set phrase typically used in legal or other business-related contexts. I don't think it has a slangy usage like you mentioned, and () doesn't make sense to me. The most common way to say "dating more than one person" is (or , , ...).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "slang"
}
|
Help parsing a sentence with two を
Context: in the Dead Tube manga, a villain is talking about how she turned people into zombies by giving them a hallucinogenic drug and explains that they are "contagious".
> **** **** …
Could you help me parse the first sentence? I understand that the first part () is a relative clause meaning "Those (zombies) in which the drug is extremely concentrated". What confuses me is that second . What is the verb for this object? It has to be , right? But it doesn't make much sense. Also, if refers to zombies, why is there another reference to them () after the second
Here you can see the original page. Thank you for your help!
|
> {}{}{} **** {}{}{} ****
The origin of your confusion is both grammar and vocabulary.
This sentence says:
> "I applied a ton of to the ."
As stated by @user3856370 in the comment, the refers to the highly concentrated **_version_** of this drug. It does not refer to the zombies at all.
modifies . Therefore, two 's are needed. In a word, is the object of this sentence, so it takes the second . (The first is used in the relative clause.)
The verb is ("applied").
The unmentioned subject of the sentence is the speaker (as usual). So, we have:
> object location verb.
In other words, this is a very normal sentence as far as grammar.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle を, relative clauses, subjects, object"
}
|
Wordplay - which is quite difficult for me because of the homophones, where is the joke?
I've recently been reading a novel in which there happens to be some pretty crazy wordplays, which I can't really grasp the meaning of. Maybe one of you has a clue or can give me a suggestion on how to understand these, or where the joke lies from a Japanese perspective...appreciate your help! And merry Christmas to y'all, soon ;)
This is the sentence:
>
>
>
>
The character always makes comparisons about life, just like Forrest Gump kinda, and in here she says its like the mating behavior of a peacock, cos it has beautiful feathers I guess and the most beautiful male peacock might get chosen from the female? Is that the connection here? Cause what does imply, like there is a certain "elegance" and "feathers" , which also sounds like "" - sorry, maybe some of you can better understand that! Would help me a lot! Thanks!
|
> {}{}
>
> {}
>
>
>
> {}{}{}{}
This, to me, looks like a cross between puns and , the latter of which is explained in this Q&A.
I also had to watch this video about the mating behavior of a male peacock to really appreciate the ("class and elegance") and ("feathers") parts of the wordplay in question.
Some things might get lost in translation, but the following is what I personally take this wordplay to mean.
> "But life is like the mating behavior of a peacock, you know?"
>
> "What do you mean by that?"
>
> "I mean you need **_hints_** in life." ← {} **[]{and}**
>
> "Ah, {} []{and} {}, I see! You're clever as ever!", s/he complimented me.
The two distinguished features in peacock mating...
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words"
}
|
How to use「足がすくんだ」
I want to say "The building was very high, so I froze with fear". Would I be right to say:
>
|
> {}{}{} **{}**
is a perfectly natural-sounding sentence (with excellent particle choices). Your use of is just very appropriate here.
Colloquially, young people might go with or instead of in that situation.
I myself would try to sound funny (and probably fail) by saying **** or **** by using **** instead of the correct verb **** . That means "My feet are swollen."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "expressions, phrases"
}
|
interpreting 描き下ろしに描き下ろし
> P)
a tweet by an artist, how would you read this, or is it a typo?
|
It's a little puzzling, but I would read it as "" AND "(70)1". The former refers to some new content related to his existing (e.g., a small sequel), and the latter refers to a completely new dojinshi with 70 pages.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
"applause": What's the difference between 「喝采」 and 「拍手」?
My dictionary translates both {} and {} as "applause". Are they interchangeable or do they have different nuances?
|
There are a couple of differences between the two.
means "clapping hands" and really nothing else.
means "cheering" mainly but clapping can occasionally be naturally included in the action of cheering.
That is why we often combine the two words to say ("big applause") to describe a crowd going crazy.
Another thing I feel like I should mention is that while sounds fairly plain and matter-of-fact, sounds more dramatic.
There is a very famous song entitled and it simply _never_ could have been entitled .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Grammar of なんで+verb in potential form+ようか
> ------
> Dudley's birthday -- how could he have forgotten? (original English version)
The nuance of the English version is that he did forget the birthday, but based on some previous experience (in this case, unpleasantness) it seems unlikely that he would have forgotten and he feels foolish for forgetting.
I'm struggling with the Japanese meaning, In particular, why the volitional form? My literal translation would be "How would he be able to forget?", suggesting that he wants to forget but cannot (I'm assuming this is potential rather than passive. That's not clear to me either).
In summary, what is the actual nuance behind the Japanese sentence and how does that arise from the grammar?
|
> {}——— **{}**
The grammar pattern used here is:
> // + Verb in **Potential-Imperfective** Form +
This is a {} ("rhetorical question"); therefore, actually means:
> "One would never forget." or in Japanese, {}
rather than the literal translation:
> "How would he be able to forget?" (to borrow your TL)
Thus, this is a statement disguised as a question.
> why the volitional form?
What Japanese-learners call the "volitional form" is called {} in Japanese and basically expresses two things -- **volition and conjecture**. In the phrase in question, the is used to express **conjecture** , which is represented by the part of my TL above.
Hope this helps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does ゲヒゲヒ mean?
I saw it in the context of and would like to know what kind of laugh it is. Some quick Googling seems to indicate it might be like laughing uncontrollably maybe but I can't find any sources.
|
Though is not such a common onomatopoeia, it would describe a loud and coarse kind of laugh mostly (but not always) produced by men of the same kind.
We already have and for laughing sounds which are far more common and this fact enables one to guess what would mean even if one had never heard/seen it (just as @Chocolate's comment above would suggest).
would definitely **not** be a quiet, well-mannered, refined or classy kind of laugh. These 'gentler' qualities are rarely, if ever, expressed by onomatopoeias containing a , , , or .
IMHO, this topic is somewhat related to this Q&A in terms of how certain sounds feel to the native speakers.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "onomatopoeia"
}
|
Dog Adoption Vocab
One of the joys of taking my dog for a walk here in Japan is the wealth of opportunities for small talk with my fellow dog walkers. However, I find I'm lacking on puppy vocabulary....
My boy is very skittish around new people and I have been using this as my explanation for why he doesn't want pets. It's it sensical?
Also,seeing how most dogs in Japan are from pet shops, how would I explain that he is a rescue dog? I've seen used online to reference a person who adopts a dog, but how do I reference the dog?
Thanks!
|
> ... My boy is very skittish around new people and I have been using this as my explanation for why he doesn't want pets.
makes sense to me, but I'd say more like:
> [[]{}]( (;)
* * *
>
Do you mean your dog is not accustomed to Japanese people?
* * *
> Also, seeing how most dogs in Japan are from pet shops, how would I explain that he is a rescue dog? I've seen used online to reference a person who adopts a dog, but how do I reference the dog?
I think "rescue(d) dog" is called []{}. (If it's not understood I think you could add that it was a []{}[]{}, "abandoned dog".) So how about...
> or [[]{}[]{}]( or [[]{}[]{}](
> or
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Is 「short past + ろう」 like 「だろう」?
I found this form I'm not sure about:
> ****
The character is speaking about an old woman who, after taking a taxi, killed herself; the recipient of this sentence is that taxi's driver.
Does this have the same meaning (or similiar) as ? To be sure I I checked if `past + ` () is a thing, and according to this page it is; I found this question about a similar form, but I don't think is the same, since to me my example seems clearly a `past + ` structure, while that case isn't.
(I didn't read accurately all the japanese citation in that answer, since I was having trouble understanding them; sorry if the answer is already in there.)
Edit: I just found this question, it does seem to be the same case.
|
>
/ is an informal/colloquial sentence-ender expressing conjecture. It is used mostly by male speakers (and it does in fact sound quite masculine).
The phrase **** **** **** is already quite colloquial and masculine, so / fits right in.
/ can be replaced by or for the basic meaning, but it will surely raise the formality level so I would not call those 'interchangeable' exactly.
In my personal experience, if that counts, I hear this / more often in Tokyo than in Nagoya -- the two cities I have so far lived my life in.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, contractions"
}
|
What are simple "No" responses?
I've learned from textbooks and online sites like Duolingo that "no" is , but I've rarely heard native speakers say that. I learned today as sort of an "I don't know" response. I saw a subtitled film that translated "no" as . Are there more simple responses like these that can represent "no," and if so, can you include how common or polite they are?
|
You're absolutely right about not being used as "no" in most cases. I can't recall the last time I heard a native speaker actually use it. Here are some of the most common ways I've heard the meaning of "no" being expressed:
> ## ** - "to differ".**
>
>> Speaker 1:
>>
>> Speaker 2: ****
>
> ## ****
>
>> Speaker 1:
>>
>> Speaker 2: ****
>
> ## **Verb**
>
>> Speaker 1:
>>
>> Speaker 2: ****
>
> ## **** \- "it's bad/wrong"
>
>> Speaker 1:
>>
>> Speaker 2: ****
>
> ## ****
>
> This is a bit nuanced, so I'll refer you to this great description: The usage of in response to questions
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, expressions, colloquial language, formality"
}
|
Question about 「得為らざる」
I came across this sentence:
> **** ...
I am pretty sure that this is some kind of 'archaic' speech here and found following explanations for understanding this sentence:
<
(For further 'reference constructions'
<
<
I believe that the constructions above means something like 'unable to do...' but I am still kind of uncertain about it; therefore my questions are:
What does **** mean and what word is referred to by **** in the linked explanation? Is **** a construction on its own or the 'combination' of two different ones?
![enter image description here](
|
The meaning here is probably , which means "As if it is an untouchable thing".
My honest guess is that the author squeezed in in order to make the sentence sound more archaic and impressive (rather than having some different meaning in mind). here is equivalent to so adding is equivalent to writing which is redundant. A more natural way of writing this is .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, grammar"
}
|
Criteria for reading 物{もつ} or 物{ぶつ}
One of the pronunciation I struggle most is : more ofthen than not, I misread it in words like and . I know what they mean, but it's likely I misread them by reading instead of and the other way around.
I tried to find some criteria to understand how they are read, but in Google and my grammars I wasn't able to, so I was wondering if there is any criteria at all?
|
Unfortunately, there is no easy rule here, and the same is true for many other kanji. _tends_ to appear in the names of basic things that have been around for hundreds of years. tends to appear in technical terms related to physics, chemistry, etc (, , , , ). Anyway, the number of common words where is read is small, and it's possible for you to learn them all (, , , , , , , ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "kanji, pronunciation"
}
|
What is the right pronunciation of 「何にみえますか」
What is the right pronunciation of ? Is pronounced or ? Why?
|
>
>
> "What does it look like (to you)?"
is pronounced **** formally and **** informally. That is the only difference.
So, the two are equally 'correct' and neither one is 'better' than the other.
Both mean the exact same thing as well -- "what".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, questions"
}
|
Can "響く" have the meaning of "to come (home); to remain (with someone)"?
I looked up {} on jisho.org, where I found the meaning "to come (home); to remain (with someone)" under definition 3. I was curious and checked a few monolingual online dictionaries, but none of them seemed to have an entry with the same or a similar meaning.
Is the meaning under definition 3 on jisho.org not really used or not literal enough for monolingual dictionaries? Or did I just overlook it when searching through them?
|
A very tricky question, but it is a good one mainly because it made me think.
{} **_can_** indeed mean "to come home" and "to remain with someone". Only five minutes ago, however, I was going to say the completely opposite thing. Here is why:
In this case, "to come home" should mean " **to become very clear in an unpleasant way** " and not "to come back to one's residence". does have that meaning.
Likewise, can also mean " **(of kind words, etc.) to remain (or to be effective) with a person** ". [Person] means exactly that.
Jisho is like that, but people love it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
Meaning and translation of カット割り and difference with 絵コンテ
In video production what is the exact meaning of ****? I found these two definitions:
> (from here)
>
> (from here)
So basically, it consists of a set of instructions regarding things like cuts, camera angles, linking of scenes that is prepared before shooting/recording. My questions are:
* How is it done in practice? With drawings or in textual form?
* Assuming that the answer to the previous question is in textual form, what differentiates from ? Just the fact that is done through drawings and is done in text form? Or there is also a difference in the type of instructions? I am not sure about this, because searching for in Google Images I see many drawings that look like .
* How would you translate it into English?
Thank you for your help!
|
is a relatively specific term that refers to storyboards like this. They always have pictures, as the kanji suggests. It's also a job name, and you can see the word ("storyboarding") in the staff roll of an anime. is critically important in the production of animes and CG movies, but many Japanese live-action films or dramas do not have systematic because retaking is usually easy and camera angles and such can be changed at the discretion of the director at the day of the shooting.
From this page:
>
is a relatively loose term that includes the concept of , but simply drawing lines and comments in a text-based qualifies as . You can see an example of text-based in this page.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, nuances, katakana, jargon"
}
|
Meaning clarification about「扱う」and 「禁じ手」 in this sentence
The parts marked in bold are what I am unsure about in this sentence...
**** **** ...
The dictionary entries of **** usually are limited to 'unallowed moves' or fouls in sports; however judging from this sentence I believe it can mean something like 'taboo' as well. Furthermore I was struggling with understanding **** but I think it means something like 'starting to sell/handle/etc.' here.
In short my questions are whether my understanding of above-mentioned is correct or not.
|
You have basically answered your own questions, so I will be brief.
"Taboo" is an excellent translation for {}{}.
The in this word originally means "a move or technique" used in sumo, shogi, go, etc. , therefore, originally refers to a prohibited technique or move in those sports and games.
The in {} is . When is used as a subsidiary verb, it is often written in kana and it means "to start ~~ing".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
The meaning of 住んでる星が違う
The sentence is "". This looks to me an idiomatic expression, but I cannot find this in dictionary.
Another interpretation I was thinking about is that the teacher in the above sentence "lives in another star/solar system", which is to say that it's just a completely different person (in character). It fits, but not sure if it is accurate; for one, living in another planet feels more accurate, and if so should be short for
|
> {}{}{}{}
While is certainly an exaggerated and/or metaphorical expression, I would not necessarily call it an idiomatic expression because it means what it literally means, which is " **to live on another planet** " as you said.
can mean "a planet" as well all by itself.
> "Mr./Ms. Morohoshi lives on another planet to begin with."
A super-literal TL would be:
"As for Mr./Ms. Morohoshi, the planet s/he originally lives on is different."
This is a good example of how literal translation rarely works well between the two languages. What I am trying to say is that if you translated the very natural-sounding English phrase "to live on another planet" directly into Japanese, you would **_not_** arrive at , which is a completely natural-sounding Japanese phrase.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "colloquial language"
}
|
Usage of 全部束 and かなう
> **** ...
> Harry was made to get a haircut so often that _even if you made the boys in his class into a complete bundle it would not rival it_
The meaning is clear (I think): "Harry was made to get a hair cut more often than the rest of his classmates put together", but there's no way I could have made this sentence myself.
There are two parts that are confusing me:
1. I can't find in the dictionary (bilingual or monolingual). It doesn't have that many hits on Google either. Is this a common word/compound? Some other examples would help, please.
2. I'm not comfortable with the use of the verb . "To rival" implies some sort of competition. I feel I had to stretch the meaning a bit to get the English translation. Again, I think some similar examples of this usage may help me to feel happier about this verb.
|
1. here works as an adverb. It's functioning the same way as in...
> ****
> ****
[]{} means "put ~~ together". This is like "a group/bunch (of people)". cf:
> ****
> The childrenattacked me **in a group** [ganged up on me].
> ()
2. I think ([]{}) here means "match" "equal" or "compare" ([]{}).
> I am no match for him.
> No one can match him. / He has no equal/rival.
* * *
> ...
> I'm not comfortable with the use of the verb . "To rival" implies some sort of competition.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, parsing"
}
|
Differences between ひ弱い and か弱い
How did the prefixes and come about and what are the differences in meaning between and ?
Are either of the prefixes pejorative like how is in the examples in dainichi's answer to 'Where does the in come from?' ?
They both seem to emphasise or strengthen the meaning of but how are they different in extent or nuance? **What are the situations where you would use one but not the other?**
(On the grammatical side of things, I noticed , , but not . But I'm not sure if appearing to be forbidden has any significance.)
Also, I came across a . **Are the prefixes productive?** (Can I also form a ? Or prefix or to other adjectives? It would appear not since doesn't have a dictionary entry )
|
is usually straightforwardly negative and derogatory. The word sometimes has the implication of "sickly".
often refers to a type of weakness that stirs someone's sympathetic feeling or protective instinct. is not necessarily negative, and you can even find articles that says , in which case the nuance is more or less close to that of or (please use google image search). Other beings might include an infant, a Chihuahua, the little match girl, Cinderella, etc.
Grammatically, is normally used as a na-adjective, and is always used as an i-adjective. may not be wrong, but is much more natural and common. is plain wrong.
Dictionaries say and are indeed prefixes, but these are fairly rare and it's impossible for me to generalize their usage. They are not productive, and I cannot think of other adjectives that contain the same prefixes.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, etymology, prefixes"
}
|
Imperative form + という方
> ...
> When he thought that he could get away without seeing any cat photos, sympathy was impossible.
In my translation I've condensed all of into just one word: sympathy. I'm struggling with how to unpack this. One problem is that I don't know whether is or . I can think of two ways this might go:
1. {} - a person saying that you should be sympathetic would have been unreasonable.
2. {} - the side of him that said he should be sympathetic was impossible/unreasonable.
I think option 2. makes more sense but I'm not certain.
|
> {}{}{}{}{} **** {}
First, the is read .
Reading it would not be a possibility here as [Person] is an unnatural-sounding phrase to begin with.
> [Verb Phrase in Imperative Form] + {} + [Phrase with **Negative** Content]
This pattern should be remembered almost as a set phrase as it is used quite often.
It expresses one's idea/opinion that one of the two possible options/ways of doing something is more strange/unusual/unreasonable/unrecommendable, etc.
The two options here are: 1) telling one to be sympathetic and 2) telling one not to be sympathetic.
Finally, the common 'negative' phrases that are often placed right after the include {}, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
how to pronounce name in japanese
Would appreciate some help here. The picture shows a nametag that's meant to spell Reina in hiragana, but does the last character look off? Specifically the top right bar.
Additionally, do Japanese speakers pronounce this name as "Ray-na" or "Ray-ee-na?"
Many thanks in advance.
![enter image description here](
|
Regarding the nametag, it does clearly say -- it's probably just the joins between the elements that are making it 'look off' to you? Perhaps seen from afar it would be clearer, as those small joins would appear less prominent?
As for pronunciation, Forvo is a good place to check for native pronunciation recordings. This individual says "Reina Miura" (apparently the name of a professional mixed martial artist). <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, hiragana"
}
|
Meaning of がい in だろうがい
What exactly does "" mean in the phrase ""?
To give some context, here's part of the video I heard it from: <
This was said by a comedian, so maybe it's an exaggerated and uncommon way of speaking.
Or maybe it's just "tough guy speech."
|
is an accusatory sentence-ender used primarily by male speakers. The is a particle.
, though not too common, is an emphatic and tougher-sounding version of that .
Likewise, for emphasis, for questioning becomes and for affirmation or declaration becomes .
Though and are far more common than , I do not think is dialectal. (The speaker in the video grew up in Kanagawa, which is right next to Tokyo.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
}
|
An analogous expression to "gem"
I'm trying to find an expression akin to a "gem" in English (as defined by the OALD here):
> This picture is the gem (= the best) of the collection.
While {} is the literal translation of the word, I wonder if there is a word that resembles something that is special in the Japanese Language.
While not the same as "masterpiece", by searching this term I have come across words such as {} and {} (this one fitting the object I'm trying to define, since it's music), but I am not sure to what extent they relate to the meaning I'm trying to get from the word nor how common they actually are in the language.
|
There are a few words I can recommend.
> {} + + [Noun]
If you are referring to a photo, for instance, then {} would be an excellent phrase choice (provided that the rest of your writing is as natural-sounding and refined).
> [Noun] + + {}
↑ This one is pretty versatile, too.
> {} or {} +
↑ Even more versatile, but lacks the elegance of the first phrase above.
{} is certainly a possibility, but you should know that it is most often used to describe food items these days.
{}, as you stated, can only refer to a song or piece of music. You can say {} to refer to a masterpiece of an album or the artist him/herself.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word requests, nouns"
}
|
How do I connect these three seemingly irrelevant clauses of lyrics?
I am studying the lyrics of by . I am quite confused by the first three lines in this part:
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
From my understanding:
The first line says "I stopped making pinky promises with the future ". The second line says "Even if I try to run away from the pain..." The third line says "Look, the cold wind is stroking your hair".
I feel like I've misunderstood something, because:
* usually the clause after says something about the clause before it, but here the two clauses seem unrelated. Is the just filler, and that the two lines are totally separate?
* The second and third lines has this "" structure, but I can't seem to fit the meaning into it either. Maybe the "cold wind" is the "pain" that "I" am trying to run away from? That's kind of a stretch though...
|
I agree with you on your take about . We all expect a cause/reason why they stopped doing that, yet that is not given. It's unsettling.
is a little more comfrotable because presumably it means one cannot escape the pain because the cold wind blows your hair. It's still somewhat nonsensical but I think it's at an acceptable level as a lyrics.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, song lyrics"
}
|
Meaning of 舌の根の乾かぬうち
I think I got it, but I would like to confirm just to check if it is correct or if I am missing some subtlety that happens when I translate. What is the meaning of {}?
From both the context and some search online, it seems to be something along the lines "I just said it" or "did I not just say it before this". The next sentence after this phrase was{}, which translates to "Didn't I just say that I never lie" and seems to flow just fine (?).
|
> {}{}{}{}
>
> From both the context and some search online, it seems to be something along the lines "I just said it" or "did I not just say it before this".
Kind of related but not quite (unless you could provide enough context that makes you think that way.)
It is an idiomatic expression used to accuse a person of (unexpectedly) making a contradictory/contrasting/highly different comment _**immediately**_ after making an original comment. It is often used in the sentence pattern:
[Person] A / B
The closest English expression I could think of would be:
> "(to say two things) _**in the same breath**_ ".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
Is there a difference between 新年の抱負 and 年頭の誓い?
I looked up on jisho.org a translation for 'new year's resolution' and it gave me two entries: `{}{}{}{}` and `{}{}{}`. The only difference given on the site is that the latter one is an expression in addition to being a noun, and a quick lookup also shows that appears far more often in search results. Is popularity the only difference between these two terms?
|
The difference in meaning is _not_ very subtle. In real life, the two expressions would rarely be interchangeable, either.
{}{} is more common because it sounds lighter and it is easier to use than {}{}.
means "ambition", "aspiration", "plan", "hope", etc. In short, it just refers to what you plan to do.
sounds fairly serious and heavy because means "oath", "vow", "pledge", etc.
Therefore, people are far more used to asking others about their than asking them to publicly make . The latter could scare many people away. It would me anyway.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
}
|
The meaning of 四五町ほど(隔たる)
While reading Ryūnosuke Akutagawa's "In a Grove," I came across the sentence; I understand to be a place and everything else is understandable for me other than . While doing further research, I learned that when read as was a unit of measurement comparable to a mile. This leaves the question of the preceding it. What number is this referring to? There is no in the text to make it 45, nor is there a comma separating them which would lead me to think it's meaning to be "four or five (measurements)." While this tiny bit is not crucial to understanding the text as a whole, I would like to have a better understanding of the author's intended meaning. I appreciate any response. Thank you in advance.
|
{} 4 to 5 {}
According to ,
1 approx. 109 meters
Thus, would be around 400-500 meters. That is how far the place in question is located from the main street .
is a unit of distance used often to describe "walking distances".
> I learned that when read as was a unit of measurement comparable to a mile.
Not sure where you found that. 4-5 miles seems way too long. That is like 15-16 times as long as .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, counters"
}
|
How would one translate "蝋燭はけっこう上のほうにある" into English?
How would one translate this sentence into English?
> {}
I generally know what each of the words mean individually, however I don't know if any of them change in this context. I'm reading a light novel and the character has found him/herself in a cave with some lit candles around and is a bit confused.
I think that it literally translates to "The candles are quite upright" which of course makes little sense so my guess is that
[1] I am misreading "" as "ue", though I can't imagine why it would be read as "jou" or "nobo"
[2] If I am reading it correctly, then the upright-ness of the candles refers to their luminescence somehow.
|
While there are several words matching ``, the most common and probable one is . It has several meanings, but the one used here is most likely "quite", especially because it matches the verb .
is indeed and with () basically means "upward direction", however here it indicates the location of the candles relative to the observer and not their orientation.
The full sentence probably means something like:
> The candles were [placed] pretty high up.
For "straight/upright", a more likely word would be something like () or ().
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
Meaning of あれで + noun+ だったらな
> ****.....(ellipsis as written)
> The gorilla scratching its head looked just like Dudley. ????
I don't know what means or what the grammar is. Guesses are "If only it were blond...", "Except it wasn't blond..." etc.
Obviously is "if it were blond", but I have no idea what is doing or what is doing. The dictionary says means "despite appearances" but that makes no sense to me.
|
is equivalent to , whose literal translation is "(That thing) exists in that way (and/but)".
Thus it can be used as
>
which can be shortened to:
>
and then further to:
>
What exactly is shortened needs to be guessed, so I can't be 100% sure what is implied, but one interpretation here is that the way the gorilla exists (appears) already resembles Dudley, and if it had blond hair on top of that it would resemble him even more. Another valid example interpretation would be `` (which, however, seems less likely given the context!).
The "despite appearance" usage can be explained as follows.
Something like this:
>
can be shortened to:
>
and this further to:
>
which implies, despite this person looking confident, they are actually anxious (again, what exactly is implied by the last sentence needs to be guessed).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of verb + つもりも + potential verb + 程
In a letter by a mangaka at the end of a manga, I encountered the following sentence:
> ****
Is verb + + potential verb + a fixed expression or do I have to interpret it literally?
Here you can see the original page. Thank you for your help!
|
You don't seem to be parsing it correctly, I'm afraid...
I think you could probably parse it as something like...
> **** **** **** ...
And you could split it to:
→ ****
\+ **** **** ...
XXYY(or XXYY) = "neither XX nor YY"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, verbs, expressions, potential form, grammar"
}
|
use 一触即発 to refer to someone's personality? someone who "easily gets upset"?
I think "" can be used to refer to the personality of a person and means **"quick to anger or get emotionally upset"**. _If it cannot, please just say "no it cannot" and no reason to read further._
This is how I think it can be used:
**talking directly to the person** :
( _You have such a personality that is quick to anger. Um, anyway, please make allowances for my incompetence. I have no excuse._ )
**talking with someone about a third person who is not present (Tanaka-san)** :
( _Do you think that Tanaka-san is quick to anger?_ )
1. Does it make sense to even refer to a personality as ? Does it sound funny, make a native speaker laugh? Or, a personality cannot be defined that way?
2. Should it be "" or ""?
3. Either way, it is very informal / humorous way among friends to describe someone who easily gets upset?
4. instead of ?
|
I think it is a bit awkward to use for describing one's personality which is _short-temper, getting upset easily, etc._ since the expression is normally used to describe that **something dangerous/unwanted** will be triggered on the spot when an action taken.
I guess the word more suitable is: instaneous water boiler or : easily losing temper for what you imagine.
If you want to use , the sentence came up to me is : _Since are bellicose, we are always getting into a powder keg._
However, it seems the phraseis not so odd to me. Probably it could be used between your friends for making fun of them because of their humorous behaviour. So, it depends.
I thinkwould be better thansince is basically used to describe one’s personality affirmatively.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "set phrases"
}
|
Help with the "ない" in "たまには自分を解放してあげないとね"
>
My Japanese is pretty poor and I have trouble with dividing sentences into parts.
So I've seen a translation for the above sentence that goes like "you should let yourself relax once in a while" and my question is: since it has a in it, shouldn't it be a negative sentence? As in "you should _not_ let yourself relax".
Or am I looking at this sentence the wrong way? If that's the case, what is the correct way to do it?
|
> ****
You are correct that makes this negative, but the translation you have seen is still a reasonable one. The key to understanding how, is the that comes afterwards.
This is a conditional, but the rest of the sentence is unspoken. You have to fill in the implication for yourself. " **If** you **don't** let yourself relax once in a while ...".
Examples conclusions would be "you'll get overly stressed", "you'll become unbearable", etc. Basically, whatever you want that fits the context. In Japanese, leaving sentences hanging like this is really common, but you can imagine that even in English you wouldn't necessarily finish this sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How to write "Redhead Woman"?
1) Does this mean "redhead woman"? I read that is quite formal and use more like "female". So is it possible to use it in this context or should I use another word for "woman"?
2) How to write dedication: "For my beloved redheaded woman" (not wife, just woman)
Thanks a lot!!!!
|
First of all, by far the most common and versatile phrase for dedication would be:
> [Person] {}
That was easy, but how to say the [Person] part is not easy and I almost regret that I started writing my answer.
{}{} would not be used by a native speaker. That I know without thinking as a native speaker. It simply sounds too impersonal; It sounds as if you do not know that woman personally (or even dislike her).
In a culture where 99.9% of the people have black hair, we are totally unaccustomed to speaking about hair colors in phrases of dedication. If you must for some reason mention the hair color, you could perhaps say:
or
[Actual Name + ]
Those two would be equally 'good'.
Using a word for "woman" would not sound very Japanese here. Of course, the big question is: _Does this phrase need to please native Japanese speakers?_
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, english to japanese"
}
|
Difference between やめろい and やめろ
What exactly is the difference between and ?
Is this the same as the one used to strenghten assertions and statements like the used in the sentence-final , , and ? Can it be used with every other verb in its imperative form?
Lastly, is this common at all? I assume it's a little less common than since it probably sounds quite rude.
|
Yes, this is the same as as in or . From :
> ###
>
>
>
> ①
>
> **② **
>
>
In modern Japanese, Definition ② (non-questioning sentence-end , such as or ) is not common at all. If I understand it correctly, it's an old-fashioned, unsophisticated and shitamachi-like way of speaking, and you'll see it used mainly in manga/dramas set up in the early/middle Showa period (e.g., , ). In fantasy works, you may hear it used by male speakers living in rural areas speaking in a curt manner, e.g., a dwarf blacksmith.
I believe it works with the imperative form of almost any verb (, , , , , , ...), but is an exception. It sounds like you are urging someone.
at the end of a _question_ , such as or , is also rare in reality, but it's common among modern adult speakers in fiction. See: In what situation can I use ~ (for interrogative question)?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, usage, particles"
}
|
ありがとう pronounced with heibangata pitch pattern?
I've always heard a lot of Japanese people pronounce as {LHHHH}, but I've never actually seen anyone talk about it on the Internet.
People always say should be pronounced {LHLLLL} in standard speech, which obviously I hear a lot, but I also hear a lot of speakers of Standard Japanese pronounce it as an unaccented word, so I definitely think it's not dialectal. (I even hear {LHHLL} a lot of the time).
Is it pronounced unaccented because it's a shortening of the phrase {LHHHHHHHHLL}?
As far as I'm concerned, the phrase can be pronounced two ways: with the downstep on , or with a downstep on and then on ({LHLLLLHHHL}).
|
I think it depends on the situation. For example, if you are a young woman, and your boyfriend just gave you a ring, you'll probably say something similar to {LHHHH} rather than {LHLLL} because it doesn't quite fit with the expected enthusiasm and femininity.
"Neutral" pitch is indeed {LHLLL} IMO in . In Kansai it is {LLLHL}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation, pitch accent"
}
|
Elliptical usage of を
I came across the following elliptical sentence:
>
How does the particle work in this case? Is it the end of a clause modifying ? Are both, it and the clause preceding arguments (direct and lative) of an implied verb?
|
> {}{}{}{}{}
That is not a sentence. It is a perfectly-formed phrase for a title, headline or motto, but without a verb at the end, I would not call it a sentence.
So, what is the verb that is left unsaid? It would be the one that logically fits below (in English):
> "to (verb) our beautiful national characteristics into/onto tomorrow's Japan"
Hope you are following me so far.
It would have to be a verb that means "to carry on", "to continue", etc., wouldn't it?
In this case, however, we already know the answer from the website of the group saying . The answer is here.
<
It says in the passage following the above headline:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} **{}{}**
Thus, the verb is {} ("to keep passing down").
Whenever a word or phrase is left unsaid (which happens frequently in Japanese), that word or phrase would always be a logical one -- one that the readers/listeners could easily infer from the context or situation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle を, ellipsis"
}
|
Why is this 頼んでたら and not 頼んだら in this sentence?
I've come across this construction before and never not anything of it but after coming across a sentence in a light novel I am reading, , I started to wonder why this conditional seemed to not be constructed in the usual plain past tense + form, but rather the te form + . Can anyone explain to me why this is? Perhaps a stylistic effect?
Here is the sentence.
``
I don't believe the context to really be of importance here, but I will provide some background. The speaker is saying that if he were the one to ask the girl to play tennis instead of the actual person who asked the girl to play tennis, perhaps she would have rejected the request.
|
Firstly, not sure if it was just a typo in your question title but the form of would be **** rather than **** .
As to the main point of your question, is just a contraction of **** i.e. the form of . The / contraction to / is one I'm sure you're normally familiar with.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conditionals"
}
|
How do you say "recognized authority" as in "recognized authority in a field of study"?
I've been searching for the specific way to say "recognized authority" as in "recognized authority in a field of study". I intend to use it as a label, like "John (recognized authority)".
I've been able to find in jisho, but it seems to mean more "reputation" than "recognized authority" in the sentences I've found.
Anything with the same meaning will also be appreciated.
|
The most common phrase would be {} if one is among the best in the field.
There is {}, but it is not nearly as common as the above. In case one is just relatively well-known without being among the most, it would be a more appropriate phrase than the first one above.
Though does not directly contain "recognized", but it is more than implied because if you are not recognized, you will not be .
Much less common and/or less natural-sounding phrases would include:
{}{}, {}, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Meaning of つかみどころがない on a person
I have seen the literal translation of the phrase , somewhere along the lines of being either slippery, vague or elusive. I encountered this phrase
> **** …
I cannot seem to extend the translation into this sentence. The context suggests that it means the person is kind of hard to talk to (awkward silence), but maybe that's irrelevant for this sentence.
**UPDATE** : I wrote "literal" translation, but really it's not literal and it's simply the definition given by dictionaries. Apologies for the confusion.
|
> have seen the literal translation of the phrase , somewhere along the lines of being either slippery, vague or elusive.
I do not see how those can be called the "literal" translations.
comes from the phrase {}. means to "grab", "catch", "grasp", "take hold of", etc.
, therefore, literally means "there is no part to grasp".
**When that is said about a person, it means that you have no idea what s/he really has in mind and/or there is a mystery about him/her** , which is why the dictionaries would give the definitions of "vague", "slippery", "elusive", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, phrases"
}
|
Which is most critical? 警報 or 注意報?
A disaster warning app asks me whether I want notifications for or for or both.
First I signed up for both, but it sends me notifications about inconsequential things such as air dryness. So I would like to receive notifications only for the most dangerous stuff like powerful typhoons.
Which is most critical? or ?
Both translate to "warning" in my dictionary.
|
In the weather warning context, is more critical than . Currently the Met Agency defines three alert levels: , , and , for each translated by them _Emergency Warning_ , _Warning_ , and _Advisory_. They are usually painted with purple, red, and yellow colors on a map.
Also see: Forecast Services (the JMA site)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
}
|
そ and も meaning in その中でも
I need some help in understanding the meaning of and in . I understand that by itself carries the meaning of among but I could not figure out the contribution of the two other hiraganas the phrase. Additionally, why do means among? Anyone know the etymology of the word.
|
I think you're parsing it wrong: is a single word, so means something like "Also inside/among that" (with meaning "also, too").
As for , also means "among", so X means "Inside X", "Among X" (like X means "To the right of X").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
じゃor じゃあ for meaning "well then"
Both of these translate to "well then", for example, both would be valid:
>
_Well then, bye!_
>
_Well then, the bread, please._
They are both more casual than for example:
>
_Well then, goodbye._
But which is more commonly used? Are there any nuances between them?
|
`` is an incorrect form (it's written `` instead).
In terms of nuance, `` or `` are very colloquial (whereas `` is not).
`` is a bit more "light" IMO. As in, it can just be a filler. For example, `` just means "Right, bye!".
`` means it has real semantic meaning - for example, `` means "In that case, bye!". For example it can express annoyance (``), or emphasize you are doing something _because of_ something (` (otherwise I wouldn't have)`).
They are really close in meaning though (e.g. it'd be the same meaning if you said `` or ``).
is more formal (e.g. ``, ``), and it would be odd to use it in a colloquial way (for example, it's slightly odd to say ``). In terms of meaning it's closer to `` (as opposed to ``).
All three have very similar meanings though.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, word usage"
}
|
Can I use the potential form with the ～たい ending?
For example, consider the two following options:
*
*
Is the first construction valid? If so, how is it different from the second (in terms of meaning, formality, etc.)?
|
Both sentences are ungrammatical. The correct forms are:
> * ****
> * **** ****
>
You cannot directly combine the the potential-form and the tai-form. You cannot combine the dictionary-form and , either. The workaround for both cases is . The usage is explained in many other pages including this.
Also note that **** is incorrect because itself has no potential form. You have to say instead.
The difference between the two is fairly small, but please read: versus V~ form
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Figurative meaning of 結果的に 「一直線で来られてよかった」?
I came across this sentence:
> ****
The sentence was uttered after the character reached the place where he wanted to go. Why I don't think that this statement is used in a literal sense is because he had to take an alternative route to come there (he couldn't walk straight to where he wanted to be).
Especially the seems to me as if the **** is used figuratively.
In any case, I haven't found any senteces that use this construction in a similar way.
So my question is whether I am in the right with regarding this construction as 'metaphorical' or if I am missing the point here,
|
I don't think there is a weird metaphor here. This sentence means the "alternative route", which he had avoided at first, turned out to be the straight (and thus better) route. Please read the previous sentences carefully again.
>
> As it turned out, I was able to come here straight (and that was good).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
Possible meanings for "気を巡らせる"
I'd like to know the possible meanings for "" . The term is from a Drama CD I'm currently listening, its a fantasy story with magic and the sort.
The context is a fight, the main character use balls as projectiles that hits his opponent nicknamed "Steel Whirlwind", but he withstands it and counter attacks.
I'll try to transcript the scene after that:
> -
>
> -, …
>
> -
>
> -, …
>
> (Sound of balls appearing in the air)
>
> -…
>
> -, !
I know "" combined with "" means "to ponder", but I don't know what it means combined with "". Also, I've found that "" is used a lot in articles about oriental health practices, which confuse me more.
For example: ""
I appreciate any help.
|
almost solely stands for "to circulate / surround with qi". Yes, that qi. Although there are idioms with similar word forms such as , , etc., I have never seen that this specific phrase is used in such meaning.
What the phrase actually refers to is completely up to what "qi" is defined to be in each context, but I can say with confidence that it is not any figure of speech for a certain everyday mental activity.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Describing an adjective with "should"
I've noticed that some nouns can be described with , as in
> {}{} (She _should_ have been more careful.)
I understand it as
> {}{} (She has been more careful.)
being a complete sentence on its own, and the "shouldness" acting as a modifier.
However, if I wanted to say "Her explanation should be precise", modified from,
> ("Her explanation is precise")
I'm not too certain how to insert the into the sentence, so that can act as a modifier in this particular case.
|
is ungrammatical.
I think you could think of it this way:
> -- is careful / pay attention
> -- was careful / paid attention
> () -- should be careful / should pay attention
> () -- should have been careful / should have paid attention
* * *
The _full_ sentence would be:
> ****
To say "Her explanation _should be_ concrete":
> ****
follows a verb (eg , , , ()) and can't directly follow .
To use it with an i-adjective , you say **** ; with a na-adjective , ****.
* * *
To rewrite your example using **** without changing the meaning, I'd say...
> ()← using the -verb "explain"
> _lit._ "She should explain concretely."
> (or maaybe ()← …= "make ~ …"
> "(She/Someone/You?) should make her explanation concrete.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does カピカ mean?
I can't find this word in a dictionary.
It appears on a bag of rice I bought. The sentence is:
Is it a contraction of , describing how the rice is dried out?
|
This describes a specific method of polishing rice.
From California's New Gold Rush - The New York Times
> In one method, called kapika, polished rice is fine-sanded to produce a more lustrous finish
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, definitions, onomatopoeia"
}
|
How much space is considered standard between consecutive "「" and "『"s?
In a text such as ` ` how much space is expected between the first two characters in typography, if any?
|
When there is no additional constraints imposed by kinsoku) or full-justification, this is how `` is typically typeset (produced by Adobe InDesign 2020, font: Pr6N, all characters are zenkaku):
.
Note that this is for main body text. In posters, book covers and such, you may want even narrower spaces, especially between `` and ``. Also note that detailed rules vary from publisher to publisher. The InDesign's settings dialog looks like this.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "orthography, quotes, typesetting"
}
|
Meaning of 迎えにやってくる
> ****
> When he was little Harry dreamed over and over of unknown relatives _greeting him_.
Obviously the 'greeting him' part is wrong. I'm not sure I fully understand .
I'm assuming this is the
> masu-stem + + motion verb
construct, where is treated as a motion verb. I usually translate as 'turn up/show up'. So would be "relatives showing up to greet/meet/welcome him".
Perhaps my real problem is with understanding how to translate . The English original for this sentence is "relations coming to take him away". But I'm struggling to see how to relate with 'take away'.
|
Seems it would help you greatly if you could get your mind off the definition "greeting" for a moment because it will not apply here.
{} can only mean one thing, which is " **to come pick one up** (to take one somewhere)".
Only when it is in the form [Person] + + , can mean "to greet/meet/welcome [Person]".
and should be remembered as set phrases (and those are used **_very_** frequently).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
謝れとは言ってない quoting someone's words or my own?
I'm having a little problem with some dialogue between two characters and I'm not sure about something. These are the lines in the dialogue:
> Character A:
>
> Character B:
My first interpretation of B's line is "I didn't say (to you) to apologize.", but I'm not sure, so I could use the help. Thank you in advance!
|
> Character A: {}{}{}{}
>
> Character B: {}{}
Your initial interpretation was correct.
≒
≒
≒
B has not and is not soon going to ask A to apologize. The grammatical subject of the verb phrase is the unmentioned first-person (= B).
Unless the larger context proves otherwise (which I highly doubt it will), no other explanation would be possible or very natural.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, imperatives"
}
|
Is there a meaning associated with upside-down kanji?
I'm watching an anime ("The Irregular at Magic High School"), and in one scene (Season 1, Episode 23, 0:45), the kanji ("good fortune": < Colors are yellow-on-red.) appears on a wall-hanging in the background, but it's upside-down. Given the rest of the scene, it seems unlikely this is an accident by either the animators or the characters. (See the inset in < )
Is there a meaning associated with such a display? Mourning might fit the other things going on in the series, and might fit the meaning of this particular kanji (as "inverted good fortune"), but I haven't found references for such.
Thank you.
|
; the overturned/upside-down nature of the symbol is a pun on.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, culture"
}
|
Questions about a correction, nominalizing, and particles
I was practicing writing sentences and tried to write the following in Japanese:
> I heard he escaped from the island.
I originally came up with
>
But then I was corrected by 2 different native speakers. Their changes are in bold.
Person A:
> ****
Person B:
> ****
When I read Person A's correction I read it as
> I literally heard (as in noises) him escape from the island.
I think Person B's correction is more in line with what I meant and I read it as
> I heard (from someone else) he escaped from the island.
Assuming I'm right about the above, I don't understand why was used instead of in the part.
Now I'm wondering
1. Why was this done or when should I use over with ?
2. When nominalizing, do verbs have to stay in their "pure" dictionary form or can I change the tense? Could I write the following or is this grammatically incorrect? Does it mean the same thing as Person B's correction?
> ****
|
You already seem to vaguely understand the difference, but to summarize:
* `noun + ` = `I hear [noun]`: You hear a sound/music/story/etc. means your heard the cracking noise.
* `clause + ` = `I hear that [clause]`: You hear some fact (via conversations/news/etc). means you heard the news from someone but did not hear the noise itself.
In your case, what you needed was the latter; you heard the news, not the noise.
>
Therefore, this never means the same thing as B's correction simply because of . In addition, Japanese subordinate clauses are based on relative tense, so this usage of is not natural, either (although understandable). If you did hear his "escaping noise" directly, the sentence by A is correct because () and () happened at the same time in the past.
That said, in general, it's perfectly fine to nominalize a ta-form. For example you can say "I remember I saw it")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, particle と, particle を, nominalization"
}
|
「命令形 + と助詞」どんな意味？
2Into the Unknown ...
1)
2)
+ / +
|
{} ("quotative ")
{}{}
> {} {}
>
> {} {} ****
>
> {} {}{}
{}{}{}{}
>
>
> ****
>
>
**** {}{}
{} **** {}
> {}
>
> {}{} {}{} ****
{}{}
> ****
****
{}{}{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, song lyrics"
}
|
What does 本当たりえる mean
I am playing the eroge Tsui no Sora and have come across a passage containing this word:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Nostradamus' prophecy is an amateur delusion; even an elementary schooler could work it out if they gave it some serious thought; but that isn't important]
>
> ****
>
> "What is important, is that for the people who believe it, it is true"
This is what I believe it should translate to, but even searching gets no results on Google. My vague guess it is combination of + + but other than and meaning something along the lines of 'it fits' or 'truth', I cannot parse it.
Could someone break this down for me please? I can provide more of the text before the passage if there is still not enough context.
|
> ****
I am finding two issues with the phrase .
1) the poor, casual word choice of and
2) the substandard reading of
It would be a considerably more normal and acceptable phrase if:
1) were replaced by a less informal and
2) **** by ****
Using kanji, it is meaning "to be equal to", "to be comparable to", "to be just as good as".
Thus, my own phrase choice would be **** or {}.
With these alterations, the sentence in question could more naturally mean:
> "What is important, is the fact that for the people who believe (Nostradamus), it is as good as true"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, word usage"
}
|
っといても after a verb
What does mean after a verb, I've seen it several times. I'm guessing it's a slang form or a shortened form? I know that means "even if" (roughly), and I've seen a lot so wasn't sure if it's some slang form of that?
Sentence:
>
Thanks.
|
Here's the breakdown:
* : a colloquial godan verb that in this context means "to leave (alone)"
* : the te-form of
* : the te-form followed by the subsidiary verb , which means "to do something for the time being" here. See this question or this article.
* : the contracted form of . See this answer.
* : the temo-form of above, which adds the meaning of "even if" (-/- conjugates like a godan verb)
So (or ) means "even if you leave (it) out in the open (for some time)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particles, sentence"
}
|
What is the grammar behind もなければ、なければ?
Lately, I'm reading Japanese light novels. For the following sentence, I can't get the meaning behind it.
> **** ****
The character said that after leaving his workplace for the last time. He also has not any job offer where he can continue to work. He wasn't even trying to get a new job.
For me, it makes no sense when I try to translate it using the conditional form. Can someone help me out, please?
|
Both of the two 's are conditional in form, but in actual effect neither really expresses any condition.
In constructions of such a form asABCD, can work more like a coordinating conjunction, like the examples below.
> **** "She is good-looking, **and** smart too."
>
> **** "Some people are good at math, ( **and** ) other people are not."
>
> **** "I don't have money, **nor** talent."
The second one is the short form of , which indicates the modality of obligation, like English modals _must_ and _have to_.
So the translation of the sentence is something along the lines of:
> Neither was there any sense of liberation, **nor** was there the impatient feeling of **having to** look for the next job.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
What is the difference between 祖先 and 先祖?
From my dictionary, both mean ancestor so I am wondering about what is the difference between them.
Is the difference in politeness ? For example []{musuko} and []{shisoku} both mean _son_ , but the latter is more polite.
|
Although both are on-yomi compounds, I feel sounds more technical and academic. tends to be used in daily conversations and religious contexts (e.g. ), whereas tends to be preferred in biological, archaeological and programming contexts. This I think is why we commonly say with respect but not . That said, this distinction is not very strict, and there are cases where and are used interchangeably.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, words, word usage"
}
|
What does 勝ったな mean?
I’ve stumbled upon the phrase and it was translated there as “he will win” but what conjugation is that?
|
is the -ta form of , and normally indicates past-tense, but in this case it actually is indicating the perfect.
A literal translation would be something like “(With this) he has won.” — that is, as a reaction to something that has happened.
The is the standard masculine sentence-ending particle, which adds a sense of confidence in one’s statement (though also as a result indicates the statement is about something unsure).
Of course a literal translation here is not what you would say in English, but hopefully it helps you understand the grammar!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, usage, verbs, word usage"
}
|
What is それ in それどころ pointing at in this sentence?
> >
>>
>>
The context is that is being led to a trap(he's going to a place where he's gonna be arrested), unbeknown to him. He then asks his supposed ally Rem for her opinion and she says he should go.
As for I don't know what is refering to.
In this sentence:
>
It's clear that is pointing at the previous statement and what follows next is contradicting/negating that statement. A good translation of in this case is "Contrary to that". But I don't think it follows the same pattern for
|
> ****
In this context, is fairly synonymous to or {}, which means " ** _not as simple as that_** ", etc.
In the pattern:
> Statement A + Statement B
The author thinks Statement A was an understatement or too simplistic a way to describe what _really_ took place. Therefore, s/he goes ahead and adds a more descriptive sentence to augment it.
Therefore, you are correct in stating that the used in the sentence:
> ****
is different in meaning. That indeed means " ** _on the contrary_** ".
My own TL (85% literal & 15% free) of the original sentence:
> "Instead, he ended up asking for trouble. It was not even quite as simple as that. He was suggested to take the way to destruction by Rem, whom he trusted much, and not knowing this, he even paid Rem the highest compliment 'Hey, Rem, you're so smart!'"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What is the role of の in 「怒りのキーブレード」？Why is it translated as "the keyblade's rage" and not "the keyblade of rage"?
This is in the context of a videogame. The complete quote is , which was translated into "The keyblade's rage releases those hearts". Why isn't it "The keyblade of rage releases those hearts"? What is the role of here?
|
This type of is found often in fictional works and adds a "symbolic title" to the modified word. Similar examples:
* (The Statue of Liberty)
* (Attack on Titan)
* (Fullmetal Alchemist)
* (Blue Exorcist)
* (Demon Slayer)
Official English translations are included in parentheses. As you can see, this construction is not always translated "literally" into English. If there was a weapon whose official name is , then it could be translated as "Rage Keyblade", "The Keyblade of Rage" or something like that. However that's not the case in your sentence. Since this seems to refer to someone's keyblade who happens to be in a fury, "the keyblade of rage" might sound too grandiose, and "the keyblade's rage" seems to be a possible translation to me.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle の"
}
|
How can I say "female soldier" in Japanese
I have trouble translating "female soldier" in Japanese: Is it or ? Also is the particle lacking between the two words?
|
This is what my boyfriend has to say (who is fluent in Japanese): is more like female warrior, and female soldier would be . But depending on what you need it for, note that neither of them really sound cool.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, kanji"
}
|
What does ぐてっと mean?
I saw it in the following context:
> xx
Based on the spelling, I wonder if it's similar to , but I'm not sure about that. Based on context, I'm guessing it means something like to collapse (out of exhaustion/tiredness).
|
roughly means "in a lazy or lethargic manner", "lacking energy", "lifelessly", etc. **** and virtually mean the same thing. Just think of Gudetama and you will get the picture.
So, this person kind of leaned against another in such a manner.
is quite different as it means "in a highly intoxicated manner".
, all by itself, does not suggest any alcohol consumption.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "onomatopoeia"
}
|
Usage of よう without に particle
So, I am a beginner. I have just started reading my first manga in Japanese, , and I've encountered a sentence which I don't really understand the grammar for. Here it is:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
I've understood it to mean roughly:
> He hid his grip so that I would not realize that he was unarmed.
which makes sense in context. The grammar that confuses me is the usage of without any particle afterwards. I am familiar with and but I am not quite sure if I am missing something here.
Was simply omitted in the sentence above? If that is the case, is such usage common or is it a more dated style?
Here's the page in question with some extra dialog: <
|
> Phrase A + + Phrase B
>
> Phrase A + + Phrase B
In basic meaning, the two patterns above are identical.
The only difference is that the second one using is **more casual and conversational** than the first with . For that reason, tends to be used more often in writing.
The sentence you have quoted sounds non-conversational; therefore, fits better there.
**** , BTW, is **not** an option here as it needs to be followed by a **noun**.
and are followed by **verb or adjective phrases** (or whole mini-sentences).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
Differences in use between 水蒸気, 蒸気 and 湯気?
So from my dictionary means steam, and / both mean water vapor. What I would like to understand is when is used over ?
|
Scientifically speaking, does not mean vapor but steam because is a visible thing whereas vapor is invisible gaseous thing. I think corresponds to vapor in English, but we don't usually distinguish between them same as in English so there is not much difference between and .
Setting aside above, is more common phrase in spoken language than . When there is hot steam coming out of the kettle, we are more likely to say than . is used in academic phrase or specific terms like below:
(steam explosion)
(steam engine)
(steam locomotive)
and are mostly the same as with in English - is to vapor as is to water vapor.
As a side note, is also used in electric appliances and beauty equipment like (steam humidifier), (steam iron) and (steam oven).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
Better to say 床屋 or 散髪屋?
Every time I walk by a barbershop (not a ), I think of the words and . Which word is correct, or sounds better, more interesting, for a non-native speaker to use in a conversation?
And, after either, is it possible to add ""? Such as and ?
By adding, "" what nuance does it add?
|
It is not that one of the two is any more correct than the other; Both are "correct". Certainly, neither one sounds better or more interesting.
{}, however, is mainly used in Kansai as explained in this dictionary of Osaka dialect.
Around Tokyo (or eastern half of the country in general), it would be safe to say {} is **far** more common.
In either case, the more formal term is {} or {}, but those are not too often used in our informal, everyday conversations as they sound fairly technical.
Regarding attaching a , it adds an amount of politeness and a sense of affinity. Quite a few native speakers will use it when talking about a barber's shop with others. / with or without a can refer to either the shop or the owner.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
}
|
Meaning of 「どどめ色」
I came across this sentence:
> ****
The context is that the addressee wanted to show the speaker a new move he learned by watching the same video over and over again.
Apparently **** refers to a certain color (< I cannot really make sense of what it is supposed to mean here though. Are there any other examples of a color modifying or are there any set phrases that help understanding the construction here?
|
Have you tried Wikipedia?
> ###
>
>
>
>
Physically, this color refers to dark purple/blue, but () is more commonly used as an idiom that means something negative like "dark", "dirty" or "somber". Either way, is an uncommon word mainly used in literary works, so if you used in an ordinary conversation, it would probably sound like a joke. (By the way, this word seems to have a sexual connotation in some dialects, but I'm not familiar with that.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, idioms"
}
|
Meaning of 何が悲しくて
> ****
What does mean here? It seems to mean "What's so sad that we have to go there?" but I feel like I'm missing something.
|
>
is an _**idiomatic expression**_ used to describe the unreasonableness, unfairness, outrageousness, etc. of the situation where one must unwillingly perform an action.
Thus, a literal translation of the expression will **not** work well because the expression grammatically looks as if it meant " _ **because**_ something is sad, one needs to ~~~".
The English counterparts I could think of would be:
> "Why the heck am I supposed to ~~~?" or
>
> ”What good does it do if (I) ~~~?”
This expression, therefore, differs in meaning from or , both of which do mean what they literally mean -- "what is sad is that ~~."
Hope this helps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "questions"
}
|
How to say: I want to be good at what I choose to do
How to say: I want to be good at what I choose to do?
I know some of the individual words/expressions needed for the sentence: 1)want to be good at: or 2)choose to do something:
But how would one say this structure in Japanese: things I choose to do?
Much appreciated!
|
You would need to use a relative clause to modify the "thing(s)" (""). In case you did not know, the noun is placed **_after_** the relative clause in Japanese, which is the exact opposite of English.
English: " **the things** that I choose to do"
Japanese: {}{} ****
This big difference in word order must be the reason that we receive so many questions about relative clause with the questioners not even seeming to know they are asking about relative clause.
Thus, the natural-sounding ways to say what you wanted to say would include:
or {}
or
or {}
It would sound **less** natural if you used a first-person pronoun like /, etc.. We would use either or nothing at all. Your listener/reader will know exactly who you are talking about.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Why to use 思っていました instead of 思いました?
I found this sentence in this link: < So there's a part where it says: but why to use the -form instead of the -form? The meaning wouldn't be the same if I use the -form?
|
There is a clear difference in meaning.
>
means **"(I) thought"**. You thought (or felt) something momentarily in the past (including the immediate past "just now").
>
means **"(I) have/had been thinking/feeling"**. The thinking lasted for some time. That time period could be quite short or it could be very long such as multiple years or even your whole life so far.
In very informal conversations, however, some native speakers might use instead of , but not the other way around.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, english to japanese"
}
|
What is the function of the と particle in this sentence?
The text on which I found the following sentence is here: < So... There's a part where it says: So my question is what does the particle do in this sentence? And also why "" is between these symbols " "
|
So, as Micah has said, this `` is indeed the quoting particle.
That said, Japanese is a lot more flexible with the grammatical concept of quotation and how it fits into sentences than English is. Quotes can attach to things that you wouldn't expect them to in English - like in this case, the noun ``.
If you look here (and ignore all the examples involving `` because that's the exhaustive listing ``), you can see that `~` is a construction roughly meaning "have a reputation for". Jisho's second example sentence is in much the same vein.
In short, this comes out to something like:
> It has a reputation online for being super interesting/funny
Or more in more colloquial English:
> Everyone online says it's super interesting/funny
The quotation marks ( ) are simply there to disambiguate the fact that quotation is going on; the phrase would be comprehensible (but perhaps not as immediately obvious to learners of the language) without them.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
What is the meaning of 過ぎる in this sentence?
The verb shows up in the following sentence:
> ****
I think I understand the sentence but the problem is that I'm not sure what exactly means. It is in its conditional form, right? What would be the meaning of in this sentence?
|
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
**** , in this context, means " ** _to get through_** ".
is indeed in the conditional form.
> "If (we) get through the two-year recession, this country's economy might be out of the worst situation."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, verbs"
}
|
Meaning of 両方じゃだめ
I've recently discovered some Duolingo stickers on my phone, and there is one I can't translate properly. This sticker has the text with a shrugging Duo-owl under it.
I think it means something along the lines of "I can't decide". Could anyone explain what it really means, and possibly break up the sentence?
The sticker: ![enter image description here](
|
>
We usually say it to mean...
> "Can't I have them both?" "Why not both?"
* * *
It breaks down to...
-- "both"
< contraction of (+)
-- "no good"
So it's _literally_ like "is it no good if both?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Does ～そう modify both verbs in a double-verb construction?
I heard the phrase:
>
When I head the V1V2, I assumed that Verb 1 (had actually happened and that Verb 2 () was a consequence. But someone pointed out to me that the from Verb 2 also applied to Verb 1. In other words, that Verb 1 had not actually happened.
> **Japanese:**
>
> **English 1:** That boy **was** hit by a car and almost died.
>
> **English 2:** That boy was **almost** hit by a car (and would have been killed).
Which (if either) is correct? Does the always modify preceding verbs in a double verb construction? Or is it a case where there is ambiguity?
Perhaps the addition of a comma would indicate some difference?
|
This depends on the context.
Examples of applied to the _combination_ of two verbs:
* ****
* ****
* ****
* ****
Examples of applied only to the second verb (i.e., the first verb describes a known fact):
* **** ****
* ****
* ****
* ****
A comma tends to be used before the second verb if is applied only to the second verb, but you cannot rely on this too much.
*
(sounds like the boy was actually run over by a car)
is an event which is likely to cause a death (it's more serious than just being hit). Unless there is a comma, people tend to treat and as a set.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
The meaning of 似つかわしくない
> ****
**** : inappropriate, unsuitable.
I'm confused with the sentence, and I suspected **** might have another meaning.
If I translated the sentence, it will be like:
> The meeting point is on the school route, which is **not suitable** during the lunch break. It is a rest area along that route.
(sounds strange to put together the words **not suitable** with a time period like a **lunch break** )
Please kindly enlighten me, thank you.
|
So I think this is actually more of a semantics issue than a translation issue.
>
>
> school route which is unsuitable/unusual for/during lunch break
I might translate `` as `for lunch break` in this specific case, although in most cases `during lunch break` is definitely the obvious choice. However, the point I really want to make though is that `unusual for lunch break` is maybe not as strange as you seem to be suggesting it is, at least assuming the speaker in this case is a student.
The sentence appears to be saying that this person was called out to an "unusual" place to be during lunch break, presumably in the sense that it's not the kind of place you would expect students to be at that time. This makes sense for a school route; by definition we only expect students to be there in the morning/evening.
A much looser (but easier to understand) translation of the first sentence:
> The meeting place was on my route to school, the last place I expected to be during lunch break
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of this Japanese sentence?
The scene: A boy plays a ghita on the street to earn money then a bunch of yakuzas show up. They steal his ghita and say:
Yakuza1: " . " (This is our turf. You think you can do whatever you like?)
Yakuza2:" "
The yakuza 2 being hit by someone right after saying the sentence.
Does the sentence of the yakuza 2 means " If you pay for protection, you don't have enough minute..." Or " You must pay us money for protection. If you don't have enough minute...?
|
> []{}
The []{} is not "minute" ([]{/}) but "amount", "part".
() means **** , "if you can't pay".
You're right that is , literally "the amount that's not enough" → the rest of the payment, remaining bill, or shortfall, deficit.
"If you can't pay for protection, the remaining amount..." [the sentence is cut off]
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
のりまきみたいにくるまればふかふかふとんになるんだもん。
In a Japanese children's book I read:
For the sake of analysis, I looked up the kanjis (correct me if they're wrong):
From the context, it should mean something along the lines, "I can wrap it up like a Nori roll and it becomes a soft mattress."
However, two things are unclear to me: First, is really a form of ? If so, what verb form is it? jisho.org does not have it in its list of inflections. What does this form mean, when do I use it?
Second, what does mean? Is it a shortened form of ? How does this word alter the sentence?
|
>
Since more context was definitely needed to discuss this sentence, I searched and found out here that this is about a **_girl with extremely long black hair_**. That piece of information is of much importance and the preceding sentence is:
>
Using kanji, we have:
>
The / should be written in **kana** because it is a sentence-ending particle meaning roughly "because".
> First, is really a form of ? If so, what verb form is it?
is simply the conditional form of meaning " **if I am wrapped up** ". It is used when talking hypothetically about getting wrapped up in something. In this case, that something is the girl's own long hair. See what I mean when I say I could never have answered this (seemingly simple) question without more context?
My own TL:
> "I can even sleep outside. (That's because) if I am wrapped up in (my long hair) like a sushi roll, it turns into a fluffy futon."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, reading comprehension"
}
|
Why would a light novel have furigana for common kanji?
I've been reading the light novels and a lot of the furigana use confuses me. For context, not every kanji has furigana- I'd say like 20% of the kanji per page have it.
They use it for complicated words that seem like they should have it, like but then also with random common words like etc.
Given the themes of the story I'd assume it's targeted to young adults, so why does it give the readings for really common words in addition to ones that look complicated, at least to me?
|
In general, furigana rules tends to be determined on a per-magazine or per- _bunko_ -label basis, and the theme of each title is not always relevant. Titles published in ("for early-teens") labels/magazines, such as , have lots of furigana even though individual titles sometimes contain adult-oriented themes. Titles belonging to / (for high-teens and young adults, such as ) or / (for adults) labels/magazines tend to have much less furigana even though some titles are safe for children.
, as a sub-label of , has historically targeted at generations, so I expect more furigana than average. I checked some titles listed here, and found that many titles of this label are like , too, although there seemed to be exceptions.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, furigana"
}
|
What is the meaning of とか in the sentence?
What is the contribution of to the meaning of the sentence? And what is the meaning of construction ?
> **** ****
|
> {}{}{}{} **** {} **{}** {}{}
functions to give a single (or primary) example of what is being talked about. Here that example is the ("readings" or "pronunciations" of the same kanji).
, therefore, means " **things such as readings/pronunciations** ".
Roughly speaking, is the colloquial and informal version of .
Moving on...
is a common verb phrase meaning " **to come/result in a variety of patterns/styles** ".
For those wondering what the is doing there in , it is a nominalizer. It nominalizes the verb phrase to use it as the grammatical subject of the sentence. The topic marker or is left unsaid after the as this is 100% colloquial/informal speech to begin with.
> "With even the same kanji, things such as pronunciations come in a wide variety of patterns, which is really amazing, isn't it?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Strange use of 終わる
>
> When he was finally forgiven and allowed to come out of his cupboard the summer holidays had already begun.
> ****
> Dudley had already broken the camera he'd just been bought, crashed the radio controlled plane, and on top of all that, on the day he rode his racing bike for the first time he crashed into Mrs Fig, who was crossing Privet road on crutches, and _the incident in which she got knocked down had ended._
I can't understand how is being used in this sentence. My translation of the final clause makes no sense. I'm not even sure if is the subject or object of the verb.
|
I think they meant to say...
>
> "By the time~~, had (already) done... / had (already) gone through..."
> ABC
> "By the time he (=Harry) was finally forgiven and allowed to come out of his cupboard... Dudley had already done A, B, and C."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, parsing"
}
|
Counting Duration of Months
When counting duration in months, is it ~or just ~? Example:
*
*
( btw I don't know what the second example means I just took it from my textbook so I would appreciate it if someone could help me translate it )
Are both of these sentences correct?
|
Either way is fine. The "rules" regarding this are a bit irregular.
**{} optional with:**
** needed with:**
This is because for instance, 1 and 1 mean completely different things -- "1 o'clock" and "one hour", respectively.
We say something like 3 ("for three consecutive weeks") without a as a set phrase, but means "the third week of a month". Thus, to refer specifically to a period of 3 weeks, we say 3 virtually every time.
Thus, the sentence:
>
= "I have already been studying Japanese for about 6 months."
is correct with or without a . With it, it sounds slightly more 'formal' or "official", but the difference is not that great.
And the noun phrase:
>
= "The 4 months that I lived with Jill."
is also correct with or without the . This is not a sentence. is a relative clause that modifies the .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "time"
}
|
What is the reading of 0件？ れいけん or ゼロ件？Thanks!
What is the reading of 0 or Thanks!
|
I think the reading is generally . I found an interesting article about the difference between and . <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
Meaning of 俺はどこまで行っても俺だ
Looking for some help understanding ****.
I've googled and can see the phrase being used fairly often, but can't find an explanation, and what definition of is being used here.
|
> {}{}
is almost like a set phrase meaning:
> "I will always be me."
literally means " **no matter where I go** " and it can also figuratively mean " **eternally** " or " **till the end of time** ".
Whether the 'movement' is spatial or temporal is of little importance here unless the context this expression appears in clearly specifies one over the other. To Japanese-speakers, is fairly synonymous to , etc., which is why "I will always be me." should cover them all in most cases.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of “ ヒキョーだ”? What would be a good english word/phrase to replace it?
I am translating a manga and this is a word that I could not find a translation for. If someone could help it would be greatly appreciated!!
In the manga, there isnt really a sentence but the context is that one person just threatened the boy in order to get him to help them & The boy said “”
the manga screenshot!
|
That is {} written in katakana.
means "You/He/They are/is a coward!", "That's unfair!", "That's so mean!", etc.
Without context, I could not tell you which one would fit best.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "katakana"
}
|
A confusing line for me (picture)
I'm scratching my head at this one and I can't seem to understand it right. ![enter image description here](
I really can't grasp the idea... So the context, there are 2 characters let's call them Hanako and Yosuke. Yosuke congratulates Hanako because it's her birthday and Hanako says "" then the following line (in the picture) seems to belong to Yosuke. I can't even understand well what does means here, if another verb in form would have been before it, I could have understand differently... Then I can only understand something about a date, but I can't form a connection properly, I am really stumped. Understood the rest of the comic, except this part. Any interpretation would be useful, maybe then I can form a better connection.
|
>
>
> I wanted to congratulate you as soon as the date changed + like you do for me
She's saying that he celebrates (perhaps by sending him a text) her birthday at right as the clock hits midnight and the next day starts, and that she wishes she could have done the same for him. The whole thing is in past tense presumably because she did not manage to.
Breaking it down a little more:
* `` literally "like you do for me".
* `` literally "soon when the date changes", but more natural as "as soon as the date changes". Also see here.
* `` literally "wanted to celebrate for you", though probably more natural as "wanted to congratulate you"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, reading comprehension"
}
|
Does 暗闇へ make sense?
I'm wondering if it translates to "into darkness" directly as a response to something like "Where are we going?" Or possibly as a title for a poem?
I found one example. Waltz into Darkness as a literal translation and just wondering if I remove if it still makes sense...
|
{} makes perfect sense as a title and so does .
In fact, [Noun] + is a fairly common construct for titles. Very short phrases ending with particles in general are common for titles. Titles do not need to sound/look like prose in Japanese.
We often hear/see {}{}{}{}{}, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax, japanese to english"
}
|
Do all the い-adjectives become adverbs when you add く to them?
Do all -adjectives become adverbs when you add to them? For example:
=
=
But does this work with all the -adjectives?
|
Yes, the conjugation rule is consistent with all the -adjectives.
There are a few notable exceptional cases where they can also syntactically be nouns:
* →:
* adjectival: X - the nearby X
* noun: X - the vicinity of X
* →:
* adjectival: X
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, adverbs, i adjectives, renyōkei"
}
|
Is it possible to put two adverbs one after another?
In the following sentence: I know that is an adverb which means "really" but what about ? I though that it was an adverb because of the but I don't know if one can put two adverbs one after another just like in above sentence, but if that's not the case... then that is acting as a particle?
|
It’s not entirely what you were asking, but an important point is that modifies , while modifies . You can see this by the following scrambling being valid:
>
(Though note this is a somewhat unusual word order.)
While this scrambling makes no sense at all:
>
This also explains why you can’t say something like **** , because it makes be a single unit, which doesn’t work because neither predicate ( or ) in the sentence can accept **both** of those modifiers semantically.
On the other hand, if we change one of the modifiers to be something which does make semantic sense to use with the same predicate, combining them into a single unit works fine, like .
# Syntax trees
If it helps, here’s the syntax tree breakdown:
> [][<>]
> is at the top level
vs
> [<><>]
> is in the inner level
or
> [<()>]
> has combined into a single modifier, which is at the inner level
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, adverbs"
}
|
Double negation of an i-adjective
Does it exist as such, the double negation of an i-adjective, e.g.: ? I was told that I should use instead. Is that right? Is it a rule? Would it depend on context which was a question like: Are the meals at that restaurant good? Or is it just the style of the person I talked to?
Of course, I could also use e.g. instead, but this is not the question here.
|
The double negation of i-adjectives not only exists, but it is quite commonly used among us native speakers when expressing opinions **indirectly**.
Take ("tasty") for example, by far the most common double-negative form would be:
> ****
which means:
> "(the food) is okay/passable if not great"
That sounds fairly indirect, doesn't it? The direct phrase would simply be ("bad-tasting") or , which would often be considered too direct for the Japanese taste (pun intended).
We also say:
> ****
which means practically the same thing as **** .
I do not think that careful speakers would use with no particle between the and to mean the same as the two above. I would, however, not be surprised if I heard it in careless hurried speech.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "negation, i adjectives"
}
|
Which situation for using 併せる and 合わせる and 組み合わせる? What is difference between them?
All of them are the same meaning, but I think in few situations, should only use one of them.
|
** vs ** : has a lot of meanings, but roughly speaking, is the default kanji that is safe in most situations. Basically there is no situation where you "have to" choose , but has an added nuance. When the kanji is intentionally chosen, it tends to imply two things coexist side by side, whereas often means two things are mixed, summed or merged into one. For example, tends to look like "to consider taking everything into account", whereas tends to look like "to consider it along with others". As an exception, merger of organizations/municipalities is commonly described using .
**** : This is used when individual parts are unchanged but the resulting combination has some new meaning. Think of LEGO blocks or kanji compounds. has many meanings, but does not mean "to compare", "to match", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word usage"
}
|
Is the の[か] in my sentence a 準体言助詞 の[か]?
> ****
I hypothesize that the in question _is_ a nominalizing followed by a questioning , as its preceded by the verb/expression . This verb-preceding--nominalization is explained and exemplified in this answer I found while researching data to verify my hypothesis. However, my knowledge of is still lacking as far as I'm aware, so I'd like a second opinion to verify or disprove my hypothesis as to what the above sentence's is.
(If the wording of this question is vastly different from my previous ones, its because I am finally taking a grammar course where I'm learning how to approach words and questions about them as a linguist or as a language student would.)
|
This is best known to learners as an explanatory-no. The right after it is a questioning particle, which in this case is forming an embedded question. When and are used together, it sounds like you are seeking clarification. If you already know how to make a question using , this is basically the same except that is not used because it's in the middle of a sentence. Broadly speaking, this is a kind of a nominalizer, too (you can think this turns "to run" to "that one runs"), but it may be better to think this as a distinct particle.
is the name of a word class which this belongs to in the Japanese "" (the grammar taught at Japanese classes to native Japanese students). If you are still learning Japanese grammar, I suggest you master the basics of your Japanese-as-a-second-language textbooks first, and revisit this term later.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle の, nominalization"
}
|
What's the difference between 僕等, 我々, 僕たち, and お互い?
As I read more Japanese texts, I’m finding there are a lot of ways to say “us.” Are there any contextual differences or differences in politeness level between , , , and ?
|
They have a different nuance, and doesn't mean "us" but "each other".
and are almost the same, I feel is a bit casual. is a bit exaggerated, so it is not often used in daily conversation but in lofty and exaggerated speeches.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness, pronouns"
}
|
永遠 vs 永久 difference in meaning?
I was reading a Japanese version of {} where one of the main characters Yuuko is writing notecards for her English exam the next day (which she had not studied for). As she was translating “forever,” she said {} where I would have said {}. Is there a difference? Thank you!
|
There is almost no difference. To be exact, is used for material things while is used for abstract notions. For example, is used for tooth(). Perpetual motion machine is in Japanese. And for instance is used for time().
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, readings"
}
|
What is the meaning of かけてきた
I am confused by this part . Can someone explain to me?
|
> {}{}{}
means " ** _to play a song/tune on the stereo/CD player, etc._** ".
In this case, the music is being played on the broadcasting system in a school during lunch time.
The music "reaches" the students while eating; therefore, it is described as **** from their perspective, which becomes **** in the past tense.
is a relative clause that modifies the .
> "The broadcast committee member(s) who played this song during the school lunch time."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, て form, sentence"
}
|
Conjugations of verb for sample JLPT question
One of the multiple choice questions in a book I was reading was as follows:
> 1. _____.
> 2.
>
> a)
> b)
> c)
> d)
>
>
I selected b) as the answer, but the given correct choice was a).
I can see why a) would be a more natural fit than b), but could they both be considered correct? My translation for the dialogue was essentially: 'Is it okay if I close the window?' 'Yes, thanks', but would this seem unnatural/wrong in the context?
|
Firstly means 'open' not 'close'. I'm sure that was just a slip, but I wanted to make sure.
Option a) is 'Shall I open the window?'. You are offering a service to another person so 'yes please' would be a natural response.
Option b) is 'Is it okay if I open the window?'. In this case you are seeking permission to do something for your own benefit, so 'yes please' doesn't seem like a good match to this question.
In summary a) seems like the only natural answer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "conjugations, jlpt"
}
|
Distinction between また and も
I'm very new to Japanese study, so please bear with me...
>
In this example, study of Japanese is fun. Study of math is also fun, is used to indicate that math, similarly to Japanese, is also fun to study. I.e. that studying math shares the characteristic of studying Japanese _already_ mentioned. I know this is correct. However, if one wanted to mention a different characteristic of math that has not already been mentioned, by virtue of commenting on Japanese study, could be used?
For example:
>
> (Study of Japanese is fun. Also, study of math is difficult.)
I'm fairly sure could not be used here as the two subjects are not sharing the same description. But, am unsure as to whether or not the use of , to mean also/moreover/furthermore, etc. is correct, or if it is better to just omit and use two non-linked sentences.
|
Using `` when you are comparing two things that don't share the same description doesn't sound natural. `` doesn't really connect these two sentences in that case.
It would be...
>
>
> (Study of Japanese is fun. But, study of math is difficult)
because you are comparing two subjects with different descriptions (one being fun but another being difficult).
You could also say...
>
>
>
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle も"
}
|
What do ~んでしょう & なんでしょう mean?
I've seen this expression multiple times either attached to a longer sentence or by itself.
For example:
> 1. A: B: **** . .
>
> 2. (After seeing fiddling with the swingset) ****
>
>
My questions are:
What does this term mean? Does it have multiple meanings? When is it commonly used? How does it differ from similar expressions?
|
The in your two examples are different, the first being part while the second is a contraction of , but the general meaning of is the same in both. If or is paired with a question word or followed immediately by , it's basically a way of asking a somewhat self-directed question, like 'I wonder ...' (Note that they can also mean that without either of those things sometimes.)
In your first example A says, 'Hey, you should write a little more neatly. What does this say?' B replies, 'I wonder ... I can't read it either.' (Okay, I meant to write this earlier, but maybe B wasn't the one she was directly talking to? Seems a little weird that B wouldn't know what B themselves wrote, but then again my own handwriting is messy enough that I have trouble reading it sometimes. Dyspraxia is annoying)
In your second Ena says 'I wonder what she's doing ...' (Sequences like , sometimes contract to , )
I am very tired writing this, so please forgive any messiness or typos.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the meaning of function of the と (無駄と) in this sentence?
> ****
Hi. Dear teachers.
What is the meaning and function of the () in this sentence?
Thank you.
|
You could parse it this way...
> **** ...
The is a quotative particle. It marks the thought of the subject (= here).
> gave up , thinking , and...
These threads might help:
* Use of quote marker before unusual verbs
* Embedded question followed by
* Questions about 7
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
What is the difference between 中学校の制服を翻しながら and 中学校の制服が翻りながら?
>
Hi, dear teachers. Could you please help me with some questions about the clause ? What do you think is the difference between and in this context?
I think can be work as a body part and even if the action is a non-volitional action in this context, we should use here because the clause implies that the reason why the uniform fluttered is that turned her head (). So would be unnatural here. Am I on the right track? If not, could you share your opinions? Thank you.
|
Two actions combined with must have the same subject.
> ****
can be split to:
> main clause:
> sub clause:
As you know, []{} is transitive, and []{} is intransitive.
**** , where the subject of the main clause is and that of the sub-clause is , would be grammatically incorrect.
Related:
* Why , and not ?
* [What's the difference between [V-][V2] and [V-][V2]?]( (See Derek's post: "The two actions in a construction must have the same subject, so you can't use to construct a sentence of the form, "Person #1 did A while Person #2 did B.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does it mean
> 400 (I'm not sue if that's correct spelling) .
It's from the book TOBIRA. Can anyone help me break this sentence down to smaller, more comprehensible bits?
Ok, so as far as my understanding goes it means that:
> There is a white wall that is more than 400 years old and a white building that looks as heron that spreads its wings and rest and that's why it is called "shirasagishyou"
It's about Himeji Castle.
BUT This sentence is sooo long I'm not sure what kind of grammar is there anymore. So many ga particles.
>
Why "ga" after "kata" then "toiu" and then another "ga" after this second "ga"? It's pretty straightforward. Can anyone help?
|
You can break this sentence in two:
> Sentence 1: 400
>
> Sentence 2:
You got the first sentence, so I'll skip the explanation for sentence 1.
So, let's look at the very base part of the sentence 2.
The base sentence is
>
ok, now, you want to add the reason why it's called "Shirasagi-jou". That would be...
> _____
>
> It's called "Shirasagi-jou" because the shape of the building looks like _____.
now, how does the shape of the building look like? If it looks like a swan, you could say `...`, but that's not exactly what you want to say. The shape doesn't look like ANY SHAPE of swan, it has to be like a swan that is spreading its wings and resting, which is ``
So, you now have
>
Now this is still not exactly what you want to say because the shape is not ANY swan spreading wings and resting. It has to be a certain kind of swan that is called Shirasagi, which is ``
You'll add this information right before the `` and you get:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, grammar"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.