INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Japanese term for “cookie cutter”
I’m looking for a term in Japanese that conveys the same sense of repeated design with minimal or limited variation that is implied by the English phrase “cookie cutter”. My particular interest is in trying to describe software project templates, but this could also refer to the design of houses, paintings or other work.
|
(“mass-produced”) can be used in a similar fashion. It has the literal meaning when used with something actually mass-produced in a factory, but can be used idiomatically on things that are not mass-produced to insinuate they are cookie-cutter, all the same, boring, lack creativity, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, word choice, idioms"
}
|
What is the difference between 音をさせる and 音がする and 音を出す/立てる?
****
Hi. Could you please explain the difference between and and /? All of them seem to mean the same. Thank you.
|
in is intransitive, and it refers to some "environmental" sound you hear. This kind of is explained in this question. The other three are transitive. Here the subject of the sentence is , and he is the one who made this sound, so cannot be used.
, and are very similar, but and are usually used with unintentional (and often undesirable) kind of noise made when you are doing something (e.g., ). is usually used when the sound itself is the main purpose (e.g. ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "idioms"
}
|
Riddle question
I would appreciate some help in solving this riddle.
There is a sign that says "" in front of candy samples at the candy shop. It means "Please feel free to take (one)." However, you saw one passer-by taking as many as fifty-two of them. Why do you think that this person did so?
Thanks!
|
Assuming the beginning is and not , then it is quite simple.
The sign says **** . The store owner's _intended_ meaning is []{}, which means "freely" or "feel free to". However, if the sign was written only in hiragana, the person might have mistook it for **** (notice the small-sized instead of the larger ). In this case, as we know, means "52".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning, ambiguity, puns"
}
|
と in 急だとは思わなかった
It's translated as "I didn't think it was so steep". It looks to me that here is used a a nominalizer, but I didn't find any dictionary to confirm this. Also, can it be replaced by other nominalizer, like , or ?
|
The here is sometimes called a "quotative" particle, as if it marks the end of a statement, which the rest of the sentence describes: **** [] The here is used a bit like emphasis, and isn't strictly necessary from a grammatical perspective.
Another way of looking at it is like the "that" coordinating conjunction in English: _"I didn't think **that** it was so steep."_ While this coordinating "that" is often omissible in English, this is not omissible in Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
ようにして usage in a sentence
> ****
**** : 1. (following a verb) **to be sure to** ; 2. **to do** ( **something** ) **so that** ; 3. **to make sure to** ; 4. **to try to**. (according to **nihongomaster.com** )
I was just wondering is it proper to apply **** on 2 verbs?
If it was based on the above sentence, the translation will be like:
**"Well, make sure to deal with it properly, and try not to drop out of school"**
It sounds much better and clearer.
Thank you in advance for your guidance.
|
`` means "Please make sure you aren't **kicked out** of school" (`` excludes voluntary dropping out). `` here means "maneuvering right / playing your cards right" precedes this avoidance of being kicked out (it implies this would be the cause of not being kicked out).
So, taken together it means:
> Play your cards right and avoid getting kicked out of school
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage"
}
|
What is the proper form of "In the beginning" for this sentence?
Okay, so I fixed my first problem. Now, I have to find the proper form of "in the beginning." Should it be (hajime ni, sunaodatta,) or (hajime wa, sunaodatta?)
|
In your sentence ("at first", "in the beginning") is correct. This is contrastive, and can be used with another subject marked with (e.g., ). means "first (of all)", "at the beginning (of a month, etc)", "Introduction/Preface (chapter title)" and so on.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax, transcription"
}
|
Do Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi have a collective title in Japanese?
When reading up on Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi I often see them referred to as the "great unifiers" but I can't find what (if anything) Japanese people call them?
Is there an equivalent to "the three unifiers of Japan" in Japanese, or are they just Oda "kill the bird" Nobunaga, Tokugawa "convince it" Ieyasu, and Toyotomi "wait" Hideyoshi, with no fancy collective title?
|
We call them {} at least around Nagoya where all of the three are from.
<
Outside of Central Japan, however, you might actually end up having to name the three when talking to people who are not too well-read on Japanese history.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "history, culture, terminology"
}
|
Meaning of 方 in 「質問のある方はどうぞ」
In the sentence
> ****
what is the meaning of ?
|
> {}{}
{} in this context is the honorific/respectful form of {} ("person(s)"). The meaning is the same for both.
> "Those who have questions, please (ask)!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What is the purpose of ため in sentence
What is the purpose of in . I translate it as "As a result of his job, he drives his car."
|
> [Noun] + + + [Verb]
>
> [Verb 1] + + [Verb 2]
In these sentence patterns, expresses the reason, cause or purpose.
Thus, the sentence:
> {}{}{}{}
means:
> "He drives his car _**for**_ his job/work."
FYI: That Japanese sentence is not 100% natural-sounding if I may tell the truth. We (= native speakers) would generally not use the same pronoun twice in a short sentence like that. The part is what I am referring to. We would just use or {} instead.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
The purpose of このよう な
In the above passage, I translate as "this way of talking with customers." But "this way" is never explained. All the first sentence says is that Mike is able to meet a lot of nice people, it does not talk about the way he talks with customers.
|
> {} {} ** ** {} {} {} {} {}
**** functions **adjectivally** to modify a noun.
**** functions **adverbially** to modify a verb or adjective.
Therefore, **** means " ** _this type of customers_** ". What type is that? It is the ("the friendly customers") as stated in the first sentence. Are you following this?
So, "this way of talking with customers" is not being talked about here.
> "Mike can meet many friendly customers. Mike feels happy when speaking to this type of customers."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Can someone explain me how this part of the sentence is connected to the other part?
I found this sentence from a text of a N2 book
I have been reading it and breaking apart the sentence several times. I think that, since is the subject, it is doing both actions. But I still don't understand why the first half has the verb omitted.
Can someone explain me how this part is connected to the other part ?
|
Strictly speaking, has only one corresponding verb, .
>
> Playing in the past used to take on the function.
And everything else is a relative clause that modifies .
>
> the function of growing confidence in self and others
The tricky part is the word order. The relative clause is split into two and the topic of the main clause ( **** ) is suddenly inserted between them. Still, since is not usually used in a relative clause, this sentence is not really confusing to me. Usually this sentence is written like the following, which I think is much easier to understand:
> *
> *
>
* * *
Here's another example of tricky word order:
>
> =
> =
> He said he hates her.
In the first sentence, the topic () is mentioned in the middle of the quote, and this is still a valid Japanese sentence, though uncommon. The three versions mean the same thing, but the first one looks a little more impressive to me because of its unusual word order.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How to say "the one I sent the letter to"
I sent him the letter -
He was the one who sent me the letter -
He was the one I sent the letter to - ???
|
You can say ****.
This is more or less important. If you omitted , the sentence would become ambiguous:
>
>
> * He is the one who sent a letter (to someone).
> * He is the one I sent a letter to.
>
The use of cannot solve this type of ambiguity ( is still ambiguous the same way). And even the following simple phrase is ambiguous in Japanese:
>
>
> * a person who sent a letter (to someone) (=the sender)
> * a person who someone sent a letter to (=the receiver)
>
Please read the following questions for details:
* Clarification about how should be translated
* Relative Clause Ambiguous
* How is the subject of this subclause made clear?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, relative clauses, nominalization, giving and receiving, cleft sentences"
}
|
What part does 「成」 play when tailed to a word?
So I recently came across a song called by Leo Ieiri.
I know means "Incomplete" or "Unfinished". I'm interested in knowing what that represents when used after and what are other ways to use it.
|
I think you're parsing it incorrectly... It's +, not +.
[]{} - prefix, "not yet" "un-"
[]{} - "completion" "accomplishment" "perfection"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, parsing, prefixes"
}
|
Please help me understand the grammar of this にする sentence
This sentence appeared on NHK news web easy today in regards to the corona virus.
>
I believe the grammar that is tripping me up is the nested in te form.
My best interpretation:
> According to some government office, until the results of the test are received, [they] won't be allowed to leave.
The construction and the final Must be a type of grammatical construction I am not familiar with yet.
|
I believe that the subject of is the Ministry of Health () whereas the subject of is people who have taken the medical tests.
Broken down:
The ministry of health () decides that () it will receive [by the potentially ill people] the favor () of their making sure () to not go out ().
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the proper way to describe the weather as cool?
I was asked `{}{}?`
My response was: `{}`
I was told that's not the right way to say that. Instead I should say: `{}`
Which is the right way? If I'm wrong, why? And when should I use `{}`?
|
This is such a tricky question; It almost caught me.
The other person would be correct **_if_** :
1) S/He said {} **** and not **** . While the latter is not totally impossible, the former would be way more natural.
**_AND_**
2) The conversation took place in the winter. ← très important!
{} ("It's cool") is generally said only during the summer (or the warmer half of the year) when it happens to be nice and cool on particular days. It is a welcome change from what one would normally expect during that time of year, which would be 'hot and muggy'.
It would be unusual, if not terribly incorrect, to say in the winter. It would indeed sound considerably more natural to say .
Likewise, native speakers would not say {} in the summer when it is a little less hot than usual. It is a welcome temperature change for a short period of time, but we would say {}.
In conclusion,
describes a **higher-to-lower** temperature change.
describes a **lower-to-higher** temperature change.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 19,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "word choice, semantics"
}
|
meaning of hiragana in a verse
This sentence is from a poem:
.
The katakanas mean "toilet paper". How about the hiraganas?
I thought it would be a verb because of the -ending, but can't find a verb like this in the dictionary.
|
is an onomatopoeia that describes, in this case, the sound made by the toilet paper rolling.
The variants include , etc.
Onomatopoeias are an important part of our language and that is such an understatement. Onomatopoeias rule.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, hiragana, onomatopoeia, poetry"
}
|
Meaning of the phase: 筋ってもん
I'm having a bit of trouble getting a grasp of (sujitte mon) and what it's supposed to convey. Does it possibly have kind of declarative function for whatever precedes it?
Examples include:
and
Any help is appreciated.
|
I suspect the core of your confusion comes from not knowing a meaning of {} which is applicable in both of your sentences; that is:
>
>
>
This usage of is pretty idiomatic and mostly found in the expressions or , which you should be able to look up directly.
stems from that usage and basically means that is the reasonable, logical, right, or natural thing to do.
The is best explained in detail elsewhere (see this answer, h/t Chocolate for finding that), but it’s basically a masculine-ish way of giving a “that’s the way things are” sort of finality to your sentence. Overall, I would say that is not so common a collocation to be able to treat it as a single unit, so it is likely better to consider them separately.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "parsing"
}
|
Combining two or more verbs for ありがとう
I have seen that to express a sequence of verbs, you can use the -form,
>
and the same form is used when thanking with various formalities,
>
>
>
>
>
Then would it be correct to simply replace with some collection of -form verbs, say,
> ...
Or would that be too unnatural, and something like
>
is preferred?
|
While the sentence:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
is a completely natural-sounding one, it would not generally be a very natural-sounding sentence if one tried to employ multiple verbs in front of . In this case, it is different from English where one can naturally say:
"Thank you for (verb 1)ing and (verb 2)ing for me yesterday!"
For one thing, is a fixed phrase and grammatically speaking, it does not have a wide application.
{} is fine as it is "simple" enough.
{}{}..., however, is definitely not. It sounds very... "foreign" for a lack of words. It sounds "translated". Native speakers would phrase it as:
> **** ****
or slightly more formally:
> **** ****
**Point is we tend to use the connectors . etc. We also tend to repeat , etc. as well**.
Finally,
> {}
is a totally different kind of sentence without using a verb, so it is difficult for me to say anything productive about it except that it is a valid phrase.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Difference in nuance regarding AはＢがＣ and ＡのＢはＣ
For instance,
> (1)
vs
> (2)
(and possibly also)
> (3)
My understanding is that they all mean the same thing, except that (1) and (3) differ by which part of the sentence is emphasized (after the particle for (1), while before for (3)). But I'm not too certain about the implication for (2) in this case.
|
I can't explain in grammatical terms, but I would say I disagree with you in that 1 and 3 are similar because they both emphasize the "hair" to be the focus of the statement, whereas in 2 the subject ("A") is the focus. They all have the same effect in that they all convey that the hair of A is black but to me (a native) it feels like a difference of what the person saying this wants to stress.
Not sure if you get what I'm saying ... I can elaborate further if you wish.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "nuances"
}
|
は vs が in the following passage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The sentence sounds like James does not like this kind of meeting (long meetings) BUT likes another kind of meeting. This does not make sense. Secondly, in , makes it sound like James thinks the CUSTOMERS are the ones who are bored. But what is "customers" being compared that requires "customers" to be emphasized with ? Of course I am probably not aware of many of the usages of & because I am a beginner and apparently entire books have been written on these 2 particles. So if someone could point out what the exact usages of the particles are in this case, I would greatly appreciate it.
|
in indeed stresses that there is something particularly unpleasant about these meetings, as they are the topic. is the topic marker. James doesn’t necessarily hate all meetings, but these meetings he does not like.
In , the topic is really the whole fact that the customers are getting bored, and not just the costumers per se. So using the topic marker instead of would be inappropriate.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "は and が"
}
|
The もの in 再生したもの
How would you understand this sentence:
> ****
“This is the tool that fixed the PET bottle”? Or, “this is an object made from recycled PET bottles”?
I typed it into Google Translate and it gave neither answer but simply “this is a recycled bottle”.
If Google Translate is right, I don’t understand the logic of including in the sentence.
|
Under normal circumstances, the sentence:
> {}
would only mean one thing which is:
> "This is an object/thing made from recycled PET bottles."
to borrow your translation.
One would say this sentence by pointing, for instance, at fleece. Fleece is made from PET bottles, which is why it tends to be inexpensive.
Your other translation "This is the tool/machine that fixed/recycled the PET bottle." would not be a very natural one, if not entirely impossible. If that were what one wanted to say, one would use **** instead of instead (and perhaps also {} or {} instead of as well).
The Google translation, as usual and as expected, is just garbage. PET bottles are better as garbage because they turn into my jackets.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, usage, expressions"
}
|
Meaning of 「がです」
I found this sentence in a story I'm reading:
> ****
Trying to understand I tried looking on Google, on my grammars and here on Stack Exchange, but I only found the reverse order, ; Google translate translate it as "is", but Google translations aren't alway that great, especially with single words.
I think can understand the sentence ("No matter who, no matter which type of person, I think everyone does it at least once, isn't it? To hate someone without reason"), but I can't wrap my head around . I don't think it nominalize the preceding sentences, both because I'm not even sure can do such a thing (I don't think I ever saw it used that way; on the contrary, when nominalization is needed, , with to nominalize), and there is already doing the nominalization.
Is that the particle? What does it means in this context?
|
> {}{} **** {}{}{} ****
As always, the answer (or at least a big hint) can be found in the context. Here, the answer is right there in the first sentence.
**** ****
Though I am certain that what roughly refers to has already been explained even prior to the first sentence, it is explained once again (perhaps in more concrete and/or concise terms) in the second sentence.
has nothing to do with and it is used far more often than you seem to think. The in is, of course, a particle. It is the regular subject-marker preceded by the noun .
**Point is, however, something is left unsaid between the and ** because it gets wordy and awkward if it is said.
****
**** ****
has already been said in the first sentence, so why repeat it in the second?
Hand-made examples:
A:{}{} **** {} ****
B:{} ****
A:{}{} **** {} ****
B:{} ****
A:{} **** ****
B:{} ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle が"
}
|
What does ▲ mean in a newspaper?
I was reading this article and noticed it had some symbols.
What are they supposed to indicate? They seem to indicate breaks, but they probably don't mean the same thing as a comma or a period, which both also exist in the article.
|
paragraph
![](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "punctuation"
}
|
Can 行くな change to 行くぬ?
Can change to with the same meaning "Don't go"?
|
From your comment:
> I see that when combined with a dictionary form of a verb produces the negative imperative. And can be replaced with . So can replaced with with the same meaning?
First of all, no. The is a particle (). and are auxiliaries ().
The negative imperative is attached to the attributive form () of a verb:
> + → "Don't go!"
The negative auxiliaries and are attached to the imperfective form () of a verb. The of is , so:
> + → **** / + → **** "don't go"
In modern Japanese, the auxiliaries and don't have the imperative form ().
(In classical Japanese, the terminal form of is , and its imperative form is .)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
負かした俺: who beat whom in this relative clause?
Context: Riku is a boxer of Baba gym. Tokorozawa is a retired boxer of Baba gym. Ishigami is a retired boxer of an unmentioned gym. Tokorozawa beat Ishigami in the past. Recently, Tokorozawa asked a favour to Ishigami. Now also Riku is taking advantage of Ishigami's help. When Riku asks Ishigami about the match with Tokorozawa, Ishigami says:
> **** …
is a transitive verb, so I think means "me who beat". From this sentence it looks like it was Ishigami that beat someone from Baba gym. Who is the subject and object of ? Could you explain how this relative clause works?
Could you also confirm that is the subject of ?
Here you can see the original page (Ishigami is the man with the shaven head).
Thank you for your help!
|
> {}{}{}{}… {}{}
You are reading the part the other way around. The one who has been beaten is the speaker and the one who beat the speaker is (or someone from that gym).
means **** , which is what the speaker refers to by . is certainly often translated as "everyone", but that is only the " ** _figurative everyone_** ".
In reality, is used when more than one person are doing the same (kind of) thing. Furthermore, in emphatic or exaggerated speech, we quite often use to refer to just one person when we have a strongly negative feeling about his/her action.
> Could you also confirm that is the subject of ?
Exactly, it is. is the only "real" verb there since is used within a relative clause.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "manga, relative clauses, transitivity, subjects, object"
}
|
Using を when not followed by a verb
I understood the sentence below:
>
as to be:
> Such interesting stories are known as , and people who tell are called .
However, if the meaning is as I have interpreted, what is the grammatical rules with regards to the usage of in the above? Would it also work if it was simply
>
Sentence lifted from Lesson 20 of Genki II.
|
> Using when not followed by a verb
But {} and are both verbs in:
> {}{}{} **** {}{}{} ****
is the continuative form and is the masu-form of the verb , isn't it?
Thus, is used mid-sentence because the sentence still continues after it.
Noun + does not need to be followed _**directly**_ by a verb. There can be other words placed in between as in:
**** {}
**** {}, etc.
Hope you are following this explanation.
> **A** \+ + **B** \+ +
BTW. is an extremely common set phrase meaning:
> "to call A 'B'"
You ask:
> Would it also work if it was simply:
>
>
No, it would not. That would not be natural-sounding under normal circumstances. Careful speakers would not use in that sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle を"
}
|
の to prevent repetition of が
In the following sentence
is it correct that replaces the more obvious option in order to avoid close repetition of
So if the following in had not been there to interfere, would it have been more natural to use ?
Or do the two options actually differ with some semantic nuance?
|
I think the reason why the expression of in `` is rather scientific reason than the syntax.
We don't have to emphasize :the wind from north in winter because the Eurasian continent is cold in winter and it it higher pressure than the area around Japan. Therefore, the wind blows from north(or north western) of Japan, especially Siberia.
We even have the song called and are probably getting used to associate "" with "cold and winter" by the melody.
Probably in spring or autumn, if it has been still cold or getting cold from time to time, you might hear /on the weather forecast news.
Normally we expect the wind from tropical zone on the south(south east) of Japan in hot summer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "nuances, particles, syntax"
}
|
就く in sports jargon
I know that {means “to be hired”. But does it have a separate meaning in sports jargon (soccer, baseball...)
I’m referring to the following sentence:
|
> know that {}means “to be hired”.
While that is not incorrect, I would rather suggest that you remember the meaning as "to assume a position". Why? Because while is in the active-voice form, "to be hired" is in the passive voice.
The in the sentence:
> {}{}{}{}
is not all that different in that it means:
> "Everyone ran to assume a defensive position."
Sports or business, you are assuming/taking a certain position. That is what means.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs, expressions"
}
|
When is it good to use "ダサい"?
When is it good to use "" (out of fashion, boring)? Is it an everyday word?
|
> Is it an everyday word?
I think it certainly is used enough for it to be a popular parlace slang term most speakers will be familiar with.
> When is it good to use "" (out of fashion, boring)?
It helps me think of it as an approximate translation of _lame_ and how speakers use that word in English. There might be a slight caveat in this though, in that seems to be directed more at what is considered by the speaker lame _fashion_ and not exactly _attitude_ per se, as suggested by this answer in Chiebukuro asking about the difference between and . So this would include "out of fashion".
For the general meaning of "boring" it is a harder fit in my opinion. I'd probably be using instead.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, word usage, offensive words"
}
|
Number of kanji characters / words I need to learn for N3 level
I've been studying Japanese for 2 years. I'm N4 level currently, recently I've had a bit of slump in learning but i think I'm about to go back to learning once again
Can anyone tell me the minimum number of words / kanji characters I need to learn in order to prepare for and accomplish N3 level?
|
The Level N3 kanji list is expected to be about 650 kanji in total (or between 300-1000).
A typical list is assembled by taking all the taught in Japanese high school, grades 1 to 4, and removing those already in levels N4 and N5.
This brings total number of new kanji to be learned to 361. Source: <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
How to say "you should search for x here"
I'm mostly a beginner and still figuring grammar out. I was wondering if
**(location) (object) **
would be a grammatically correct format for a rough translation of "you should search for x here" in casual speech. for example,
** **
Thanks!
|
In everyday conversations, the location marker for the verb {} is rather than .
Using is not incorrect, but it surely would make the sentence sound (unnecessarily) literary, old-fashioned, poetic, etc. Thus, I would not recommend that you use in your sentence **unless you actually intend to use it for your own aesthetic reasons**.
I would say:
> ****
FYI, the verbs that take as their usual location-marker include:
{} (to live) (to be, to exit){} (to stay), etc. These are all **_stative_** verbs.
{} ("to look for") is too "active" an action to take except for the special cases explained above.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
じゃなく、じゃなくて、じゃなくては、ではなく、ではなくて、ではなくては
Which of the above are acceptable in the following construction?
What I am confused about is which of the constructions are grammatical and which are not? I have used in the past without correction, but when using the more formal form , it seems as though form is not used at all, and is in fact wrong.
|
> {}{}{}{}
The key words in this incomplete sentence are and .
Almost only by seeing the two tiniest kana words, we know right away that we are dealing with a " **not only A but also B** " type of sentence pattern here.
> "My (partner) can not only cook but he can also do the household chores."
The phrases that can safely fit into that empty spot must be in the forms of:
**** and **** less informally and
**** and **** informally.
(For each pair, the makes it one step more informal than without.)
Basically, no other phrases would fit in either grammatically or contextually. Neither **** nor **** would belong there. There is simply no reason that the final is needed.
**** is most often used in negative conditional/hypothetical constructs such as:
**** ("I can't live without you.")
("If you come to Japan, you've got to go to Kyoto.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
}
|
Short verb + な mid-sentence
While reading a short story I found this sentence:
> ****
The narrator in the past punched Aoki, since Aoki spread (or so thinks the character) rumors on the narrator. Years later Matsumoto killed himself and a teacher speaks with the narrator, because Matsumoto was bullied and punched, which seems to have lead to his suicide, and the narrator goes to a boxing gym.
In the quoted sentence the narrator is guessing that Aoki used Matsumoto death to take revenge, but I can't understand . I'm guessing is in continuous form, while refers to ; what about ?
The only things that comes to mind is the negative imperative, but I'm not sure it fits here - if it does, I have no clue about the sentence meaning. I'm guessing it means something like "This is Aoki picking a quarrel with me", but I'm totally ignoring that . I'm not sure if any of Jisho's meaning fits, and I wasn't able to find anything relevant - it being a single kana doesn't help.
|
> ****
> ****
That is a sentence-ending particle which Goo defines as:
>
>
>
meaning:
> Attached to terminal forms of inflecting words and other particles.
>
> Expresses light declaration or assertion. ****
Thus, this is not the negative imperative .
> I'm guessing it means something like "This is Aoki _**picking a quarrel with me**_ "
I am afraid that you are thinking of the other meaning of {}. In this context, means " _ **to be involved**_ ". You will need to remember this meaning as it is used very often for this meaning in informal speech.
Jisho seems to keep failing to serve J-learners but it never loses its popularity. is a _**major**_ sentence-ender that is used many times daily by us native speakers.
> "I knew immediately that Aoki was involved in this."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Can 集合 be used to refer to a meeting between 2 people only?
Not a lot of context is necessary I think, just this line a person said to their friend:
I'm not sure if this implies a group gathering between friends (more than 2) or if it can also just refers to the 2 of them. I usually see used when talking about groups of people so I'm not sure.
thanks
|
I'd say I won't find it odd if is used when (only) two people gather. Actually, as I searched my inbox, I found myself saying etc. to some friends of mine when I was going to meet one friend, not more. , rather than meet, is useful when we meet somewhere and then go elsewhere together.
I might not be the majority, but I'd like to imagine that the majority of the native speakers will feel confortable with using "" at least, when only two people are meeting.
As @DXV says, is another word that can convey the similar meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word usage"
}
|
だったらはやくいやあいいのに DB
I'm still learning. This is Goku tied to a tree in first chapter of DB. Translated as: "She should've said it earlier".
Can someone give me a literal translation? Something is preventing me from parsing the sentence right and I think it could provide me the missing link for understanding.
= If that's the case
= soon
= No / why
= say
= although
|
> = No / why
> = say
here is a colloquial pronunciation of []{}, which is the conditional form () of the verb .
is []{}.
>
means
> []{}[]{}
literally "though it would be good if (she) said soon"
→ (She) should have said it earlier.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, contractions"
}
|
Is の needed when describing genre?
Simple question really, is needed when describing genre? For example: or . SF or SF. The same for music etc. Thank you!
|
If you drop the , you are effectively inventing a noun. This is grammatical and natural but will sound a bit colloquial as you are casually creating new nouns. It will also change how is pronounced (`SF -> SF, SF -> SF`).
You can apply the same logic to music in theory: e.g. ->->, but you can't quite use it for genres (for example, it's unnatural to say etc. because the genres are simply called ). It also doesn't work with .
Hard to explain why it works for but not with , but in case of , there are other "synthesized" nouns that are commonly used (like ) so it doesn't sound too strange. In you don't have such nouns so it sounds very odd.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle の"
}
|
Meaning of “かぶらず” and usage of に
I came across a sentence which had . As, per the picture, the meaning is nothing to wear on head. However, I was trying to figure out whether is part of conjugation of the verb , however, many websites were not showing such conjugation, and the meaning of word for that matter. Thereafter, I googled it and found it meant not wearing.
So
> my question is; whether is is the conjugation of or is it something else?
>
> Is it some sort of a negative form to be used with particle which also has the function of showing nothingness?
Secondly, I just wanted to seek clarification on usage of particle , are we using this particle and not , because if we use that particle it would me, my head has nothing to wear, which can also be misunderstood as, my head, literally has nothing to wear, which would be different from there is nothing to put on my head, which the author is trying to show.
Thanks :)
 verb and the indicates the indirect object. The direct object would be something like a hat, which you could put on. But then, there is the question of where you put the hat. The answer is: on your head.
> = (I) put a hat on my head.
>
> = on my head
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, verbs"
}
|
Difference between どこが and どこで in sentence
I was practicing some writing and attempted to write the following sentence
> Where can I find the cat food?
I originally wrote
> ****
However I was corrected to
> ****
What is the difference between the two sentences? Why is wrong?
|
is wrong (here) as the place is not the subject of that sentence. Imagine to replace it with the position of the cat food: (wrong) . Here you probably wouldn't even consider saying it in this way.
So the right thing to do is to use for the place you do the action (searching), therefore also for the question word that asks for this place.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle が, particle で"
}
|
What does 「いねえのかよ」mean?
It comes from the full sentence
![enter image description here](
The portion before the comma I translated as "I noticed that/a guy", as the character just woke up in a dark room and is hearing voices around him in the dim light. The portion after the comma I am confused about. Does it mean anything literally? I think it's basically a string of particles with a "questioning" {{JP:}}, an "inquisitive/forceful" {{JP:}}, and a determined {{JP:}}. With that I guess that it gives the reader the feeling that the character is uncertain whether to be happy or afraid that he/she has noticed this other person.
|
tends to be a rough way of expressing surprise, like when you look at your watch and see it's already 11:30 PM.
Additionally, here does not - and cannot - mean 'I noticed that guy'. The word here is an entire relative clause modifying , so is 'a person/people who understand(s)/know(s)'.
Your understanding of here is wrong as well. It's not an elongated ; rather it's a slangy pronunciation of . is a rough, slangy .
Accordingly the sentence means something like 'Come on, ain't there anybody who understands/knows?!'
By the way, it's a much better idea to show us the surrounding sentences rather than simply explaining the context yourself.
PS: Now that I know what you were reading and have been able to look up the context myself, it looks like the meaning was 'Ain't there anybody who knows where we are?!'
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, reading comprehension"
}
|
で at the beginning of a sentence
I hear native speakers using or was it when speaking a lot at the beginning of a sentence. Judging by context, I think it translates to either "and" or "therefore" or "so" or "because of that", but I might be wrong. An example usage I have heard (if i recall) would be as follows: 1\. 2\.
I've only ever heard it in speech and never seen in in writing. So the question is, in casual written context, would it be written as
`` or
`` or
`` (notice that there is no comma) or
`` (notice that there is no comma)
I know it sounds (very) trivial, but I'm just curious which is the correct form
I am tagging it as slang at the moment, but do let me know if there are better tags
|
> Judging by context, I think it translates to either "and" or "therefore" or "so" or "because of that", but I might be wrong.
You are not wrong. is an extremely common conjunction meaning "and", "and then", "for that reason", etc.
It is an informal/colloquial form of , etc.
Since is informal, it is not used in formal writing or speech, but it is often used in informal writing and speech.
When it is used in writing, it is mostly in the form of with a comma. In very casual texting among young people, however, the comma may be dropped.
or with elongation is quite common in speech, but not very in writing.
Finally, though it is informal, it is not slang by any stretch.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "colloquial language, orthography, conjunctions"
}
|
replacing もの (noun) with もん (noun)
There are many usages of , but the one I am interested in is using to replace (tangible noun). For example:
`` (lit translation: cheap stuff) can be used to replace ``
The question is, can it be used to modify a sentence into a noun in a complex sentence? For example:
`` (Notice that the modifies the sentence into a noun in a complex sentence)
If I recall correctly, this is grammatically wrong because can only replace if and only if it is at the end of the sentence. For example, the sentence `` is grammatically correct, but not ``.
I realize that one will still definitely understand the meaning of the sentence perfectly well, but is this structure actually ever used?
|
You're right that () "thing" "stuff" can be contracted to , eg []{}, []{}[]{}, []{} → , , etc. in colloquial speech, especially in Kansai.
>
It makes sense, but grammatically speaking it's not a _full_ sentence; to say "This knife is cheap stuff", you need a copula / at the end.
>
>
... but []{} would be more common/natural in this case:
>
>
* * *
> "This knife is cheap stuff, **but** it is pretty sharp"
> ****
The conjunctive particle ("but") should be attached to the terminal form () of a verb, adjective, etc., like this:
> ****
> / ****
Or more colloquially:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "slang"
}
|
Is the で in ～が原因で～ the copula?
In constructs like is the the form of ?
For example in:
I assume it is for the to make sense, but I can't find any information on this, so if anyone knows an answer would be greatly appreciated!
|
> {}{}{}{} **** {}{}
That is a particle and not a copula.
It can generally be said that would be a particle unless it could grammatically and contextually be replaced by , etc.
In the phrase in question, the cannot be replaced by one of those phrases.
A good example of the copula can be seen in this Q&A:
How to parse
If you had a sentence such as:
> ****
then, that in bold would certainly be a copula in the {} ("continuative form").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, copula"
}
|
Why does furigana often appear in the most unnecessary places in Japanese books?
I'm been starting to try to read some Japanese novels recently, and one thing that struck me was that when furigana is used, it seemed to show up in the most unnecessary places.
For example, in the first few pages of Haruki Murakami The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (), furigana was given for
and ,
all of which are common words that I'd guess are easily readable by most Japanese 10-year olds.
Maybe the last two are there since those words are usually written in kana, but the first two for example, make no sense at all.
|
I think the reasons are all various. According to the Association of Japanese Newspapers, is “a word with complex kanji or an existing tradition of writing in hiragana,” that should prescriptively be supported by hiragana in writing. , meanwhile, is a word that is known from childhood but its kanji is taught relatively late. is a very non-Jōyō usage, not listed among the allowed non-standard readings in the Jōyō, is literally made of non-Jōyō kanji. The novel was published in 1994-95, so and can be explained by the fact that and are still recent additions of 1981 and not everyone is guaranteed to know them. Only remains an outlier, but perhaps it is used in a context where rendaku is possible, to prevent ? Also, apparently, in spoken Japanese it can be reduced to , and it could be to prevent that.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "furigana"
}
|
How would you ask "What makes your mouth water?" in Japanese?
I want to ask "What makes your mouth water?" in Japanese, but I'm not quite sure what is the right way. I was thinking of saying:
|
Unless it is not an idiomatic phrase, for instance probably talking to dogs,{}{}might be a decent translation of "What makes your mouth waters?"(probably {} is more appropriate since "what makes you..." induces involuntary movement).
However, when you are asking "What is your the most favorite food?" to your friends, probably the translation could be{}{}/{}{} or something like that.
In Japanese, the expression could be used for not only making saliva in your mouth but also it could be used for the symptom which is ravenously collecting something such as a plastic model/manga/video game which is already out of production(It is mostly expressed {}{}or something.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "phrases, phrase requests, questions"
}
|
How to interpret "あとはかってにちゅうもんしてくれりゃ"?
I learn Japanese by watching myself. In the introduction of an episode, the main character says "".
I am able to figure out the meaning of the whole sentence by watching translated subtitle. However, I have no idea when and how to use the phrase "".
So, what is the modality when you use ""? How to use it correctly ?
|
**** is a colloquial, contracted pronunciation of ****.
For this kind of contraction, see this thread:
* What is the meaning of in this phrase?
breaks down to...
> -- "order", the -form of the -verb
> * -- "if you do ~~ (for me)", the conditional form of the subsidiary verb
> (* is a conjunctive particle)
For more on the subsidiary verb :
* Differences between , and
So the sentence literally means:
> []{}[]{}
> "Other than that, if you order as you like, then~~"
* * *
This contraction (eba→ya) might sound a bit masculine/rough. A few examples...
> ****
> ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, colloquial language, contractions"
}
|
やり い-form conjunction vs て-form conjunction
From Assimil's "Japanese With Ease" volume 2, lesson 72, sentence 10.
> ,,,
, Furthermore since he couldn't stand up alone
,I had to help him up each time
,it took half a day
to finally be able to descend from the mountain once
> ,,
I don't understand why it is and not .
1.)Wikipedia says the i-form can be used in conjunctions in formal writing. I assume that this is happening here, am I assuming correctly?
1.a) If not, what is happening here?
2.) Could , be used instead?
2.a)If not, why?
2.b)If so, how would it change the feeling/meaning of the sentence?
|
1. Yes, you're right. For more about the use of as a conjunction, see:
* Is there a term for using conjugating verbs such that the sentence continues with another clause?
* Removal of in Japanese novels
2. Yes, you can rephrase the as in your example.
It doesn't change the semantic meaning. would be a little less formal/literary than .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, て form, conjunctions, renyōkei"
}
|
appending くれる to verbs for unwanted things that someone else did
Appending to the form of a (normal) verb means that someone else did the work. For example:
`` \- (someone) ate it (and I am happy he ate it)
The sentence above has a nuance that the person who ate, did a favour to me, and that favour was that he ate the food (whatever the reason, he did me a favour).
The question is, what if I didn't want that someone to eat the food, but that someone still ate the food (and I am pissed about it). In this case, will it be possible to use the same sentence structure? I.e:
`` \- (someone) ate it (and I am super pissed that he ate it)
If it is possible to use even in the second example above, a second question arises and that is, how would I know if the action done was in favour of or was in spite of me. For example, if someone was to tell me ``, how would I know if he is pissed that I ate it, or he is happy that I ate it?
|
> what if I didn't want that someone to eat the food, but that someone still ate the food (and I am pissed about it).
How about **** () **** , using ?
You can also say **** **** or just ****
(But please note that and both sound pretty strong, angry and rough.)
> will it be possible to use the same sentence structure?
Yes, you could say **** _sarcastically_.
You could also say **** , where explicitly shows that you're pissed off.
> how would I know if the action done was in favour of or was in spite of me. For example, if someone was to tell me , how would I know if he is pissed that I ate it, or he is happy that I ate it?
I think you should just see from the tone of the voice and the speaker's facial expression.
![](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "giving and receiving"
}
|
Translations of「しっとり」for describing food
On the television the other day, there were some people talking about how the word applied to food can't be translated exactly into other languages. It seems that could be translated into "moist" when talking about a cake for example, we say a cake is "moist". Are the TV people right that is untranslatable?
|
According to the search on cookpad, at the momenthas the hit of 51,369 menus.
For instance, _"Gateau chocolate"_ :, _"Chocolate cookie"_ : , _"Chicken Ham"_ :, _"Banana Cake"_ :, _"Tofu Donuts"_ :, _"Rice flour crepe"_ :&, etc.
If the texture of food is "moist", you can safely use it to any kinds of food.
I am not sure why they said that the word is untranslatable. Unless the food is the thing which you can not eat outside Japan or hard to find, it should be translatable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, onomatopoeia"
}
|
What does 「うめる」means in this sentence?
I've tried looking up this word in dictionaries + translate tools, it all say the word means is "to bury". So what does it mean in this sentence?
I read it on the start section of a textbook, so I guess it means something like "this book will explain everything a little by little", but I'm not sure is it true or not.
|
[]{} can also mean "to fill in (a form, blank)".
eg
> []{}[]{}
> Fill in the blanks.
* * *
To break your sentence into smaller chunks...
> -- understand, know the answer to
> -- the part
> -- from, starting from
> -- fill in, fill up, fill out
> -- let's try, please try
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
けいえい 【経営】pronunciation
My dictionary says that is pronounced in one syllable with one really long vowel. Is this how it really is pronounced? Is there a tone change or a brief pause between the kanji? Or do you just hold the ei vowel for an extended period?
Edit: it’s It uses Siri’s voice to simulate pronunciations, which is why I have my doubts if it’s accurate here.
|
> My dictionary says that is pronounced in one syllable with one really long vowel.
Having lived all of my life in Japan as a native speaker, I have never heard the word pronounced that way.
In most cases (like over 99% of the time), it is pronounced:
>
in two elongated syllables.
Once in a while (the remaining less than 1 %) when a person needs/wants to emphatically pronounce it for some specific reason, that person might pronounce it:
>
in four exaggerated syllables.
Again, I do not even know how could possibly be pronounced in one syllable. In addition, even if such pronunciation were possible (like ?), almost no one would understand what word it would be if pronounced that way.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "vowels"
}
|
1つの嘘から始まった連鎖は meaning
> **1**
I think the above sentence is an idiom. I'm just guessing that the meaning is (roughly): Once we began to tell a lie, we will try to cover our lie with more lies.
**** (as I read it from **meaning-book.com** /): " **don't know when to stop** ".
But I'm not sure how to translate **1**. (A chain that started from 1 lie?)
Thank you in advance for the guidance.
|
> (as I read it from meaning-book.com/): "don't know when to stop".
The meaning is more like "nobody knows how/where it will end".
> But I'm not sure how to translate 1. (A chain that started from 1 lie?)
Your notion of the meaning is correct, but you could translate it into English as "what", as in something like "what started with a single lie", you don't necessarily have to literally translate the into English.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "idioms"
}
|
In what contexts can 旗色が悪い be used?
According to , can be used when there is some connotation of a battle, war or fight - which makes sense because it literally translates to something like _the color of the national flag is bad_.
Just wondering how natural it would sound in more general contexts of failure or despondency. For example:
>
|
Here's the list of examples from BCCWJ.
![enter image description here](
We can see the idiom can be safely used in non-military contexts, but is always used in the context of argument, debate, competition, or at least comparison of two opposing ideas. It should not be used to describe simple failures without competitors, rivals, enemies, etc.
I feel on its own sounds a little unnatural because there is no direct reference to comparison in this sentence. It should be okay if a competitor has been mentioned in previous sentences. Something like A is fine on its own.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "expressions, phrases, idioms"
}
|
Could either どこに男の人がいますか and 男の人はどこですか be used?
Another quick one here. Just wondering if both of the above are appropriate ways to voice the question 'Where is the man' (as well as contextually similar questions). Thank you!!
|
Though your point gets across with both structures, one comes off more unnatural than the other.
>
By inserting the (see below for why I don't use ) into the middle of , you break up the flow of the sentence, and risk loosing what you are originally trying to ask. It's better to put in front of .
Additionally, is also unnatural sounding to me. Usually, when you're talking about a man, you say . is more polite and respectful. Additionally, doesn't specify one person. You could be asking if there are multiple men there. I would say the difference is the difference between saying 'man person/people' () and 'man/gentleman' ().
The usage of in this sentence seems to be okay though.
>
This is much more natural sounding, especially if you replace with .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle が"
}
|
こん中だけ昼間になったぞ DB
I'm still learning. This is Goku seeing artificial light for the first time in second chapter of DB. Translated as: "It's daylight in here!"
= = in here
= just
= daylight
= turned to
= emphasizer
I don't understand the nuance that is adding to the sentence. There would be any difference in meaning if it is replaced by ?
Bulma had just turned on the lights. Is this maybe referring to this fact but it got lost in the translation?.
|
This means "only", and means "only inside this (capsule house)". He said because this light had its effect only within the capsule, which was surprising to him. Of course the real daylight normally fills the entire environment.
Note that English "just" has multiple meanings, and "just" as in "She had _just_ turned on the light" or "I _just_ started to eat" never translates to . See this if you want to translate this type of "just".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, particle だけ"
}
|
Using こっち to replace 私
I have heard people replacing with in casual speech. For example: instead of . The question is, under what circumstances can one use instead of . I know that can mean "my side", which might imply that there may be more than 1 person on my end
Similarly, in using instead of (or the person's name)are there any differences besides meaning "you and anyone on your side" whilst meaning just you(and no one else)?
|
or as a substitute of I/we can have a tinge of rudeness to it as it is used to emphasize physical or psychological distance.
The form XXX (I am XXX) is usually used to expresse frustration or grievances ( etc). E.g.:
>
is also used frequently to imply "we don't care about your situation", E.g.:
>
There are neutral use cases like the following:
>
>
But even then it implicitly creates "sides". So, unless you want to create this effect, I wouldn't do it.
Credit: Answer was updated based on @naruto's comment.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What is the nuanced function of 何ひとつ in a negated sentence?
I'm translating the following sentence, and am stumped on how to translate in a negated sentence.
> ……
>
> my name, my family, my friends...I cannot remember x.
I know it can mean ("(not) at all", "(not) a thing") according to this answer, but this leaves me with a issue of possible double negation.
Therefore, does the indicate a negative, or does it indicate what is not being negated via ? For example, does it function as the 'not' in "(not) at all" or does it refer to what is not in the ()?
|
This is a negative polarity item. This means is _always_ followed by a negative expression, and by itself is an intensifier. You asked about " in a negative sentence", but there is no such thing as " in an affirmative (non-negative) sentence"! ( is simply ungrammatical.) The translation of your sentence is "I cannot remember (even) a thing".
This `(not)` or `()` enclosed in parentheses is a common way to indicate a phrase is a negative polarity item. You seem to have seen `()`, `()` or `(not) at all` elsewhere, and this `(not)` is the same. Jisho.org also uses this notation (for example see and ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, negation"
}
|
What is the meaning of ついて in ついてしまう
I have this sentence
I guess it comes from which would be in my opinion a similar form to . Is my guess OK, or is has the here a different origin? Thanks a lot!
|
Yes, the verb is , the same as in . It has many meanings (jisho.org gives 14 definitions and gives 28), and one of the meanings is "to be settled/determined/resolved". Similar usages include:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Unsurprisingly, the transitive equivalent means "to settle/determine/resolve".
*
*
* and so on
On the other hand, we do not say × or ×. Verbs like , , and have many possible meanings, and it's often more practical to remember which noun goes with which verb as a set phrase, one by one. English also has a large number of unpredictable verb usages. (English speakers say "do the dishes", but not "do the glasses". Japanese people never say . This is something a learner has to remember.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, verbs"
}
|
人のことをいっときながら DB Chapter 2
This is Bulma alone complaining about Goku rudeness. Translated as: "I can't believe he had the nerve to call me stuff like witch or fairy".
= things to people (like in saying things to people)
= I'm a witch
= listing (incomplete)
= I'm a fairy/demon
= nominalizer
= ?? (I guess some form of )
= while
|
is a colloquial contraction of , where this is the masu-stem of , which is a subsidiary verb that adds the nuance of "leaving the resultant state". See this question, this chart and this article.
This is closer to "things about someone" rather than "things to people" (see this). This is using the `A + + B() + + verb` pattern (see this and this). Note that this is not a nominalizer but a particle close in purpose to English "as". Thus effectively means "to call someone a witch", and the refers to "me" in this context. A literal translation would look like this:
>
>
> While having called me a witch or a monster, he...!
>
> He's said I was a witch or I was a monster (and has never corrected that), and still...!
The part after is left out, but something bad about Goku is expected. (Perhaps something related to his ignorance about his own abnormality? Depends on the story.) That's where "had the nerve" came from.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, manga, contractions, subsidiary verbs"
}
|
Absence of て in お気をつけください
I’m uncertain about the phrase , which I found where I would have expected . Assuming it’s not a typo is it Should I understand the honorific as qualifying only or the whole and would be grammatically wrong, simply unusual , or something completely different?
|
is a politer/more respectful way of saying .
It's the honorific + noun form/ + form.
Examples:
* "Please wait"
(noun form/ of is ) → ++
* "Please speak"
(noun form/ of is ) → ++
* "Please be careful"
(for kango you generally use ) → ++
Likewise:
* "Please take care"
(turning into the noun form/) → ++
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, usage, nuances, expressions, て form"
}
|
Why is を in this sentence: これからのお話を?
I’ve stumbled upon the sentence , which was translated “a story from now on” but why is in the end and what is it’s meaning here? As far as I know is used to indicate direct objects but I don’t see any in this sentence.
|
The last part just being excluded.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning, particles, sentence"
}
|
Expressing odds in japanese for horse racing
I came across this line of dialogue:
> > **** ...
>>
>> "The odds were so close, at 4-5, but in the middle of things, the rider falls off his horse! It's gotta be rigged!"
I presume the character is referring to odds here, but when imagining the character speaking I do not know how to represent the hyphen () verbally (or most maths symbols, really).
Some quick digging on wikipedia suggest that it would be represented as , which would roughly match with english, but my japanese is not very good so I am asking here.
|
It's not odds but the order of horse racing. 4-5 means that the horse of the number 4 finished first and the horse of the number 5 finished second.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "mathematics"
}
|
Is the topic particle は sometimes interchangable with けど?
By the end of the article here, the author means that is used for "Introductory remarks: to bring up some topics", such as,
> {}
>
>
>
>
Wouldn't the sentences have the same meaning as say,
> {}
>
>
>
>
I've noticed if I were to substitute , then I would remove and . Does this mean that by using , there's less "emotion" and makes the sentence more neutral-sounding?
On the contrary, say that I have some sentences such as,
>
>
>
then would it be appropriate to say the following?
>
>
>
|
is used to specify the topic that has been **already** brought up in the discourse, whereas is used to give an introductory remark before diving into the main theme. If you said "?" at the very beginning of a conversation, it can sound unnatural and sudden. It can sound as if you were assuming the listener had been thinking about Mari. Using is more natural as the starter of a conversation.
>
> Interested in this thing? It's a pen!
> Look at this thing, it's a pen!
These are obviously free translation, but I hope you can catch the nuance. A sentence like this is not impossible, but it sounds like you are explicitly drawing attention to "this object" before disclosing it's actually a pen. You may occasionally want a sentence like this, but you should not think it's interchangeable with .
Also note that // are more commonly used with a longer clause rather than a simple noun. In such cases is obviously not interchangeable with . See this question for example.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
merging 2 verbs such as 返す and 遅れる into 返し遅れる?
Merging two verbs into one is a common structure:
etc.
sometimes the new verb mixes the meaning of the 2 verbs as well, sometimes not.
What about merging 2 verbs into a new verb on an ad hoc basis? This new verb does not exist in a dictionary. But, the mixed meaning of the new verb conveys the meaning I want. For example:
I received an email last week that I overlooked. Today I responded. I wanted to say "to reply late". The "mixed verb" I created is ""
> email ****
Does **** work here? Can you take the liberty to merge verbs and create verbs that don't exist in dictionaries?
**example #2**
I'd think this means " _to escape by running._ "
So, can you merge verbs like this " _when it makes sense and the meaning is clear_ "?
|
> email
I think this one is a bit awkward because of the formality. Between you and your friends, I don't think so many people make a fuss about itself.
According to the NWJC,
has _305 hits._
I think the verb is used in the blogs, social networking services, etc. since it is used like""& , , or something like that. So, it is bit casual andor is more appropriate to your sentence.
(As a side note: I think should be put just beforeif you want to emphasize apology).
has only _72 hits._ So, it is still casual and has not widely been used so far.
has _2270 hits_ and it should be more natural and widely used.
The language has been changing all the time and I am not sure about the future though, the statistics shows some combination of verbs does not work really well at the moment.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
帰路についてくれた translation
> ****
The speaker told his friends to return home first without him, since there was something he has to do.
I'm confused about how to translate ****.
**** ( **** ): to go home (head home/on the way home).
**** ( **** ): to let one have, to give.
Thank you in advance for your kind guidance.
|
> I'm confused about how to translate .
Basically, the speaker is thanking the people for going home.
The problem with translating these kinds of Japanese phrases is that if you try to translate everything in a Japanese text into some kind of English equivalent, you end up with unnatural expressions. The person is already thanking the people for going home with the arigatai, so the meaning of the kureru in the above is already contained in whatever you used to translate that into.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, subsidiary verbs, giving and receiving"
}
|
What is the meaning of this と "and" or "with"?
So, I found a bit confusing the following sentence: In the beginning I thought that the meaning of this sentence was "the daughter and husband of the woman" (to whom the sentence makes reference) because as you know can mean "and" = Japan and China = daughter and husband But also can mean "with" So I concluded that the meaning of the sentence is "The man who is married to this woman's daughter" But I just wanna be sure I'm right with this
|
I think it's safe to say that the only realistic translation is "The man who is married to (with) this woman's daughter" as you said.
Grammatically you could parse it as {}{} "this woman's daughter and a married man" but who is this married man who suddenly appears out of context? That would be silly.
As for your other translation "the daughter and husband of the woman", you wouldn't use to refer to someone's husband, so we can discount this option too.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
笑っちまう程 translation in context
I'm a beginner in Japanese. I don't completely get what
>
means in the context below. Is it something like "The more I laugh the more the situation changes"? It makes no sense to me.
The context:
> ** **
|
is the colloquial form of , here meaning something like “laughing involuntarily/despite oneself”.
{} can be literally translated as “degree” or “extent” and AB usually means something like “B to the extent of A” or “so much/enough B that A”. I.e.
>
Means
> The situation will change † (so much) as to make one laugh
† The tense should be matched to context
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, word usage"
}
|
際に, に際して, にあたって
I'm very confused about these grammatical forms: all of them are translated as "at the time, on the occasion of", and I can't understand the differences. I found some answers and grammatical points on these forms (this and this), and I tried to hit my grammars about them; as far as I understood, the latter two forms are formal and one can usually replace the other.
Moreover, in this answer the answerer said that «A B is more like "B taking A as an oppotunity"», but this sounds odd with this example from the grammar site linked above: ; I understand the sentence, but "You must buy an insurance taking buying a car as opportunity" sounds **very** odd to me, since you don't buy the insurance taking the car as opportunity, you buy the insurance because you must have one if you have a car.
In all of this it doesn't seem that is just a less formal version of the other two, but I don't relly understand how these three forms differ.
|
They all have similar meaning - namely, "faced with X". IMO and has the same nuance, except that is more formal. All three expressions are neutral and don't imply what needs or can be done is positive or negative.
There are differences between , vs. .
\- can be used for events that occur earlier than ,
\- implies the action is done in anticipation
For example:
> (1)
> (2)
Suppose the photo was taken 6 months before flying back. (2) would be perfectly fine, whereas (1) would be a stretch.
Another example:
> (1)
> (2)
(1) is ok, while (2) is very odd because one wouldn't die in preparation of returning to the home country.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Word usages for hearsay: ～そうです vs ～って
For hearsay (), one can append to the plain form of an adjective and verb. For example:
> - Heard it's good for the body
There is also another way to say that and that's using . For example:
> - Heard it's good for the body
The question is, what is the difference between these 2 sentences?
|
is quite casual and colloquial.
**** -- polite and formal
**** -- less polite
**** or **** -- informal, casual, and colloquial
eg
> **** -- You might say this to your boss, teacher, or customer.
> **** -- You might say this to your family or friends.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
How did 沢山 (たくさん) come to mean "many"?
There are understandably a lot of words in Japanese that are made of Kanji totally unrelated to the meaning of the actual word.
However, it's hard to ignore the ubiquitous .
How did a combination of swamp and mountain come to be used to express "many"?
|
The (< has the following entry for
> ****
>
>
>
>
>
Summarized the entry says that the word is often said to be the _on'yomi_ of (=), where
* is _ateji_ for the word stem () meaning "many", and
* is also used for its meaning of "many, numerous".
However, only appears in the early modern period, whereas there are already examples of in the _Heike Monogatari_ from the Kamakura period, so could rather be thought of a _kun'yomi_ of .
The first part could also come from _tak-_ in words like _takai_ () "tall" or _takeru_ () "to rise high", but in the end, the origin is just not clear.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, etymology, adjectives"
}
|
Will the meaning/nuance change in the following construction?
I was going through some sentences and I found that the word was used before and in one after . E.g.
>
>
>
So, my question is; Is there a difference between the two?
Moreover, what about in the same case:
>
>
>
|
Both mean the same thing, but the second form occurs less frequently and attracts attention. So, normally you'd use the first form, but for the impact you might go for the second form.
E.g. let's say my boss is asking:
> (1)
> (2)
The second form sounds definitely more alarming than the former (it's hard to say it in a way that doesn't convey irritation).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, grammar, comparative constructions"
}
|
おまえのろいなー亀になっちゃうぞ DB Chapter 2
This is Goku talking to Bulma who's taking too long to get ready. Translated as: "If you were any slower, you'd turn into a turtle".
= you
= slow
= = ??
= turtle
= turned into (completed action)
= emphasis
Is for "iru negated" or = less than?
|
This is an i-adjective ("slow") followed by a sentence-end particle (a masculine variant of ). is elongated to add emotion. There is no negation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Meaning of 親子同士のペア in the following sentence
Context: In the manga , Riku is going to fight against Hyodo. **Hyodo** is a boxer and the son of a former world champion boxer, so he's a thoroughbred (). He didn't have a good relationship with his father so he moved to Yoneda Boxing Gym. **Yoneda** is a trainer that has recently inherited his father's boxing gym. The two seem to make a good team together. Hearing about all this, Riku's trainer says:
> **** …
What is the meaning of ? To me it translates to "a boxing couple with a father-and-son-like relationship", but the fact that they seem to be about the same age made me think that my translation could be wrong. Could it refer to the fact that they both continued the profession of their fathers and so, in a certain sense, they are both thoroughbred?
Here you can see the original page. Thank you for your help!
|
in this context means "Both father and his son participate in boxing". Hyodo's and Yoneda's father are familiar with boxing, so they are each other.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, words, manga, sports"
}
|
How to say "I learned" with comparison between two items grammar
I'm trying to say "I learned that expensive items are not always better than cheap ones."
Should I use the A B (property) grammar to say that?
Also, I don't know the grammar to say "I learned such and such" yet, but I found this other post that says I can use
How to say that you "learned a lot" by doing something
So putting it all together I came up with something like Is this correct?
Or should i use and say something like this?
|
The grammar choice is fine, but your sentence has a number of errors.
* is an intransitive set phrase which never takes (although it sometimes takes ). takes an object marked with , but the part before must be a noun. You have to nominalize the clause using .
* is not the right adjective here. See this question for the reason.
* is ambiguous, but tends to mean "always not" or "never" rather than "not always/necessarily". Please learn how to use .
Corrected version:
> *
> *
> *
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
評判重視で取れるときは取るって感じで meaning?
I'm struggling with understanding how to parse this sentence into a coherent whole:
> {}.
In the context of someone discussing the potential pitfall of a business idea, am I mistaken I believing "" would be something like "an emphasis on (the business') reputation, and "" might be "taking it when you get it"?
I imagine this is a bit odd for those not familiar with the game, but basically it involves someone remarking on how a character who isn't visible to normal people would have trouble running a pet consultation service due to that and getting strays looking for advice. Here's the panel with the line I'm struggling with:
.
In that case we're more interested in the reputation (we don't care if we can't make money), and will charge when it's possible!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of まってないでつっこまないか?
 of this. My best guess is something like "Don't stand still. Charge the ball!". Is this close?
|
(negative- followed by questioning-) with a falling intonation forms a strong command. See this question. (As an aside, with a rising intonation forms a suggestion/invitation.)
* : "to charge (to the ball)"
* : "Why not charge!" "Charge!"
is "without waiting". To break down:
* : "to wait"
* : "to be waiting"; the progressive form of (te-form of + )
* : "to be waiting"; a contraction of
* : "not to be waiting"; a negative form of
* : "without waiting"; the te-form of
on its own indeed can work as a casual request, too ("(Please) don't keep waiting"), but given his angry face, this is not a correct interpretation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, manga"
}
|
Implicitly self-referring honorifics
I am told that for “I will contact you“ is not more polite than but simply wrong because the honorific should qualify actions done by the interlocutor, not by myself. To make it polite I must use and say instead. This makes perfect sense to me, but wouldn’t it also apply to , where the is honorific?
|
I would say what you were told is partly correct but partly wrong. You should use a verb in business settings. But you can safely add / to a from yourself. Saying is perfectly fine.
/ as a prefix often forms a , but it sometimes forms a mere , too. is not a but a , and you can safely use to refer to things belonging to yourself.
For example, no one thinks you are paying respect to yourself if you said or . However you should not say or because these are .
Likewise, saying is perfectly fine, and it's polite enough when you speak to your colleagues. But you should say when you have to be more respectful.
See my previous answer for details: can {} create implied subjects?
**EDIT:** Something like is also perfectly fine. As Chocolate's links suggest, / is commonly used in humble expressions, too. See this chiebukuro question, too.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "politeness, prefixes"
}
|
What is the それ in それゆけ?
As I understand it, is an interjection that might be translated "Go!" or "Go get 'em!"
While the second component is clearly , what is the intended sense of here?
|
here is an interjection (). It's like .
says:
>
> ****
The pronoun (for "that") is []{LH}. The interjection is []{HL}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "expressions"
}
|
ような (you na) vs ように (you ni) grammar question
I have learnt that ( _you ni_ ) can modify a verb. And ( _you na_ ) modifies a noun. (I am not sure that is quite correct or not). Today I came across this sentence in "NHK easy Japanese" :
> ****
1. Firstly I don't know what it actually means. Does it mean: Because not a lot of people selling goods, many people took holidays by working inside the shops (!?).
2. ( _yasumi_ ) is a noun, so why is used instead of ?
Thank you very much
|
It means: Because the job of selling goods does not attract people, (we) increased holidays to attract more people to work in the shops.
(to attract more people to work in the shops) does not modify , but the verb , or the sentence . So this does not contradict the rule.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
いらっしゃいます and なさる difference
I know, that both are honorifics, but I thought that is more often used when expressing state-of-beeing, aka "Is Tanaka-sama here?" and when expressing doing: "Can someone do it?".I can vaguely guess that is more polite and can be added with ~te, but I come often to see that in above situation both words can be used.How can I differentiate them between one another?
|
These are honorific forms of different verbs, and the degree of respect is not relevant.
is an honorific version of , and ()/.
> * →
> Sensei is in the room.
> * →
> President will come here today.
> * →
> This person is a princess.
> (This cannot be used with inanimate objects. is incorrect.)
>
is an honorific version of and .
> * →
> What would you do?
> * →
> President will visit here today.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "honorifics"
}
|
Relative Clauses and Adjective Placement
How would you add adjectives inside a relative clause to the thing being modified? Is the placement set?
For example, in this sentence, can "new" come directly before computer (1) or should it be within the clause (2) or would even outside the clause be preferred (3)?
(3)(2)(1)
|
I think (1) is best. (2) is unnatural. If you want to place at (2), you need to change to the continuative form of it, which is , because the adjective modifies a verb .
You can place or at (3), but If is placed at (3), a comma is necessary between and because it can mean (new mother).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "adjectives, relative clauses, i adjectives, word order"
}
|
What are these vertical lines called in Japanese?
I was reading the newspaper and saw these vertical lines. I'm guessing it's saying that is in or something along those lines. But my question is what are they called and why they are used instead of say the interpunct/or a black dot  . It's often called or , only because most ordinary natives wouldn't know its actual name, and it does look like either of them. But technically, it's a different sign with different meaning.
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "punctuation"
}
|
Can we change the position of the object?
I know google translate does the bare minimum job of translating a sentence into Japanese. The original sentence was, "I had to hit my head on the table." which was translated into "" I tried changing the position of the object because it made more sense to me. The translated sentence I came up with was, "" Can we use this instead?
Also, "" seems a bit confusing. It translates to "I had to hit." but doesn't mean "If not" and I don't know why "" was used.
|
Actually the meaning of the two Japanese sentences you wrote are the same. In simple sentences like this, the parts with the particle are usually freely interchangeable, and do not affect the meaning. The meaning of and are exactly the same.
Note that for longer sentences with more complicated structures (for example when explaining reasons, order of actions, etc), changing the orders may also change the meaning of the sentences.
For please refer to the link provided in Chocolate's comment.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, translation"
}
|
What’s the difference between サクサク and パリパリ
I have a question about Japanese onomatopoeia (). What is the difference between and ? Are there situations where using one instead of the other is incorrect? As I understand it, they both mean “crispy”.
|
Just a quick search on cookpad,
The 1st page of has "Salad with bean sprouts, white radish, cabbage, lettuce", "Rice crackers", "Pizza made of gyoza sheet", "Cheese crisps", etc.
I think the food texture is kind of crispy and hard. Its sound might be loud and high. So it can be audible to others when you eat it.
The 1st page of menu of has "Tempura", "Scone", "Sardine Cheese Puffs", "Chocolate Banana Muffin", "Butter cookies", etc.
I think the food texture is kind of crunchy, soft and mild. It does not sound so much that other people might not hear when you eat it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, usage, onomatopoeia"
}
|
What is the meaning of バカにはええじゃないか?
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
I don't know how to interpret in the manga here. I believe = but I still can't make sense of this. As the picture suggests, the father says this as some sort of a greeting for the boy who's just got back from school. My best effort at translating this is something like "Aren't you look wonderful!" (my dictionary says = be mighty nice; be absolutely wonderful). But it's obvious that the boy is dejected, so my translation can't be right.
|
I think it might be "", where "" is a twisted pronunciation of "". And the sentence means "(You came back) very early, didn't you"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, colloquial language, spoken language"
}
|
Does saying "私は次男坊です" in self-intro sound humorous? why?
I had a list of items to mention during extended (like during a lunch or ). With those whom I also hoped to have friendship-like connection with, I'd also mention "" This allowed me to talk about my siblings which I was happy to do. And, I think it made the native speaker smile or laugh a little.
"" said alone, in a self-intro conversation, sounds funny, right? why? Would "" sound pretentious?
Or, I could I remembering incorrectly. I also used "" as a way to be self-depricating. In Japanese culture, the 1st born son is king, the second born is trash, so I would (to be funny) excuse my failures to being born the second son (nothing I could control). Maybe they found that funny, and there is nothing funny about simply saying "". Or maybe my overall inability to speak Japanese funny. I hope you can help me remember.
|
You could have said 1, which is fairly neutral. Or should have been better than at least a little.
is indeed a nuanced word with a certain connotation related to the **old** Japanese view about family/business inheritance (see this). However, in ordinary business settings in modern Westernized companies, almost no one cares about one's siblings, and the / distinction you described is not a thing. It does not work as an explanation of an error even if a joke is intended.
In your situation, is strange even if said by a native speaker, but it might have sounded funnier because it was said by a foreigner. It implies you know a difficult word but have some misunderstanding about it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
how to use: ~ばいいのに
what does it mean when a sentence ends with ~?
Example sentence:
and what does mean at the end of sentences?
|
> ****
It can mean "If you want to be heard (or, want your story heard, want me to listen to you) so much, **you should just say so. / why don't you just say so?** "
can mean "You should do~~ (but you haven't done so)" or "You should have done~~ (but you didn't do so)" (cf. past tense )
Example:
> "You should come, too."
* * *
As you may already know, can also express the speaker's wish, usually counterfactual. E.g.
> "I wish I could speak English fluently."
* * *
For more usages of / at the end of sentences, please refer to:
* What does mean at the end of this sentence?
* Expressing a regretful wish
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, expressions"
}
|
Reading and Meaning of 町の主だった幹部
>
How would you read here? And does mean "the main leaders of the town"?
|
is read , and means "to serve an important position inside a group". Your interpretation of the phrase as "the main leaders of the town" sounds good to me.
> ‐ ― <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
What are acceptable ways of saying "to develop a photographic film"?
Tom Gally's Reading Japanese with a Smile has a nice story in which the author says:
>
I like the connotation of the rotation here because the film has to be unfurled. However, would something like "” work just fine as well?
|
"" here has another meaning from "to rotate".
Normally you can't develop a photographic film by your own, so you give it to a photo shop so they do the job. "" has this connotation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
What exactly makes a relationship どろどろ?
What I understand from dictionaries is that there are somehow complicated feelings involved (Daijirin: ), but I still don't quite understand what kind of relationship would be called . Do you have a concrete example for me?
|
is normally translated as muddy, dirty, or a substance of a thick consistency.
>
>
is to express a relationship outside marriage.
>
backbiting, malicious gossip, envy, jealousy etc...
>
Hope this helps and made things clearer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, usage"
}
|
I can't identify this semi-cursive kanji
So I'm reading this manga and I am suddenly hit with a semi-cursive kanji which I need some more practice to get use to it. I tried checking the radicals but to no avail. I have no idea what it is.
****
I was thinking it might be something with this radical"" but I still didn't get it.
![enter image description here](
|
Probably []{}. Here is a similar gyosho specimen: ![enter image description here](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Does「ペーペー」and the "PayPay" digital wallet sound like a ダジャレ? Isn't that weird for marketing?
"PayPay" is a smartphone digital wallet used in Japan. Yet, is also a slang term for the of I always said my was either or
I am so confused.
(1) Is "" really, in fact, a rarely used slang term and a does not immediately "click" to form with "PayPay" in the mind of native speakers?
(2) In English, I do pronounce "PayPay" with a deeper, "hard A", and so "PayPay" in English does not sound like "" in Japanese, but Japanese does not have "hard vowels".
What's going on? Is "PayPay" and "" a to native speakers? How do they feel about it? Doesn't it effect the marketing of the digital wallet? (it sounds very weird to me...)
|
You can check the pronunciation of on the official YouTube channel. I can clearly hear the sound. HLLL (PayPay) and LHHL ("novice") sound very different both in terms of the vowel and the accent. I did think it was a funny name, but it never occurred to me that it might be a pun.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, phrases"
}
|
How do I apologize for my bad Japanese?
I am writing a short letter in Japanese. I will doubtless make many mistakes. What is a nice way to acknowledge this to the recipient?
* * *
_I apologise for using the forum incorrectly. With the help of these answers and other sources as indicated in the comments, I drafted an apology for bad Japanese as follows:_
> __
_"I have been studying Japanese for a little over three years. As this is short time to be learning, my Japanese is not without errors in expression. If my Japanese is strange, I apologise."_
|
By reading your sentences, I can easily understand what you're trying to say.
So I'll keep my corrections to a bare minimum:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, phrase requests"
}
|
How to say "deserve" in Japanese
As in the title, how can I say "I don't deserve your present" in Japanese? Google translate tells me it's First off, the verb doesn't seem to be correct. Secondly, can I use instead of here to get ****
If memory serves me right, I have heard "", which translates to "I don't have the rights to receive the present", but that sounds a bit different than I don't deserve your present.
|
> ... can I use instead of here to get
**** []{} means "doesn't deserve~~", and is the _literal_ translation of "don't deserve your present". **** is grammatically incorrect.
Saying in your situation would be pretty unnatural, and also sound like you're refusing the present.
> I don't deserve your present.
To mean that, I think you could say...
> **** /
> ****
(closer to "It's (almost) too good for me.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word requests"
}
|
がってんなら - what kind of contraction am I dealing with in this sentence?
I'm trying to understand how to parse the in this sentence (it's from Tales of Vesperia, in case anyone's curious):
>
>
>
This is how it's translated in the English version of the game:
> Haven't you already seen what
> the empire's capable of several
> times on this trip already?
The second part of the sentence is easy enough, but I just can't wrap my head around the first part. Is it short for or something? And what would that translate to literally? Is there some bit that's omitted that I should be able to infer from context?
|
>
It looks like a contracted pronunciation of ****
→ →
(The particle can be the colloquial version of .)
I think the sentence literally means:
>
> If you mean "The empire (did...),"
>
> on this trip, too
>
> you've already seen (what it's capable of) several times, haven't you?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, contractions"
}
|
What does もえと mean?
I was reading a Tofugu article, < and one of the examples they give was this text conversation.
I'm just curious what could mean. My best guess is that is a name, so the person's saying "I want to talk with you (Moe) too!"
I also found that is a name, but I don't think that's what's being said in this case.
I know there's not really any context to go off but, how should I interpret If is a name, is it common??
 since I suppose people tend to give name to be nice like a popular person ({} from {} {} : Japanese baseball player was popular in highschool baseball tournament , {} : the protagonist from {} are the ones).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "parsing, particle も"
}
|
Are these 2 the same level of humble honorifics (謙譲語)? Which would a native choose?
I think that there are 2 difference ways to say **I first lived in Hiroshima.** using humble honorifics ():
(1)
(2)
Both are correct ?
Is #2 more "powerful" and / or ""?
In my talking, I always say #2 because I like the "sound" and like the sense I am being **forced** to do something, thus humbling myself. I don't have the "power / authority" to walk into a great place like Hiroshima and live there just because I want to (even though I don't specify who is forcing me to live there).
What do native speakers recommend?
|
>
The form -(verb)-/ means "I _humbly_ did something **for your benefit** " or "I (humbly) do something **with respect to you** " such as ask a question of you. So what you're saying if you use this form is "I lived in Hiroshima, **and I did it for your (listener's) benefit** ", which sounds ridiculous.
>
The implication of this form is that you are doing something for someone else's benefit or with someone's permission. You might want to talk like this if you need to express gratitude or something like that, but it is very overblown for everyday speech.
You might also note that the "" phrase is sometimes used sarcastically or ironically by people who are planning to do something without someone else's permission.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "honorifics"
}
|
Meaning of 見る in 「１日から２日は見て」
In this JLPT N1 listening practice transcript, a manager at a company is talking to his employee:
****
I'm unclear what is being said in the bolded sentence. is spoken as , which I take to mean the time period of one day, and not the date , but then I'm not sure what means in this context. is spoken as , which I take to mean the date of the 2nd of the month.
This confusion is compounded by use of the verb , which doesn't fit any definitions I'm familiar with.
My best guess is: "Ordering takes one day, so the customer should expect to see [the delivery] on the 2nd."
|
>
> You know, (expect) it takes at least one day or two before the product arrives (to our office/department).
* This is "to expect", "to estimate", etc. See the tenth definition here.
* 1 and 2 refer to the time length between the order and the arrival. The / distinction is special and important, but , and so forth mean both "N days" and "the N-th day of the month".
* This AB is simply "(from) A to B" or "between A and B".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "translation, definitions, counters"
}
|
what the grammar ことぐらい mean
I bump up in in sentence on manga
I guess the translation is that I am not fit for
|
> ****
The sentence is cut off. It would depend on the context, but the unsaid, implied half of it should probably be something like or
The is a nominalizer. It functions like "that..." in English, as in:
> [sentence]+ **** / ****
> = "I know **that** +[sentence]."
/ is a belittling suffix. (The particle / replaces the case particle /.) It can express how minimal, trivial, slight, weak, easy, etc. something is. For more on the usage of / and examples please refer to:
* Understanding
* The difference between and in hyperbole
* Meaning of
So your sentence means something like:
> /
> "I know very well that I'm not enough for (you/her/someone)."
> "I'm well/fully aware that I'm not good enough for (you/her/someone)."
with a nuance that the fact is so obvious, easy to know, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle くらい"
}
|
Why じと instead of ず in その機を逃さじと?
>
I think means "not letting their chance slip away". But why isn't it just ?
|
is used to form negative volitional with in classical Japanese so just treat it as plus (•ᴗ•)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "auxiliaries, auxiliary ず"
}
|
Meaning of 命も惜しまない in this sentence
The context is people are being attacked by an army of monster rats. One of the people (named ) started using magic to control half of the rats, and cause them to attack the other half of the rats. Then said:
> ****
My question is what does refer to, the man, or the rats he's controlling? And what does mean. I think it means something like "without sparing the life (of someone or something)" but I don't know who is sparing whose life.
|
From context, it seems would be referring to the rats he is controlling, whom he described as , which means "not valuing [their own] lives", basically willing to die, probably as a result of being brainwashed by his magic.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.