INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
First Message From Japanese PenPal Has Slightly Confused Me
This is a couple of questions in one really. I received this snippet from a new penpal and I wasn't sure what some of it meant:
>
Online translations (I know, rarely reliable...) yields:
> "It is hard to become in Japanese.".
I'm just starting out but have read about "ni naru" meaning "to become", however I've not seen "ni nari" before.
I find it hard to separate all-hiragana words at the moment so I'm not 100% sure if the phrase is split up as "Nihongo ni nari nikui desu."
* * *
Also, within the message are the following symbols:
※`<some text>`※
→
Are these Japanese-specific in any way...?
|
is of the form
> _ren'yōkei_ \+
meaning "difficult to [verb]" or "hard to [verb]".
is "to become" or "to change into" (where "change" here is intransitive) and is its _ren'yōkei_ (" _masu_ -form"). So
> = _lit._ difficult to change into Japanese
Only you know the context, but maybe you asked your pen pal how to translate "cow tipping" into Japanese, and he or she tried to tell you "this phrase doesn't easily translate to Japanese".
You can remember this construction also for , which works exactly the same but means the opposite of , i.e. "easy to" or "likely to".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning"
}
|
can you use ありき as a な-adjective
someone says this in a book:
whether someone is skilled ... something to do with personality. what does mean here? I found it as a noun meaning location of something but I don't see how it would work in this sentence
|
First, the answer to your question is yes. You need to change the copula into the attributive form such as … or … when you connect the clause to the noun .
Edit:
When you combine two sentences of (one's personality is prior to it) and (it's for the reason) into one sentence "It's for the reason that one's personality is prior to it", you can't just put them in a row like , but you have to change as in into some forms that can connect to the succeeding noun, which are or .
In this regard, verb happens to be the same form either when it terminates the sentence or when it connects to a noun. However, only works when it terminates the sentence and only does when it connects to a noun.
Second, A B means that B is a precondition or an essential condition for A. So, the example sentence means "But, whether you can activate your skill or not depends on your personality, so...".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, words, copula"
}
|
Meaning of 拝む in the following sentence
Context: after winning a match, a boxer goes at the hospital to visit the opponent he defeated, but there he finds the loser's girlfriend too. The boy tries to ask how his opponent is doing, at which the girl replies that he can have a look at his face if he wants, and then adds:
> … ****
Is being used with the meaning of `to pay one's respects` or `to see`? I think she's being sarcastic, but I am not sure. My transation attempt:
> Choosing how to treat the defeated is a special privilege of the winner. From now on, even if he will try to forget the one that defeated him, it will still be a burden for him. This is the only time you can see(?) his face.
I uploaded the whole page and the following one to provide more context. It would be great if you could also check the rest of my translation. Thank you for your help!
|
I feel this is closer to "to enjoy/appreciate", rather than "to pay respect" or "to worship".
> ###
>
> ―――
This is a bit comical word choice, and she's comparing his face to some famous tourist attraction, but in this sentence no longer carries religious implication. This refers to what ordinary tourists who are not particularly religious do in front of a Buddhist statue in Kyoto. "Oh this is the famous ...!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, verbs, manga"
}
|
Difference between the usage of 準備 and 予習
#
# English
Could someone tell me the difference between these two words?
Are the meanings of and the same? If they are different, when should each be used?
|
preparation for a lesson preparation; setup; arrangements; provision; reserve
1. **** Have you made all the arrangements for your trip?
2. **** I'm busy getting ready for tomorrow.
3. **** She is getting breakfast ready.
4. **** I rarely prepare for the world history lessons.
5. **** He prepared his lessons.
6. **** I don't spend much time preparing for English classes.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Would be correct to put だ in this phrase?
I was reading some online articles about Japenese Grammar and one of it's examples were:
> meaning _the quiet person_
Although while I was reflectling about this phrase I was wondering if I could use in this exact same phrase. For example, let's suppose I'm talking about Erick, can I say:
> Erick and in it's polite form Erick
|
Yes, everything you just posted works without problems. Hopefully this will clear things up.
When you say `` you are literally saying `is quiet` in English. The same can be said of adjectives. Ending a sentence with `` really just says `is big.` With adjectives, the to be verb is already built in. With adjectives saying after the adjective, while grammatically correct is not always necessary. You would add to be polite to the listener.
When you attach the adjective to a noun, `` you no longer have the to be verb as a closer. In fact, in these situations, you can safely assume that there is no verb, and that the adjective + noun form a noun clause. In short, you need a verb, and / will work for you. The same will apply to adjectives as well.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does と一体 mean in this sentence
> ””
Context: The previous sentence talks about how the little finger is just one part of the body, rather than an independent individual.
My translation of this is:
> Instead of being conscious of him being just a little finger(a part of something bigger), the little finger thinks of himself as a single body, along with the owner (my hazy understanding of that ). But when the owner sleeps, he thinks of himself suddenly as an independent little finger(.
Does that seem right?
|
**** is a set phrase that means "to become one with ", "to behave as one (set) with ", "to act in unison with ", "to be fully integrated with ", etc.
> * to become one with the universe
> * Behave in unison with your leader.
> * to become one with the owner (person)
>
So the sentence says the little finger behaves only as part of the owner when the owner is awake. When the owner is asleep, sometimes the little finger gains its own consciousness.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Does position of comma hints use of と
So, I have noticed that sometimes comma appears before , sometimes its after it, and there are also time that there is no comma at all. Does it hint something? Is there some kind of rule?
relative pronoun
. quotation
and then
|
Basically there are very few rules for Japanese commas, but there is a tendency regarding .
A comma tends to be inserted _between_ direct speech and .
> * =
> * =
>
If is used as a conjunction, a comma must be placed _after_ .
> *
> *
>
For other , commas are usually inserted after the .
For all the cases above, commas can be completely left out, especially when the clause before it is short.
> *
> *
>
Extra commas can be inserted to express emphasis or emotion. The following is perfectly fine if the author wants to put an emphasis on this sentence.
> *
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, particle と"
}
|
Confused by Shitai
I read the following sentence today on an easy news web site:
****
I've had a look online for an explanation of the end (in bold). I understand that overall it means **want to** , but I can't get my head around what function serves here. To me it reads:
"want in order to be able to (run faster than 10 seconds) **is** ".
Is this purely to mark the sentence as polite?
|
Yes, it's purely a grammatical mark of politeness.
Grammatically speaking, (and all other forms) is an -adjective, so it takes the same forms as any other -adjective.
So in plain form:
> "It is red."
> "I want to do it."
And in polite form:
> "It is red."
> "I want to do it."
In both cases, the doesn't add anything to the meaning (the verbal meaning is already part of the adjective form), it just makes the sentence polite. This is perhaps a little clearer in the past tense:
> () "It was red."
> () "I wanted to do it."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
I don't understand the use of ようなこと in this context
recently I came across the following sentence:
I'm really confused by the use of in this context. Hope someone could help me understand it.
Thank you.
|
Here it means 'like' or 'that kind of'.
You can think that:
[A] means'something like, similar to or the same as A'.
So I would agree with your interpretation. Maybe the speaker hadnt exactly said 'I support you guys', but they said something along those lines, in that vein.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is "ii yo" acceptable?
I've never heard someone say "ii yo". Is "ii yo" acceptable? And "ii zo"? In particular, in casual masculine speech.
|
In English, it would be similar to casually saying "yeah, sure!".
Like:
* Can I borrow your pen?
* Yeah, sure!
* * *
*
*
, is also correct but it's less standard. I never heard people actually use that in my experience. But people talk in all kinds of weird ways. Imagine someone saying the following in English: `Yeah bruh`
It's not standard but some people actually talk like that so culturally speaking, it's not wrong.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, casual"
}
|
What is the difference between spellings of 組み付ける?
I'm reading some technical documents and have come across two spellings:
and
Both are used in nearly identical situations and both seem to mean "assemble" as a directive. Is there a particular reason to omit (or include)
Thanks!
|
This is called . Both are the same, and usually neither is more correct.
* vs — Is this the same word?
* How is pronounced in ?
*
Of course you should stick to one spelling throughout the document, so in this sense it's a small mistake. There may be a convention depending on the field or the style guideline of the publisher.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, spelling"
}
|
How to pronounce 名 in 男性名 and 男性の名?
is supposed to be read .
But according to
> 4040
Obviously, it is not a here.
has the following meaning:
>
also has the following meaning:
>
So should be read or ?
|
is read , is read .
As a generic suffix meaning " name", is always , even though it's not used as a counter:
* "chemical compound name"
* "company name"
* "project name"
* OS "OS name"
This holds true for most fixed two-kanji compounds like ("place name") and ("disease name").
As a standalone noun, is usually :
* _Your Name_
... except in the case where is used as opposed to :
*
Write your family and first names.
Note that standalone is literary. is preferred in daily conversations.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
A particle for place of action for V-2+に行く
What particle should be used for a place of action (or a place to go?) in case of using V-2+ construction? E.g.
>
At one hand, is a place of action (eating) and -particle should be used. At the other hand, it's a place to go, so -particle should be used. However, the last case seems a bit strange to me, because a verb already has an object with -particle - .
So what's the correct particle to be used in such cases? Maybe both particles are acceptable? - In this case does a choice of particle carry any meaning?
|
() means "to go to the place in order to ( to go to the place for the purpose of ). For example, ( I got to a restaurant to eat). I think is unnatural because we don't say place++. However you can say , which means "I eat lunch at a refectory in my university ever day.)".
I think you understood them correctly because you knew is used for a place of action and is used for a place to go. It is no problem that a verb already has an object with -particle.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle に, particle で, verbs of motion"
}
|
What is the difference between 非常に and 最も?
Both adverbs has the basic meaning "most, extremely". There are also and .
So, is the first word we usually learn that means "very". Then I learned as a superlative. As for , I understand that it is somewhat subjective to the speaker and carries a feeling of surpise. And now I stumbled across , how is it different from the other superlatives?
|
{} as a noun means "Unusual situation", "Emergency". As a adjective it has meaning "outstanding", "unusual", "not average". It indicates difference from a normal state.
Examples from Explanatory dictionary can be helpful:
{}- very sad
{}- unusual talent
just makes following adjective stronger. Often they are interchangeable, but feels a little bit stronger and as I sad also indicates "unusuality".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "synonyms"
}
|
ぞ is the short form of こそ?
Can be the short form of ? Here below a sentence example:
>
Here I found that = this (emphatic), but I'm curious to know if that _zo_ came from _koso_ or not. Thk U in advance!
|
This is an archaic Japanese particle which works similarly to in modern Japanese. In modern Japanese, is not common any more, but `` is sometimes used like a catchphrase:
> * " _This_ is (true) ramen!"
> * " _This_ is America!"
>
Besides, is occasionally used to simulate old-fashioned, pompous and/or chūnibyo-like way of speaking, mainly in fiction. is not incorrect, but sounds a little funny because the part is unnaturally archaic.
Something like this would be fine in a fantasy work (imagine an old wizard with long beard saying this):
>
No one speak like this in reality, though.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "expressions"
}
|
Difference between ようにする and ようになる
What I knew about the is 'to make sure'
What are the difference in usage? Please give me examples of each
|
> V( => new ability
>
> V( => new habit
- In a few days the baby will be able to walk.
- Pat doesn't talk with me anymore.
More examples
> V( => try to
- I will try to report.
More examples
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
}
|
Did I interprete 過ごす correctly here?
For full context, see here: <
it is taken from line 7-8:
=> "Then, concerning the buildings inclination, it was decided considering the inclination of wind and the sun. Because it takes care of that the wind resistance is low and that it is warm in the summer and that it is cool in the winter."
"to take care" is classified as an archaism on jisho < so I wanted to ask wether this archaic interpretation is justified here or if I just understood it all wrong..^^
|
>
The means "to spend (time)". From :
>
>
And in your example:
/etc."spend the summer (in the manner of...)"
/etc."spend the winter (in the manner of...)"
(The contrastive 's have replaced 's in your example)
The means "so that (they) can..." "for the purpose of..."
So literally means "It is for the purpose of spending the summer cool, and the winter warm".
breakdown:
and; also; besides
as for what direction the building faces,
considering the directions of the wind and the sun
...has been decided.
make wind resistance smaller; decrease wind resistance
spend the summer cool and the winter warm
so that (they) can... / it is for the purpose of...
Put together:
And, as for what direction the building faces, it has been decided considering the directions of the wind and the sun. It is for the purpose of decreasing wind resistance, and spending the summer cool and the winter warm.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Difference between てもいい and ていい?
>
I've learned that to ask permission for doing something, you needed to use but the more I read japanese, the more I come across . What is the difference ? Is the latter a colloquial version of ?
|
There is a difference even though it might be fairly subtle. **_The difference is one of nuance and probability; It has little to nothing to do with formality/colloquiality_**.
> Verb in Te-Form +
The speaker would tend to possess a firm desire to perform the action and he is seeking permission to do so.
Upon receiving the permission, therefore, there is a high chance that he would actually take the action.
> Verb in Te-Form + **** \+
The speaker is surely considering taking the action for which he is seeking permission, but his desire to actually perform the said action would often tend to be less firm than that of the person who does **_not_** use the .
Upon receiving the permission, there is a good chance that this person (speaker) might actually opt to take a completely different action.
For this reason, adding a makes both the question and the questioner sound less pushy or self-assertive.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 18,
"question_score": 18,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is a relative clause a legit interpretation here?
For full context, see here: <
The sentence in question is taken from line 14:
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
> => "It was Tameuji Uchigashima and this lineage who built the castle called Kaerikumo."
I interpreted the after as the continuative form of copula and aligned its tempus with the .
|
Let me include the previous sentence:
> 15
>
It seems like the subjects () are left out in the sentence in question:
> /
/ refers to 15("people who came here and settled down in the late 15th century") in the previous sentence.
So it'd be literally like:
> It was / They were Tameuji Uchigashima and his family, and they built a castle called Kaerikumo-jo in Shirakawago.
You're right that the after is the continuative form of a copula. So, grammatically speaking, you could split the sentence into two, like this:
>
...but I don't think a relative clause is involved here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How to interprete this が?
For full context, see here: <
its taken from line 20: => "In the castle, surely the gold and silver did a custody." This translation of course makes little sense. However, I've no idea how else I should do it. I don't know in what other way I should interprete here than in the function of the subject marker.
|
> ****
It's grammatically correct and perfectly natural to say XXtransitive verb to mean "XX has been done..."
states:
>
>
> ()
>
> **** **** **** ****
>
> ()
>
> **** **** **** ****
> ****
> ****
> **** ****
As you can see in -(), when you add to +transitive(eg **** **** ), the is replaced by a , and you get +transitive+(eg **** **** ), in which the whole verb phrase () functions intransitively. So, the in your example is a subject marker: is the subject of the intransitive verb phrase . The expresses that the result of an action that caused a change has been maintained to the present time.
And, as stated in -(), you can also say +transitive+(eg **** **** ), or +passive+(eg **** **** **** **** ) using the passive form verb.
And as in (), you can also use and say +transitive+(eg **** **** **** **** ) when you focus on the intent of the agent.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is there a phrase/idiom similar to 'critical mass'?
I doubt the literal equivalent is likely to work here.
I'm speaking in the sense of a community activity, where a critical mass of people is required in order for it to survive. e.g. if a group of 10 people meet weekly to do something (e.g. playing poker, going hiking, etc.) it's likely to continue to happen, while if only 2-3 people are interested it's likely that the desire to continue will disappear and it becomes difficult to encourage new people to join.
Is there something similar I could use to refer to this concept?
|
or is widely used as marketing jargon, but this only refers to a nationwide market share of a new product/service. When describing smaller community activities, I don't think there is a good and short phrase. Some ways to rephrase it would be:
* (lit. "minimum sustainable number of people")
*
*
and don't work in this context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "idioms"
}
|
Does 発作 imply involuntary muscle movement?
Most Americans hear "seizure" and envision a loss of muscle control. But there are many kinds of "seizures".
When a Japanese hears "" do they also imagine a loss of muscle control? Some seizures are as benign as a temporary loss of awareness of one's surroundings.
|
by itself refers to a sudden "attack" of symptom, and it is used with various diseases:
* A []{} (asthma) causes breathlessness.
* A (gout) causes severe foot pain.
* refers to heart attacks, typically due to angina pectoris.
_Epileptic seizure_ is specifically called , where is _epilepsy_ (disease name). Sometimes by itself can refer to individual seizure episodes, although it's technically incorrect.
What people imagine with depends on how much they know about epilepsy and seizures. There are probably many people who only know the "grand mal" type (known as in Japanese). Professional healthcare providers might wonder "What kind of are you talking about?" Here is the list of of epilepsy, written in Japanese.
Finally, is the word that refers to involuntary and spastic muscle movements (symptom name; caused by various diseases).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "nuances"
}
|
How do you say "what do you care?" in japanese?
How do you say "what do you care?" in japanese, as if you were telling someone not to interfere in someone else's business in a harsh way to tell him so?
|
?It isn't related to you, is it? ~ None of your business.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "phrase requests"
}
|
How would you call someone "little bro" in japanese?
Im writing this story and one of the characters calls his younger friend "little bro". (ex: You ok, little bro?) I've never heard of a term like that in Japanese so it might just be an english only term... Otouto is kinda weird since its like for telling other ppl that this is your little bro... I've read that otouto-chan or otouto-kun is only used if you're trying to be mean. Is there a nice term close to "little bro" that my character can use when talking to his little bro like friend? Thanks!!
|
Why not just call that person's name (or nickname) without honorifics? That's the friendliest way Japanese call those they're very close to.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word requests"
}
|
Respect for the Aged Greeting
Sorry if this is off topic, but today is respect for the aged day in Japan, and I'm unsure how to greet elderly individuals, if at all. What would be the proper greeting? Would one greet individuals they pass on the street?
|
I don't consider myself an authoritative source, but I did a little searching and found this link that has a bunch of phrases to say on respect for the aged day ():
<
Honestly, I would feel awkward saying many of these myself and might just use a safe "” (with a smile), but maybe you could try something like this (from the above list):
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "culture, greetings"
}
|
What is the difference between these two phrases?
I was creating some simple phrases using the help of Google Translator but it translated a phrase that I wrote:
>
But converted this exact phrase to:
>
Well at least for me as a beginner in japanese, it sounded over complicated plus I don't know some words such as and I already heard of which is the negative form of which by the way I don't know what it means.
|
The former is more casual, much more casual I would say, you should only use with people you are very close without sounding offensive. The latter is polite, but the use of is complicated, I think the most natural thing would be to use the name of the person + honorific to sound right. None of them are incorrect, but you have to be careful while using each of them.
= thing It is not , the character makes part of which is a polite form of or .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, words"
}
|
what does "ほど" mean?
In the very famous song called "Chiisana Koi no Uta - ", there's a sentence:
>
what does "" mean here? I've tried to search, here're some results I've got:
* Look, the person who is that valuable to you is right beside you.(All sentence's translation)
* : the degree to which a person is important (?) / as valuable as a person (such?)
* : degree, extent /to do smth as well as x (x )
They make no sense to me. Anyone give help?
|
> ****
It seems that you have overanalyzed things a bit. Big words such as " _ **degree**_ " and " _ **extent**_ " are certainly relevant here with regards to comprehending how functions in the sentence in question, but the moment you try to use those words in your translation attempt, things will fall apart immediately.
> A + + B simply means:
>
> "The more A, the more B."
You will keep encountering this sentence pattern for as long as you study Japanese. It is not only an important grammar point but also an extremely useful expression.
If you allow me to mix the two languages for a moment, here is what you need to be "seeing" in your head.
> the more the more
Please note that unlike "the more", which is used **twice** in English, is used only **once** in this sentence pattern.
Thus, the sentence means:
> " _ **Look, the more important a person is for you, the closer s/he lives to you**_."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Nuance of ね vs よ in the phrase "I miss you"
I've been told that the common English phrase "I'll miss you" would be best said in Japanese by:
>
What I feel from this is that there is a sort of mutual acknowledgement assumed by the speaker.
My question is whether ”” can be replaced by for "” in this sentence. I thought it could, and if so would provide more of an emphasis (like maybe the other person didn't expect you would miss them). In fact, based on my (possibly incomplete) sense of vs I almost feel that matches up better with the common phrase "I'll miss you" (though maybe an exclamation would be required when written to match more closely".
Can someone please tell me whether (as in ) would be appropriate, and if not why?
|
Whether sounds natural depends on intonation.
* (rising tone): (You should/n't do something, or) I'll miss you. Are you sure of that?
* ↓ (falling tone): "I'll miss you * _sigh_ *
So, the first one is not so much saying the speaker actually misses someone as warning for something. The second one is quite natural to express one's depression. That said, … will be much more common after all in conversation between native speakers.
or are a marker that implies the speaker's impression is formed through observation. In this case, it conveys a feel that goes "Looking back on this and that, they still make me miss you after all". In addition, in this case it further fulfills the condition to use as a marker to seek sympathy as well (i.e sharing the observation). So, it incline us to use very much.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
verb + としよう; verb (non volitional) + とする, what is it used for?
The sentence:
> ****
What is verb (non-volitional) + used for?
|
Verb + , in this context, is used to introduce a **_hypothetical_** situation. It is roughly the equivalent of:
> " **Let's assume/suppose that ~~**."
As you seem to have noticed, this expression has nothing to do with Volitional Verb + , which means " ** _to try to (verb)_** ".
> {}{}{}{} **** {}{}{} **** {}
thus means:
> "Let's assume that a certain village has fallen victim to a beast and then you accidentally dropped by there. What would you do?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Why is 切 on microwaves instead of 分?
I've noticed that the microwave minute dials often use instead of for minutes. Why is this the case?
When I look up on jisho, I get nothing about time or minutes, so I'm naturally confused as to why I always see this.
Here's a picture:
![Picture of Dial](
Thanks!
|
means 'to cut off' or 'to turn off', and it's likely used here to mean to turn off the power and finish using the microwave.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, time"
}
|
Two different katakana for 'wo' in the Genki textbook
According to the 'Genki' textbook, katakana for 'wo' can be written in two ways;
* Contracted using the 'o'-katakana;
* Non-contracted using just the 'wo'-katakana;
What are the differences between the two? Is one of the two used more reguarly? It feels, intuitively, liken the 'single-letter' katakana is easier to deal with as it's just one instead of a contraction between two.
|
It's worth reading the accepted answer to this question, but to specifically answer you:
is not really "wo", at least in the sense you expect it to be. It's the same as , which is typically pronounced "o" and used as a particle to mark the object of a clause. It is sometimes, depending on the dialect or even just the individual, pronounced as "wo", but you'll find that the "w" isn't necessarily a strong sound - just like how "ra" is only an approximate pronunciation for , or "fu" for , if you try to pronounce "wo" like Keanu Reeves says "woah" then you're doing something wrong.
So using for "wo" helps get across a little more of that meaning, and for the transliteration of foreign words you will exclusively see this rather than (which, outside of its particle use, mostly only shows up in names like for semi-historical reasons).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "katakana, contractions"
}
|
the logic behind "te" in "chotto matte te"
When someone says: `chotto matte te`, why does the `te` mean "... and I'll be back shortly". What's **the logic** behind it?
Why aren't there special expressions such as `chotto matte X`, where X could mean "I'll give food to my cat" or "I'll need sign an important document for Toyota" or "I'll fix my laptop which was broken by little sister"? Why come that `te` means **specifically** "...and I'll be back shortly"? And why is it "te"?
|
> (1) chyotto matte tte
> (2) why does the tte mean "... and I'll be back shortly".
(1)
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
I'll be back shortly
↓
(2) Why don't you wait for me a moment in spite of my saying "Please wait a moment"? I'm thinking " **I'll be back shortly.** "
If "(1) chyotto matte **tte** " is "(1)' chyotto matte **te** **** ", it is a short form of " **** ", which implies that " _Would you wait a moment, because I'll be back shortly?_ "
The second in **** is "an auxiliary indicates continuing action" according to Jisho.org here, so the phrase means "Keep waiting for a moment."
> chyotto matte X, where X could mean "I'll give food to my cat" or "I'll need sign an important document for Toyota" or "I'll fix my laptop which was broken by little sister"?
chyotto matte X
↓
X
↓
↓
↓
↓
"Wait a moment, please, because I'll do X".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "word choice, expressions, aspect, subsidiary verbs, casual"
}
|
What part of speech is スティール製?
What part of speech is {} from {}expression?
I know is a noun (steel), {} is a suffix (made of), but I don't know their value together. {} is a noun or an adjective?
|
works as "a noun that can be treated as a so-called no-adjective". A native Japanese speaker who only knows would probably say it's a noun phrase as a whole.
Whether it's a noun or an adjective depends on how you define adjectives, which is not easy.
* Why does Japanese have two kinds of adjectives? (-i adjectives and -na adjectives)
* What is the definition of adjective in japanese?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "parts of speech"
}
|
Trying to translate "さすがに悪事を働いてそれを自分で解決するなんて真似はしない" as close to Japanese as possible
Original Japanese sentence:
English translation:
As expected, I **decided** (emphasis) that I **will not** conduct any crimes.
Some context:
> **A** :
> **B** : ……
> **A** :
|
While the line in question is certainly conversational, it is not slangy at all. So I tried to maintain that speech style in my own TL attempt.
> " **(Fret not!) As you would expect, I'm not stupid enough to play a cheap trick of doing evil and trying to settle it all by myself**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
translation explanation
my Japanese teacher translated this sentence as: "While making the work, it suddenly became so late (or something in that sense..). I would like to ask why 'while'when there is '' which indicates that it is a condition. But it actually makes no sense to me if it was a conditional.thank you!
|
First, I must mention the fact that the sentence in question is dialectal.
> {} **** {}
is Kansai speech for:
> ****
This actually is conditional in the broad sense of the word. It is just not the _**if**_ kind of conditional but is the _**when**_ kind.
It is used to express the _**sequence**_ of two events -- " **When A happened, B happened**." Please note that **A represents the cause and B, the effect**.
If it were not for A, B would not happen. It is "conditional" in that sense.
> Cause: "I was creating my work." I was really concentrating.
>
> Effect: "I never knew that it was so late." I did not even think about the time (to go home).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Japanese sentence
. -> the teacher will evaluate based on the homework that i will upload during the lessons. Or homework that the teacher give during the lessons, and i upload it at home?
|
Although "Ask the teacherTM" is the best option (do so, really), I believe the following is the preferred interpretation of the given sentence.
> .
You'll be evaluated based on your for the[]. So the homework will be given during the lessons, and whether you submit your assignment in-class or afterwards is not specified. In this case, modifies the -, and is for giving questions (not for submission).
>
will correspond to your first interpretation.
>
Here I changed the to , which can be substituted for either or (submission). In this case it's more ambiguous whether modifies or (). I think the former is still preferred because of the location (and context), and
>
is slightly unnatural but can only be understood with the latter (you submit during the lessons).
Another tricky, unlikely but not-impossible interpretation is
> .
where modifies : "I shall evaluate you during the classes, based on your submission for the assignments."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, words"
}
|
Need help on pronunciation
Words like and I just cant understand. When I look at the spelling for and , it just doesn't match with what I hear. with I hear "eh-E-ru", but since extends (I think it does) shouldn't it be "meeh-ru"? and with I hear "gah-I-ru". but its an so shouldn't it be "gah-eh-ru". This is all super confusing to me and I'm probably fundamentally wrong somewhere so any help is greatly appreciated. (I'm a beginner)
|
It's worth noting that while the vowel combination in kana _can_ represent a lengthened sound, it doesn't always - in some words, it simply represents the sound followed by the sound. In the case of , the kanji suggest that the and are separate morphemes, so a "long e" pronunciation would be unlikely.
For , the vowel is definitely an , but I can certainly see how it might sound like an in rapid speech. The Japanese in general is a little closer to than the "bed" vowel of most English dialects is, and in vowel clusters like this the second vowel isn't always pronounced that distinctly.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, spelling"
}
|
連れ添う and 結婚-Is there a difference in nuance
Can someone please tell me if which I have read that it also means "to marry", "becoming man and wife", "to become a couple" has another kind of nuance compared to the typical word ? Because I haven't many resources to get a better understanding, can I assume that can be used to describe a couple, as in, they love each other and live together but not necessarily being married (they didn't have an official wedding ceremony).
There is this character, a woman, in a manga that said: .
She said this about the man she stayed with for many years until he passed away. I also want to add that the woman is a vampire who lived for hundreds of years and I do question if she actually married the man.
That's why I believe that she said , to emphasize that she just stayed faithfully by the man's side for a long time and she didn't have to become his wife or anything. Please tell me your opinions!
|
The original meaning of is simply "to accompany". Sometimes it can refer to something totally unrelated to marriage. For example, usually just means "to walk next to each other." is often interchangeable with mere , depending on the context. This means you can safely use with someone who are not legally a husband and a wife.
When means something related to marriage (or de facto marriage), it's closer to "to live together as a couple" rather than "to become a husband and a wife". It describes a continuous action, but not a change of state. By contrast, is often described as an instant state-change (aka punctual) verb like .
> * He is married.
> * (weird)
> * (weird)
> * He has been with his wife for a long time.
>
Finally, is a matter-of-factly, plain verb. is more literary or romantic, and implies the spiritual bond between the two.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, word choice, nuances"
}
|
刺客 - 暗殺者 - 兇手 - 兇漢 - 殺し屋 - 殺人 - 人殺し - 殺害者 - 殺人犯 / Words difference
As you can see, seems to have a lot of terms for indicate an assassin/killer/murderer ( - - - - - - - - - Any other?).
What's the differences between these terms? When use them?
I think that and is more generic and commonly used, and seems to be used for hitmans, professional killers. But I'm not sure in which context use all of these words.
|
* : Murderer. Killer. The easiest (native Japanese) term. Often chosen when yelling at someone (! "Murderer!"). Also refers to the act of murdering (killing; murder case).
* : Murderer (as a criminal, as suggests).
* : Murderer. Killer.
* and are sino-Japanese words. They sound more technical, and are preferred in formal settings or detective dramas. is relatively uncommon.
* : Professional hitman who kills anyone for money.
* : Assassin. Someone sent to somewhere to kill a certain important person. Often used figuratively to refer to someone who "kills someone socially/politically/economically," for example, a strong opposing candidate in election.
* : Assassin. Usually used with very important person like a diplomat or president.
* /: I haven't seen these words, so I think you can forget them :)
Another word worth memorizing would be , which refers to a devilish (serial) killer like Jack the Ripper.
( _EDIT_ : Improved the explanation of some words.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
Can't understand this kanji use in my song lyrics
I know this is probably a stupid question, but was in a song I was listening too. Is this incorrect usage? I know means hateful but you don't drop the to add do you?
|
In this case, is not used as the adjective but as an adjective, . See for example weblio. Furthermore, {} is pretty much a set phrase, meaning both:
* Unpleasantness, discomfort
* To refuse / to avoid
And by the way, {} as hateful is not the most common sense. My dictionary lists:
* Dislike, hate, suspicion
* Dislike, hatred, fear
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
What does 思うところがあった mean in そして元々身体が弱かった母が二年前に病気で亡くなった時、リーゼも思うところがあったのだろう。以来リーゼは叔母夫婦の元で家事手伝いをしている。
Context:
>
From what I've found on stack it may mean part, so I assumed in this case it might be a reason, something like "Rize also had her reasons", but its based on nothing.
|
In this context, had wanted to choose some unusual (non-) way of making a living, but she gave it up after her mother died two years ago. She gave up because she had "" about the death.
(literally "there is a point of consideration") is a set phrase which vaguely means something like "one has some strong inner thoughts (about something)." Depending on the context, can mean "I was (somehow) deeply impressed", "I had a certain reason (which I don't want to disclose)", "It made me (re)think", "I had a (secret) idea" etc.
In this context, thought "something" about her mother's death, the detail of which is untold. The sentence says her mother's death made her think deeply, and it led her to change her mind.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Connotation of 行きますか vs 行きましょうか
My textbook has the following conversation:
> A:
>
> B:
>
> A:
>
> B:
The third line is translated to English in the textbook as "which department store should we go to?" My trouble is with the connotation of this sentence.
I think that the stem seems to imply a certainty expected upon B, that is, that B already knows where we're going. In English I would expect this more to be "which department store are we going to?" The "should we go to" seems to me to ask for suggestions (rather than a unilateral decision by B). If that connotation is what is desired, then I think that the third line would be better written as
Am I wrong about the connotation of this sentence, or am I right in thinking that the stem is implying a stronger level of certainty from B than expected?
|
You're correct in thinking that "B" is not giving a direct certainty in the form of "We will go to X". However, in this context, the suggestion is a more explicit suggestion than "Should we go to X" as if it were a question. It's probably closer to "Let's go to X" as opposed to "We will go to X". So, applying that level of suggestion, let's translate the example:
> A:
> A: Where are we going tomorrow?
>
> B: ****
> B: **Let's go** to a department store.
>
> A:
> A: Which department store will we go to?
>
> B: ****
> B: **Let's go** to the department store north of your house.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "volitional form, connotation"
}
|
What does the volitional for do in this sentence: 今までリーゼには見せたことの無いであろう優しい目
Sentence:
>
My attempt of translation of the said part: Smiling with kind eyes Rize never displayed so far
|
**** expresses the speaker's **_inference_**. It is not volitional in meaning.
The more modern and colloquial form is **** , which you should be more familiar with.
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
thus means:
> " **(Kyle) smiled with the gentle eyes that it was likely that he had never shown to Rize**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does 'とした’ mean in this sentence?
I'm looking for a bit of help understanding what means in this sentence describing the UN flag:
> **** []{}
While I can get the gist of the meaning, can someone help explain exactly what means here? I googled around a bit, but wasn't really able to figure it out. Especially, it would be great to get an understanding of this grammatical construction so I can use it / recognize it again.
Thanks in advance!
|
> A B ****
is a common set phrase meaning:
> "to regard A as B", "to assume A to be B", etc.
There is no "real and logical" center of the world possible on a two-dimentional world map, agreed? Each world map, according to its purpose, simply must regard someplace as the center.
(As a kid growing up in Japan, I never knew why our part of the world was called the "Far East" because on the world maps used in Japan, Japan was always located right in the middle. I was naturally shocked when I saw the Western version of the world map for the first time.)
> {}{}{}{}{} **** {}{}
On this particular map, the North Pole is in the center because that is what they "decided" to place in the middle. It served its own purpose that way.
> "Right in the middle of this banner, a world map is drawn with the North Pole as its center."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
}
|
Difference between ので and て Form?
I've found this question across my JLPT N4 practice
> 1) /.
The answer is What are the differences between and in usage for reasonings?
|
The simply adds an explanatory tone to the sentence.
> (As I am) busy right now, please go on ahead.
But I think you're veering away from the original grammatical matter being tested in your practice sentence. macraf is giving you a good hint.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
}
|
What does 一色 mean in this context?
What does mean in the first part of the first sentence of this article (about Abe's dissolving of the Diet's lower chamber in a snap election)? I don't quite understand what its trying to say?
>
>
> …
Now, I THINK what "" means is "Society generally understands the lower chamber's dissolution, but...", but I still don't quite get it, with the part especially throwing me off.
|
Goo says:
> ### ‐
>
> ****
jisho.org says:
> ###
>
> 2. same tendency; everyone being caught up in the same thing
>
> … The streets are in full Christmas mode - it's almost Christmas Eve.
>
So means "everyone seems to be {welcoming / discussing / interested in} " or maybe simply "Japan is now fully in a mood". I think the safer choice would be "interested in" here, because obviously not everyone welcomes the dissolution.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, usage, nuances"
}
|
what does this のって mean?
For context, Person A admires the new bag of person B. Person B bought it on the internet. here is Persons A's response:
> ****
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. There is no kanji in the text and simply assuming a typo of doesn't really help either. Since , if I observed correctly, doesn't only express "to get on train" but of course also "to go by train/to use the train", it could somehow fit into the context of this sentence. But between the two phrases and I can't muster a grammatical interpretation of this sentence. I don't know how to connect these pieces and I also don't know how to classify at all (adverb or adverbial function, verb etc.).
However, here is my attempt at translation: "What, isn't it dangerous to do your shopping on the internet?" I feel like I just left out in this interpretation entirely, because I did, basically xD I just don't know wether an interpretation taking in would look any different...^^
|
> {}{} **** {}
here is two words -- both particles.
is a nominalizer; It turns verbs and adjectives into nouns. = to shop is a verb and by adding , it can be treated as a noun -- "shopping", "the act of shopping", etc.
is an informal particle used to **bring up a topic and use it as the grammatical subject of the sentence**. It functions just like and .
(Please forget {}; That will not work. is just plain gibberish.)
Trust me, native speakers could not talk informally for 5 minutes without using this or at least once (and that is exactly why so many questions are asked here about them).
> "What! Isn't shopping on the internet dangerous?" or
>
> "What! Shopping on the Internet, isn't that dangerous?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, nominalization, particle って"
}
|
Why is the Japanese title of Dante's "Divine Comedy" 『神曲』?
Dante's _The Divine Comedy_ (whose English title appears to basically be the same as the original Italian title, _Divina Commedia_ ) is titled in Japanese . Why is this? Naturally, translations need not be literal, but a title meaning roughly "The Divine Song" (or "The Divine Poem"?) seems a bit odd when something along the lines of could've been done.
I read the section in the Wikipedia article, which indicates that Mori Ougai's translation of Hans Christian Andersen's novel _The Improvisatore_ contains the passage and Mori's choice of stuck. That explains the history of it; so my question is really more, why might Mori have chosen this translation? Did mean something closer to "comedy" at the time he wrote it (c. 1902)?
|
WIkipediacomedy
> Comedy: Tragedy : La Divina Commedia
comedy
* <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, literature"
}
|
Meaning of this passage?
>
I think I understand half of the first sentence : "However, I did just as teacher told me but..." but I have no idea as to the rest.
>
I guess this one means "It went well" ? I can barely translate the other part, though.
|
> {}{}{}{}{} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
literally means " ** _I was able to go far enough_**." That in turn means " ** _Something went adequately well_**." So. you got this one down.
here means " **I am told** ", " **they say** ", etc. It **_does not_** mean "everything" or "anything". ← Very important! It often gets translated incorrectly in fan subs.
means " ** _in a bad-tempered manner_** "
= "to get exhausted"
= "to act affectionate"
= "popularity rating"
= "to skyrocket", "to increase by much"
My own (mostly literal) TL
> " **However, I tried to do just as my dear master told me, and it actually went quite well! They say that looking nicely exhausted and acting affectionate after doing all sorts of brutalities (in a bad-tempered manner) will make that thing called 'popularity rating' skyrocket for you, right?** "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
How to interpret these elements?
****
First, my attempt at translation: "When I look at the worlds development, even though we seem to enter a time in which Japans economy becomes harder, **I want to rapidly challenge new things**."
My main issue lies with the parts in bold. First, I don't know how to interpret this in . I know of two ways to interpret this , one is in the way I did it in the first half of the sentence where it marks that change will happen in a time span starting now/soon, and one is that VERB is pointing in the direction away from the speaker. The latter doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but I also have problems "adding" the "I want to" from to the group which already points into the future. I also don't feel too confident about my interpretation of in relation to .
|
You got this. is sort of intensifying the speaker's resolve. As in, "I resolve to continue steadily facing new challenges." means "doing now and continuing to do so into the future." It doesn't have to represent a change. means it's raining now and it's going to keep raining.
Also, there's no sense of "entering" a time when Japan's economy is rough. I would translate the sentence as follows:
"Looking at world trends, even though it looks like Japan's economy will continue to suffer, we resolve to continue challenging ourselves to do new things."
Or maybe "...continue to take on new challenges."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
"must have been" construction
Passage in question:
> ** **
As I understand, the translation is something along the lines of "You must have been very hungry." My problem lies within the bold text: how exactly each element of this passage is constructed? Dictionaries and rikaikun didn't quite help and I also don't know whether there are any kanji in the passage (although I doubt it) since I encountered it in a children's cartoon with kana-only subtitles.
|
* **** : (consonant-stem, intransitive, "instant state-change" verb) "to become empty/vacant".
* **** : (verbal set expression) "to become hungry". See: [Why is it []{}[]{} but []{}[]{}?](
* **** : Te-form of .
* **** : "to be hungry". See When is V the continuation of action and when is it the continuation of state? and Difference between and ―
* **** : Ta-form (past form) of . "to have been hungry".
* **** : =. "It is that ." This is known as explanatory . See: What is the meaning of //etc?
* **** : Just another sentence-final particle to show exclamation.
So the super-literal translation of would be something like "Oh, it is that your stomach had become empty."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles"
}
|
Using も or は/が in し sentences
When doing a bit of research into ~ sentences I've found that sometimes / is used and sometimes is used, which is a bit confusing. For example,
> .
>
> .
>
>
The first two are the same sentence with the particle changed, and the third one has with but with (why not both with or with )
It's all very confusing :(
|
> 1.
> 2.
>
These two sentences are almost the same, but IMO the latter (using ) sounds slightly more rhythmical and exclamatory.
Sometimes is used to list things with emphasis and emotion ("not only but even also "). It can be used in the construction, but it's particularly common when combined with sentence-end particle for exclamation:
> * **** ****
> * **** **** **** ****
>
>
> (Note that this type of is _not_ feminine.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle は, particle も, particle し"
}
|
What is the difference in pronunciation between [桃]{もも} and [腿]{もも}?
I am currently studying and I am trying to understand the pronunciation difference between **** (peach) and **** (thigh). Both can be written as **** in kana and sound practically the same to me when my tutor pronounces them to me, but she tells me that there is a difference in terms of the pronunciation, though I can't figure out what it is and thus how to say them properly.
So what is the difference in pronunciation? Is it stress? Accent? And how do I pronounce them so that a can tell which one of them it is that I mean?
|
The difference is in the pitch accent.
(peach){LH} (Low-High)
(thigh){HL} (High-Low)
That is a **_huge_** difference to us native speakers because it changes the meanings of the words **_completely_**.
If there is a musical instrument around you, try doing the following.
Hit 'do-mi' as you say and hit 'mi-do' as you try to say .
Other examples from simple everyday words:
**Low-High** {LH}: {}= hard candy,{}= bridge,{}= living room
**High-Low** {HL}:{}= rain,{}= chopsticks,{}= now
(Finally, even at the risk of confusing some, I might mention for the advanced learners that the (feminine) given name // is pronounced the **_same_** way as --- {HL}, that is. This is an exception but it is a fact, so I had to say it.
Same thing with {}. To mean "snow", it is pronounced {LH}, but for a personal name, it is {HL}.)
Note: All pronunciations above are naturally based on Standard Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 20,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "learning, pitch accent"
}
|
meaning and authenticity of Japanese proverb about shrimp and jellyfish
On this page, I see the following listed as a Japanese proverb:
The jellyfish never dances with the shrimp.
Meaning: Enmity is inborn and natural, it can never be eliminated.
However, doing searches in Japanese for this doesn't yield anything online.
My theory is that this is either:
1) A very old proverb which is uncommon.
2) Actually from another language which somehow got back-translated into Japanese.
3) 'Evolved' from what it was originally.
Can anyone speak to the authenticity of this proverb? If it is authentic, can you confirm the meaning as well?
|
I have not seen such a saying. Perhaps or would be similar in meaning.
Some "proverbs" in the link are real ones, but many are not only unheard but also nonsensical. To list a few, I'm pretty certain that these are machine-translated gibberish.
> * (although there is a similar saying)
> *
> *
> * 10090
>
Apparently the author doesn't even know mile is not used in Japan :)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "proverbs"
}
|
て form and number, what does it mean example: "ザーレスが滅んで千年"
Sentence:
>
Is it "...after destruction of thousand years passed, and even now..."
|
It is precisely as you stated.
> Verb in /-form + time period
means:
> "(It has been) N weeks/months/years/centuries **_since_** (event described by the verb phrase)"
**_Informally_** , you can insert between the /-form and the time period.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
}
|
ものに in this sentence
>
I have no idea whether it is as a whole, or by itself followed by .
|
It is + .
> (object) + **** \+ {}= "to touch (object)"
The sentence thus means:
> "Without thinking, (I) reach out to seize her by the collar, but the moment (I) touched the **thing that took the shape of the woman** , it disappears like the bubbles disappear between the waves."
Japanese is a highly contextual language. From this sentence alone, one could not tell if the action-taker would be the speaker himself or a third person.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
why there is an "を" in 「運転免許は持っているけれど、車を全然運転しない人たちのことをそう呼ぶんです」
![enter image description here](
I assume that here is the used for not direct quoting.
|
This is merely a direct object marker, indicating the object of the verb .
`AB` means "to call A B".
>
> (They) call people who don't drive at all _paper drivers_.
In this case, the adverbial phrase is replaced by , which is like "so", "that way" or "like that" in English.
> ****
> (They) call people who don't drive at all like that.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle を"
}
|
Whats is the meaning of って in this?
I undestand this like: "Youre that "Oshikake niyoubou" guy" (if I'm wrong please tell me) but I cant understand the meaning of
Can somebody help me? Im sorry for my bad english too.
|
The expresses (apposition). Means . According to :
>
>
> **** **** **** **** ****
The in your example is the appositive case particle. The examples in the dictionary can be rewritten as **** **** . is more colloquial than . Your sentence can be rephrased as:
> ****
> ⇒ **** / ****
"Say, / Hey, that's what's called / that's what you call ."
The here doesn't mean "guy", but "thing" or "what (is called...)", ≂ (in the sense of , not ).
And the is vocative (). It's not the subject of the sentence. The subject is in (+).
* * *
The here is not the quotative particle (=), nor the topical particle (=), which I explained in this answer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle って"
}
|
How did 本 come to mean "this?"
I'm researching the kanji for a blog post. I understand its original meaning is "root", and the other two senses, "book" and "this," are semantic shifts. I've found a couple of sources (without citations; one on Japanese StackExchange) for its sense of "book."
I'm having more trouble finding its sense of "this" as in , , , and so on. Does anyone know how it came to be used in this way?
|
The English rendering of _this_ may be somewhat misleading. :)
The root (ha!) meaning of includes a sense of _main_ , and it is from this sense that the use correlating to English _this_ derives: as in, "the **main** item under discussion (out of several possible items)".
Shogakukan's lists the following sense under the **II** heading:
>
> Attached to a noun, the item now actually at issue. Term expressing a sense that this is the immediate item. The relevant (thing), this (thing). Such as, "this auditorium", "this issue".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, kanji, etymology"
}
|
Any more examples of ここ as a time reference?
I recently heard the phrases
("somewhat lately"/"these recent days") and
"these past 2 days or so").
I had never heard used in this way before, and I was wondering if anyone knew of other phrases or examples which use to mark time in this way.
|
It is actually a common usage of . Off the top of my head, we say the following quite often.
(informally,) = "these days", "recently", etc.
"for some time now", "for some time to come", etc.
{} "at the critical moment”
{} = "at a (good) chance", "at an important moment", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, time"
}
|
what やる after command form means?
I received the following message:
>
What function performs here?
Also could I say just:
>
Can I put the particles like that after a command/request?
|
First of all, that is not command but just modifying , which is the main verb. So the sentence means "You will do it without pushing yourself, won't you?".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does してた in 元気してた means?
What does in means? How it came to being ? I know that the original form of is , then what does means? It's really confusing. For context please see the images below:
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
These screenshots contain Chinese and Japanese subtitles. You can see the Japanese subtitles.
|
> {}
is just a more informal/colloquial way of saying:
> ****
which is already fairly informal. **You can only say these to close friends and people younger than you**.
Both expressions mean:
> "Have you been alright?"
A more "textbook" way of saying this would be:
> or
Those can be said to people older than you.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, adjectives, particle し"
}
|
What is オー・マイ・ガブリーヌ?
It's from a video game called Xenogears. You can play rock-paper-scissors with a man and when he loses he says this:
>
> ……
>
Is it something like "Oh my God!"?
|
is obviously a pun on ("OMG") and , where is probably a western surname _Gabreanu_. But according to this, no one seems to know who is: OH MY GABRINO! WHAT DOES THIS XENOGEARS LINE SAY IN JAPANESE?
This character speaks in an idiosyncratic manner in the first place, so probably there is no special meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, katakana, video games"
}
|
Does 多分 carry a degree of certainty equal to or greater than 50%?
Purely speculating from the kanji, one could quite naturally think that , being "many parts", could lean towards a likelihood greater than 50% that something will happen.
I always thought as being a quite neutral 50% "maybe", but I just randomly got to think of the above kanji-based possible interpretation and got curious to know if it is just my idea or there is some truth behind it.
|
maybe probably 708090
>
>
"Will you marry me?" "Maybe."
50…
> Purely speculating from the kanji, one could quite naturally think that , being "many parts", could lean towards a likelihood greater than 50% that something will happen.
+
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "words, nuances, adverbs, modality"
}
|
Question about もらう／いただく
I just encountered this question:
> **Conversation** :
>
>
>
>
> It's asking something like and have 3 choices
>
> **Question**
>
> **Answer** ****
There's a rule before the question says that:
**AB → B**
According to this rule, I think the conversation could be analysed like this:
** → **
I know is the humble form of , so it matches the understanding that is the one who gives the favour to do the action().
However, I did a bit research and there's an answer mentioning that,
**[noun]**
in some cases, the **noun** before could be the **receiver** rather than the giver.
So I'm wondering if it's the reason why the answer is " **** " rather than " **** ". But I would like to know in what kind of situation shall we treat the noun before as a receiver, especially in the question above which is a solitary piece and doesn't have any other context provided.
Could anyone kindly explain this? Thanks in advance.
|
as in isn't the marker for but that for . In other words, the example is synthesis of … (the man has the woman to do ...) and (the woman tells it to Mori-san).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, keigo, giving and receiving"
}
|
What does 必要最小限にお願いします。 mean?
>
I can't translate it at all, what could it mean ? "Please, do what's necessary" ?
|
{} means "bare minimum".
> "Please keep it at a bare minimum."
Depending on the context you found this sentence in, you might need to change the "keep it" part. Remember that Japanese is an **_extremely_** contextual language.
If I were to borrow your TL "Please, do what's necessary.", I would change it to:
> "Please do only what's absolutely necessary."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
When using 比べる, should I use を or が for the object being compared?
I have seen sentences 1 and 4, but are sentences 2 and 3 grammatical?
My question is regarding the use of / with the object being compared, in sentences with .
> 1. **** ****
>
> 2. **** ****
>
> 3. **** ****
>
> 4. **** ****
>
>
Sources for sentences 1 and 4: (sentence 1) and (sentence 4): <
|
> 1. ****
> 2. ****
>
Both sound unnatural to me. I would rather say:
**** or
****
(with modifying the main clause )
because you say...
**** or
****
... with or without .
To use **** , I'd say...
**** **** or
**** **** ****
(...with / modifying the sub-clause .)
* * *
> 3. ****
> 4. ****
>
I think both are fine, because you can say either...
**** or
****
... with or without .
Sentence 4 sounds a bit more natural to me, because I think it's more natural to interpret as the subject of rather than .
As a side note,+transitive verb+ and +transitive verb+ are both correct. Please see this post if you're interested.
* * *
> ****
**** **** **** **** **** **** ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particles, particle が, particle を"
}
|
Difference between 入口 and 入り口
On Wanikani I've long since learned "entrance" as {}{}. However, in my textbook, I just came across the vocabulary word for "entrance" and it writes it as {}{}. I note that the pronunciation is the same in both cases but what's the difference between the two kanji writings?
I looked it up on jisho and only found (though on jisho uses the reading of ). Does this mean I should normally be writing this as and wanikani is wrong, or is this a matter of preference?
|
They are both correct. Japanese vocabulary has all sorts of different spellings of the same words, it's just that many of them are archaic or simply uncommon.
According to Kanshudo, is the most common, and is the second most common.
You will come across words like these constantly, especially if you are interacting with a large variety of Japanese media. It's best to learn each reading when you do.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, readings, okurigana"
}
|
Confusing use of 聞く in this sentence
> ****
> (Scientists) are saying to reduce the problem in exams of whether or not you've memorised a word.
I'm not sure I've translated this correctly. I'm confused about the inclusion of . I'm sure the act of **asking** whether or not you've memorised the word isn't the problem.
If I'd been asked to write this sentence I'd have replaced with either:
1)
2)
3) nothing
Would any of these options lead to a grammatical, natural sentence? Would my sentence have a different meaning?
|
here is not a “problem” in the meaning of a “general issue”, but a problem as an “exercise”, a “test item”.
Thus are exercises **asking** (verifying) if examinees remembered words.
And it’s not the problem itself that needs to be reduced, but the number of such problems (exercises) in exams.
* * *
That said, I’m not sure if the latter part of the question still remains relevant, but:
> I'd have replaced with either:
>
> 1)
This would refer to a direct question: “did you remember the word ...?”
> 2)
Ungrammatical. I’m not even sure what the intention was. A possessive ? Anyway, it doesn’t follow an embedded question.
> 3) nothing
Passable, I guess. No change in meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How do I call the 巾 radical?
Every source I look it says it's called AND . But in what situation do I call it instead of ?
Also, it's usually specified as and , in my understanding radicals are always on the left of the kanji. So how do I call in kanjis such as , , and ?
|
> But in what situation do I call it instead of ?
To refer to the radical - never.
There are rare cases in which is pronounced this way as a noun. And of course is pronounced in many compound words.
>
or less often
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "readings, radicals"
}
|
How to say "unwanted" in terms of a person being unwanted
Trying to say something like this line:
> I am not wanted.
But for all the Japanese language likes skipping subjects and topics, I can't seem to find an equivalent for this case--it seems like the only way to say this is by rephrasing it to "X doesn't want me" (). The closest I can think of is , but I don't want to say "I'm not needed", I want to say "I'm not _wanted_ ". It doesn't seem like conjugating or is the way to go either. How can I say this without adding a topic?
※Disclaimer: This is not related to how I actually feel.
|
I think you're looking for
> (It seems) I am not wanted/needed.
The line between need and want case is a blur (I'd say the same in English), but the word does express a nuance of being unwanted.
Then again, I imagine the Japanese don't say this out loud often because it also expresses some resentment (of being unwanted by the listeners, perhaps).
Edit: To say it more emphatically you could say,
> Nobody wants/needs me.
Of course you can outright point out just who is making you feel unwelcome or unwanted, and that will border on being antagonistic.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, phrases, phrase requests"
}
|
Undertstanding ８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵などが有名な芸術家で
> ****
> 88 year old ??? and is popular even in (the rest of) the world.
I'm having problems parsing the first clause.
>
> is a famous artist -- (makes sense)
>
> things like the water drop picture are famous artists -- (does not make sense)
It sounds to me like it's saying that the picture is an artist. If was replaced by a word for art work (maybe ?) rather than artist then I'd be happy. As it stands I can't make any sense out of it.
|
**** is "to be famous _for_ ". You can always say .
> ****
However, this sentence:
> ****
...also makes perfect sense, and has almost the same meaning. In this case, modifies as a relative clause. Its "base" sentence would be , which is an example of so-called "double subject" sentences like .
In other words, is structurally similar to , , , etc.
**EDIT:** Strictly speaking, is an artist whose art is famous; the artist himself doesn't necessarily have to be famous. For example, you can say .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle は, particle が, relative clauses, reading comprehension"
}
|
Why use に in 元気にしてたか？
I learned that the particle is meant to mark the place in a phrase, similar to _in, on and at_. But today I was reading Yotsubato and I came across this phrase **** and obviously this rule doesn't apply to .
It didn't stop me to understand the conversation (at least I think so), I presume it meant something like:
> How you doing? Good?
Am I wrong in this? Why use the particle in this phrase?
|
is a na adjective
To describe the verb ), we add to make an adverb.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
What is the meaning of 拝承致します?
According to the site RomanjiDesu:
> means hearing; understanding; learning; being informed
Another definition from goo:
>
The latter definition is almost the same as the first definition. But it has an example. I tried to translate the example using google translate to try to understand how is translated in English when incorporated in a complete sentence.
Below is the Google Translate translation:
> = I wish you the intention of the application.
> = Purpose of application
Honestly, I'm not confident with my own translation. But my own translation is "I was informed of the purpose of the translation."
Is my understanding correct?
Can you give me advice on how to interpret the word when used in a sentence?
Thank you.
|
From what I understand, is rarer (and thus probably politer) than /, which is politer than . The basic meaning is the same -- "we heard" or "okay".
> ≒
Some people use all the time in business emails, whereas I usually use in business emails. Probably it depends on the culture of each company.
By the way, is very rare and Google seems to be confused with this word. I didn't know this word and initially thought was a typo for ("application"). So Google was somehow reasonable in this case :D
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, formality"
}
|
How to use 終助詞 -わ
I've looked up a lot on how to use the feminine "-", but I still don't understand concretely grammatically where it is ok and where it is incorrect. I do not use it for multiple reasons, but I want to explain to someone how to grammatically use it properly.
Most often the person says "-" which is incorrect. But why is it incorrect?
I've read the imabi page and the jp wikipedia page and they didn't help much. Is the - in "" (like in a pleading tone) different from - in ""?
usage at the end of sentences I've read this, but it is different because it asks about the meaning of its usage rather than the grammatical explanation of how it is used.
Please help!
|
Grammatically, always follows the dictionary form of a verb/i-adjective or . It never follows the imperative form and /. ( is etymologically an imperative form.) As a feminine sentence-end particle, is used to state a fact or her own feeling with mild emphasis. Unlike , safely follows an imperative form.
> * I will quit smoking.
> * I quit smoking. (past tense)
> * I want to quit smoking.
> * I want you to quit smoking.
> * [*]: (incorrect; is okay)
> * [*]: (incorrect; is okay)
> * : (Oh,) It's a bird.
> * : It's beautiful.
>
Also note that this type of feminine is becoming rare in real conversations in standard Japanese, although it's still common in fiction. is also very common in Kansai speech and other western dialects regardless of sex.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, dialects, role language, particle わ"
}
|
Purpose of ができないと in this sentence "「まああたしも今、心身共に鍛え直している最中だからね、あれぐらいはできないと」"
Context: Two girls are talking, one compliments the other about being able to kill a bear. The complimented one answers with:
> ""
|
There's a hidden incomplete expression to that,
>
meaning that it will be bad if the person was unable to do that much. It just expresses a possible causality (i.e. if you can't do it, something will happen).
In the same vein, think of it as like this:
>
> After doing all that exercise, I'd die if I can't even beat a bear.
Or in a more practical situation,
>
> If you don't finish your homework now, mom will scold you.
P.S. I find the whole context and conversation amusing.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
What is this 行ってまいります
"Because it looks like the documents have arrived, I go to the office to fetch them."
This sentence is an example from the grammar section of my textbook. I've encountered this only once before (at least as far as I can remember), and I couldn't beat much sense into it. When I search for / on jisho, I find nothing. I can search for and find this < . But since the result is a set phrase which has a meaning which doesn't even apply in this case here, it doesn't help much.
|
is a **humble** equivalent of and . If you don't know about humble expressions (or _keigo_ in general), refer to your textbook about honorific/humble expressions. is one of the most basic humble verbs. You can find an online article, for example this.
So is said in a humble manner.
If still makes little sense to you, this is a subsidiary verb, a verb that can follow the te-form of another verb for special purposes. See: What is a subsidiary verb? and Meaning of in
So / implies you will go to somewhere, do something there, and _return here_.
>
> (humble)
> I went to London (and already returned from London).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, words"
}
|
How do you say 'the will to live' in Japanese?
Can someone translate the English phrase, 'the will to live' into accurate Japanese? Is there an equivalent phrase in Japanese?
I've tried to translate each component separately:
Component 1 = the will = ishi
Component 2 = to live/to survive = seizon
So it becomes 'seizon no ishi'?
Can someone tell me if this is accurate? Or better yet, just give me the best translation you can come up with.
Oh, and it would be extremely helpful if someone can give me romaji version of the translation.
Thank you so much.
|
How about the interpretation in this text for " **a will to live** "?
It says that " **a will to live** or **the will to live** " is " _**ikiru iyoku**_ "
> ### A Will to Live
>
> A: My aunt has joined a climbers' group. She is very strong-willed. She wants to climb the Matterhorn with the team.
>
> B: Really? But I heard she had lung cancer. When did she leave the hospice?
>
> A: She didn't. She hasn't recovered from the disease. It's supposed to be terminal, but the urge to climb the mountain has given her **the will to live**. This treatment is called "natural therapy"; no drugs or operations.
Source:
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, english to japanese"
}
|
Is top-to-bottom, left-to-right writing order common in Japanese calligraphy?
My understanding is that Japanese was traditionally written in a top-to-bottom, right-to-left order ({}), and that modern Japanese is sometimes written in a horizontal left-to-right, top-to-bottom order ({}) 1. But in the following painting by {}, the calligraphy appears to be in a top-to-bottom, left-to-right order. According to the caption on the Wikipedia page, the calligraphy reads `{}`.
!daruma-scroll
Is top-to-bottom, left-to-right writing order common in Japanese calligraphy? Are there rules governing when you would write in this order, or is it just based on the artist's preference? Or maybe it's a Zen koan, and I'm supposed to empty my mind and realize that the order doesn't matter?
Please enlighten me!
|
This text is written left-to-right **because the person in the picture is facing to the left**. There was a rule that when you put some text (chinese poem, haiku, etc.) in a portrait, the first line must be determined by the orientation of the face. When the person was facing to the left, the text had to be written from left to right. Some sources say this rule was most prevalent in the Muromachi period.
> ### (PDF)
>
> ,2006
>
> ### ―
>
> 1414 15
Most of Ekaku's works available online seem to follow this rule, although there are exceptions.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "orthography, calligraphy"
}
|
What does 「のではないか」really mean in "血が滲む「のではないかという」くらい強く握り締めた拳 "
I've found "might/perhaps" explanation on stack, and it fitted this sentence:
> ……
But this explanation doesn't work on this sentence:
> .
I was told that the sentence above has the same meaning as:
>
So what does actually mean?
|
> (1)
> (2)
(3) a fist clenched strongly as if blood would bleed
(3)'
The phrase with (3) is my attempt for (1) or (2). And (3)' is the result of google translation for (3).
I think (3)' has almost the same meaning as (1) or (2) has.
As for "might/perhaps", I think you can say (3) like (4) or (5). And (4)' and (5)' are google translations for (4) and (5) respectively.
### EDIT
personanongrata gave me a comment as follows, so I edit (4) and (4)'.
> Seeing your answer I thought of this " a fist clenched so strongly THATit might bleed.
~~(4) a fist clenched strongly as if blood **might** bleed~~
~~(4)' ~~
(4) a fist that is clenched so strongly that it **might** bleed
(4)'
(5) a fist clenched strongly as if blood **perhaps** bleed
(5)'
In conclusion, I think that "might/perhaps" can also be used for "" in (1).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Particles that goes with 案内 in a ~てあげる sentence
I'm using Goukaku Dekiru N5·N4 book, and I'm confused about a question there. This is the question:
>
And the possible answers:
> 1. 2. 3. 4.
>
So, I answered number 2, , but the answer book says is . Why is this the case? I thought that Lee, in this case, would be the receiving part from the guidance that does. With it seems like is guiding Lee like it'd guide Paris or New York.
Thanks!
|
takes particles as below.
* (person)
* (person) (place)
So, both and are correct in the example question if it's asking for simply a correct answer. (Actually, I've seen this kind of incomplete questions for books several times in this forum.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particles, giving and receiving"
}
|
How to express "When it comes to"?
So google translator seemly tells me that to express "When it comes to" I should use the following structure (I tried finding it on google and this forum but could not find it)
> ...
For instance
> **"When it comes to walking"**
But since I don't trust google translator at all, I am asking, what is the right way to say that?
The sentence I am trying to make is the following **"When it comes to drinking everyday, it seems that Japanese people drink more than Brazilian people."** (refeering to the image that many people go to izakaya after work). My attempt:
>
What do you think? Thanks in advance!
|
... sounds funny, particularly the part. Looks like Google **_forcibly_** translated the word "it".
Most naturally, we would say:
{}{}/
You could say:
> {}{}{}{}
Your sentence, though, would be understood by nearly all native speakers if you just dropped .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How do you say "If only things were different"?
Context: Bob is angry that event X happened today. A series of unfortunate events throughout his life led up to this crappy day, and thus he thinks to himself, "if only things were different". How do I translate this line when 'things' refer to 'basically everything bad that has ever happened' and is so vague and all-encompassing that even Bob doesn't know what specific things he's referring to?
> [things] **** ****
|
"If only~~." is often translated as or (), etc.
For example...
> * If only he comes in time. (Genius E-J Dictionary)
> * If only she had come earlier. (Genius E-J / J-E Dictionary)
> * If only I could stop smoking! (Lexis E-J Dictionary)
>
I think your sentence can translate to something like...
"If only things were different."
_lit._ /
⇒ or more naturally...
* () or * ()
*The is used in the sense of []{}("things" or "situation"), as in **** **** **** ( _lit._ "Became bad/difficult situation." → "Things became bad / went wrong." "We're in trouble.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, phrases, phrase requests"
}
|
Internet vocabulary: Is 落ちる an equivalent of "being AFK"?
## Context
I saw many times people using in a chat followed by . I assumed that the user expressed his intent of temporarily leaving a chat and planned to come back later.
## Question
* As the title mentions, is an equivalent of "AFK1" with the underlying meaning of coming back later on?
* Is there a way to differentiate **"I got to go"** ( _I don't plan to come back_ ) and **"I'll be back"** ( _I temporarily leave the chat/game/whatever_ )
* * *
1 **AFK** : **A** way **F** rom **K** eyboard
|
is closer to "gotta go now." It usually means _not_ returning for the day, unless otherwise modified by , , 30, , etc. A typical response for would be , , , etc.
usually indicates the person who said this somehow knows the other person is coming back relatively soon. It's not a typical response for modified by nothing.
If you want to explicitly say "I'll be back", you can use , , , etc. Many online gamers will understand "AFK", too.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, internet slang"
}
|
Origin of じゃ as contraction of では
What is the origin of the contraction ->? I googled around for a bit, but I wasn't able to find any answer at all.
|
The contraction is simply a matter of fast speech and sound shapes. or `/de/` is a front-of-the-mouth sound, where affrication is not uncommon. Consider how English _don't you_ often becomes _doncha_ in fast speech, or how _could you_ becomes _cudja_. So too with -- `/de wa/` → `*/dea/` → `*/d͡ʑea/` → `/d͡ʑa/`.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, etymology, history"
}
|
とし in this sentence, among other problems
I was trying to translate this song (full lyrics here: < ) and I'm having a lot of trouble with these two lines:
>
>
"Trapped by the chaos, having put on my mourning clothes, a rose in my worm-eaten right hand, I make a decision to blot out my crime (btw is pronounced )" is what I could figure out. Mostly I'm confused about here. I would think it's a continuative of , but the only uses I could find with are the typical ~ and volitional + , which doesn't seem to apply here. And I'm not sure if (which is pronounced ) should even be "decision" or "fate." Literally I could only translate the last line based on context also; as you can see, I'm very confused!
Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks!
|
Yes it's the continuative form of , and I think it's "typical " you already know, with omitted because it's already mentioned in the previous sentence(?). It just means "consider something " or "regard something as ".
can mean the same thing as , doom, fate, etc.
So "regarding it (=) as my(?) fate, ..."
See:
* Adjective +
* what is the meaning of a
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning, song lyrics"
}
|
What is the formal expression of 住んでんだ
I came to this colloquial expression from One Piece.
|
It's contracted from :
1.
2. (contract to )
3. (contract to )
4. *(contract to )
5. (reduce double to single )
Step 4 isn't a valid sequence; the * is not allowed here, so you're forced to reduce the invalid sequence * to when you contract to before .
I marked step 4 with a * to show that it's not a valid sequence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, usage, syntax, expressions"
}
|
Saying "I do X so that I am able to do Y"
I'm trying to say "I do X so that I can do Y".
For example: "I work so that I can enjoy life".
The closest I've been able to get is something like:
( _because_ I work, I can enjoy life)
Is there a way of saying this with a closer implication to the original English?
|
("I can enjoy life because I work"; **** should be a typo for **** ) makes sense, but there is some difference in meaning.
To describe your purpose ("in order to", "so that", ...), you can use or . For the difference, see: On the interchangeability of ~ and ~
> *
> *
>
Reference:
* Japanese Grammar on Expressing Benefit & Purpose
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How do you say "stopped playing piano" by using やめる?
Is it
>
or
>
Thanks
|
Neither is correct. Unlike or which can follow almost any verb, can _not_ follow the masu-stem of an arbitrary verb. (There are a few fixed compound verbs like , though)
You have to use a nominalizer and say:
>
Compare:
> * I started playing the piano.
> * I finished playing the piano.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
Is it ok to use 電車 for non-electric trains?
has the kanji for "electric" in it, but is it more or less ok to use it even for non-electric trains, such as steam trains? I saw a steam-powered train being used as the picture for that word in Duolingo.
|
I was corrected yesterday on this very point when playing Great Western Trail in Japanese.
The people I was with most assuredly only use for steam locomotives versus for modern electric rail trains. They found my periodic use of humorous but wrong enough that they vocally corrected it twice...
In the case of the game the trains are 19th steam locomotives, but I've had the same experience riding the to Furano.
If you want a universal word for train, there's and for passenger train
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 29,
"question_score": 31,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Grammar of すぐ医者に連れていこう
I'm learning japanese on my own and face a sentence below.
""
What i don't understand is the grammar in the last sentence. It seems that the book uses a Ving format. it's strange for me as i believe that "" should also works here.
Can anyone explain why the book uses this sentence structure is the one i modified above still correct?
|
is the volitional form of . means "to take (someone)(to somewhere)", and is made of the te-form of the verb ("accompany") + a subsidiary verb () ("go").
>
> "Let's take him/her to a doctor at once."
( is not a correct conjugation.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, subsidiary verbs, volitional form"
}
|
What does 微力を尽くします。mean?
> As his wife, I will ***
I don't understand the end at all. What my dictionnary says and what the sentence says doesn't seem to match.
|
A somewhat loose translation of the sentence as a whole would go something like,
"I too will do what little I can, so as to live up to my position as his wife."
is a humble expression referring to "one's meagre/limited abilities". in this case means "to use something to their fullest extent". So when put together, is like saying "I'm not capable of much, but I'll do everything I can with what abilities I do have."
The is also something of a set expression; if you are [position] it means you are an embarrassment to that position; ie. you're not living up to what is expected of someone in that position. So indicates that she's going to put in this effort in order to avoid being "an embarrassment as his wife", the implication being that she thinks a lot of her husband and feels she needs to put in an effort to be a wife befitting of his status.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
Should I use は or が here?
> ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
I posted that entry on Lang-8 and someone corrected my use of to so
> ****
to
> ****
while other people said it was fine. I'm confused on which one I should use in this sentence.
|
You have to use if this is the first sentence of your essay. By using , you're introducing this in the universe of discourse. See: What's the difference between wa () and ga ()?
Using sounds fairly awkward to me. In this case, is like suddenly saying " _the_ classmate". is like " _a_ classmate (of mine)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "は and が"
}
|
Will fully electric cars be called 電車？
A train in japanese is . Precisely an electric train.
means electricity and means car/vehicle.
Which means that the name for fully electrical cars should be or right?
|
Electric cars are called .
I’m not sure, what you mean by "will" (and what the timeframe is), but I guess they will remain to be also called {}, just as two-wheeled carts pulled by oxen.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "nouns"
}
|
Which is stronger, ないでほしい or てほしくない
I've asked this to several native Japanese speakers, but I've gotten varied responses so I thought I'd put it out here.
Which feels 'stronger', ie more forceful:
(1)
(2)
To me, feels like it's a little more forceful. Then again, both are probably translated the same way in English. So what's the verdict?
|
Both are rather simply using , and I personally do not think there is a clear difference in the level of forcefulness.
The literal translation of these two sentences are different also in English:
> (1) I want you not to go there.
> (2) I do not want you to go there.
Sentence 2 is theoretically ambiguous; it usually means the same thing as Sentence 1, but its literal meaning is closer to "I'm not saying I want you to go there." (i.e., if you want to go there, I don't want to stop you, either.) Therefore, some people may say Sentence 1 is more direct, explicit, and thus sounds a little "stronger". But practically, these are almost always safely interchangeable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, negation"
}
|
新完全マスター(N3) ぐらいきれいな vs ぐらい高い
(N3)
( )
Why not ?
Could you please explain this in detail?
(I was looking for an answer here but did not find)
|
I think No.2 is a bit unnatural because it is a well known fact that Mt. Fuji is the highest mountain in Japan. So is a bit unnatural. would be natural. For example, it is a bit odd if American people say "I think the US borders on Mexico", isn't it? No.1 would be the answer.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
}
|
Why is a thermos called a 魔法瓶?
I just stumbled across this word today, and was baffled to find that a thermos is a "magic bottle"? What reason is there for the kanji chosen? Was it a decision by a company who introduced/manufactured the first thermoses in Japan?
|
We had not understood the reason why a thermos is called , but Mr.Awazu, who was a director of memorial house, found out the reason a few years ago.
He found out a oldest newspaper article which was written the word at October 11th in 1907. The article said that in his interview about hunting, a person referred to the high performance and convenience of a thermos, which had been just imported to Japan at that time, and quoted (Magic Bottle) in Aesop’s Fable. His words were used in the oldest advertisement of a thermos in Japan and he was decided to be the author of .
However (Magic Bottle) isn't in Aesop’s Fable and it seems to be his misunderstanding.
This is the source. <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, kanji"
}
|
Can に対して be replaced with に比べて sometimes?
Can be replaced with sometimes?
For comparing things. Taishite seems to have other comparison uses that are more specific but kurabete seems more flexible for general comparison use?
|
Prescriptively speaking, no, but descriptively speaking, yes. It happens **informally/colloquially and in certain contexts**.
So, in what contexts? That is when {} is used to describe a _**contrast**_ between two (or more) facts/things. When it means " _ **towards**_ ", however, it could never be replaced by {}.
Examples:
You would see/hear:
> {}{}25 **** 29
>
> "The average shoe size for Japanese men is 25cm. In contrast with that, that for Dutch men is 29cm."
Grammarians might prefer seeing/hearing there instead, but who speaks to please grammarians in his daily conversations?
You would _**not**_ see/hear:
> {}{} **** {}
>
> "That teacher is very strict with his students."
That sentence is just out of the question. You must use there.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, sentence"
}
|
What does バーターmean?
In a meeting, I heard this word many times.
The conversation was like below:
What I understood from the context is that word is related to accounting (business)
I tried searching in dictionary also still couldn't understand. <
Could someone please help me to understand the meaning of this word, and where it is used?
Thanks.
|
has two major meanings:
* _barter_ or , as described in English Wikipedia article barter
* _cross-selling_ , _tying arrangement_ , _packaged deal_ , or as described here and here. Etymologically it's **an anagram of ** (, "bundle").
Personally, I'm rather familiar with the _latter_ sense because it's fairly common in gossip columns. If you work in the showbiz industry, it's almost certainly the latter. I think I have seen used in the latter sense outside of the showbiz industry a few times.
* * *
Some examples of in the latter sense on the net (most are about , but I picked examples outside the here):
> ### EMOBILE LTE - Wikipedia
>
> Nexus 7 (2013)…CellularGoogle PlayMVNOWi-Fi ****
>
> ### 2
>
> 5 ****
>
> ### ECC
>
> ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, katakana"
}
|
What's the difference between 重責 and 責任?
What's the difference between {}{} and {}{}? They both have almost identical meanings - "Heavy responsibility" and "Responsibility". I found at goo even this example:
>
|
is _responsibility_ , is _huge responsibility_.
This happens because many Sino-Japanese compounds are made by combining two similar (or closely-related) kanji to reduce the number of homophones. The kanji on its own has the meaning of _responsibility_ , but it's too short and people usually use in sentences ( is occasionally used as a standalone word, though). In words with more complex meanings, is enough.
Similar examples:
* (disease) vs (severe disease)
* (marriage) vs (bigamy/polygamy)
* (rock) vs (huge rock)
* (emperor) vs (empress)
* (happiness) vs (unhappiness/misfortune)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.