INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
だ versus な in causal subordinate clauses
Why do causal subordinate clauses ending in - take as a means to connect nouns and adjectives (e.g. ), whereas causal subordinate clauses ending in - take (e.g. )?
I read that derives from +, whereas derives from +, but why would one causal conjunction require , whereas another one requires ?
Just trying to make sense of it all…
Thank you!
|
This explanation is tautological but I just have to say it's because follows a terminal form, which of the copula is while is a kind of noun, which needs an attributive form to be modified, which of the copula is .
Their etymology has nothing to do with this issue.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology, classical japanese, subordinate clauses, particle な, old japanese"
}
|
What are the plastic meals featured in restaurants called?
I can point at the food that I would like to order, because there is a plastic representation of it. Is it called _purasuchikku shokuji_?
|
This is called _shokuhin sanpuru_. (Also see the entry via kotobank.jp.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, word requests, food"
}
|
Grammatical correctness of 〜好きくない
I saw the other day. The boy said regarding many people. Was he making a grammar mistake?
|
is indeed not proper grammar. It is sometimes used by children (and hence in fiction for children or childlike characters), reanalyzing which should be a _na_ -adjective as an _i_ -adjective *, hence * or *.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, colloquial language, adjectives, i adjectives, role language"
}
|
Do any Japanese words start with n besides ンジャメナ?
Do any Japanese words start with n besides or words related to it? N'Djamena is the capital of Chad.
|
It depends on what you'd count as a "Japanese word". Almost certainly nothing that is natively Japanese will start with . However, there are a few words in other languages that would have it. For example, "ng" is a common starting sound in names in a few languages (including Vietnamese and some Chinese dialects). I know of someone whose surname is "Ng", and it caused a lot of trouble in getting them registered in some Japanese systems since there was an automatic validation preventing them from writing it as .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, readings, katakana"
}
|
Is there a っぱ suffix? If so, what does it mean?
I am trying to understand the lyrics to Matsumoto Bon Bon. Particularly the line in bold:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
I tried to look for but the only result is for , which is:
> green snot (hanging from a child's nose, etc.)
I did not find in the dictionary either.
Is there a "" suffix that has some well defined meaning in Japanese?
|
means "cedar leaves" and means "green (fresh) leaves".
Of course is a word in itself. My guess would be that it is more a geminated version of than it is a borrowing of in , but it may be a combination of both! In any case, is _not_ a productive suffix meaning "leaf of ..." and you can probably think of and as an instance of poetic license.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, song lyrics, suffixes"
}
|
What does 口 add to words like 出口？
As I am going over the uses of N5 kanji, I have gotten confused as to why is used in places such as and . What meaning does it add?
|
As you are probably aware, has the meaning of mouth. However, when you look at the Jisho.org definition, you will also find the definition of `opening; hole; gap; orifice` as well.
> What meaning does it add?
In this case, the meaning that is added is pretty simple, opening.
Combining with , you get _a hole forexiting_. You will encounter this at many building and parking lot exits, but it exists many other places as well.
Combining with , you get a _hole forentering_. You will encounter this at many building and parking lot entrances. As with you will also see it in other places as well.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, usage, kanji"
}
|
How to say "vice versa" in Japanese?
I'm translating this:
> Duplicate question and answer type selection is not allowed, i.e. the question cannot contain the answer, and _vice versa_.
as:
>
>
>
From the English Cambridge dictionary, "vice versa" is defined as:
> used to say that what you have just said is also true in the opposite order
and I'm translating it as:
>
or, alternatively:
>
I'm also using the more formal "" instead of "", and translating this:
>
as
> I doesn't make sense to allow it
and I also realise that
>
sounds a bit too heavy. A Google search gives hits on "", but not on "".
|
There are various ways to translate _vice versa_ , from rather casual to highly literary , but in your case should work.
means "you cannot select the type of an answer", which does not seem to fit the following context. If this "answer type selection" means "marking your post as an answer", say (), , (), , etc. can be actually too heavy depending on what you are explaining, so consider using simple .
All in all, assuming this is a user-friendly doc of a kind of net forum, something like this should work:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, english to japanese"
}
|
How is this unnecessarily informal?
I was reading this particular answer, when I found something interesting and confusing to me. The answer stated:
> If one had to insert a particle in [{}] that made sense, that particle would be . It would, however, be slightly wordy because there will be another coming soon in . It would also make the sentence sound unnecessarily informal as well.
It makes sense to me that it is more wordy. However, I would have guessed the opposite for formality. I assumed that by adding the extra particle it would become more formal.
So, this claim that adding the particle is 'unnecessarily informal' is at odds with my understanding.
How is it unnecessarily informal?
|
Often a shorter version sounds stiffer or more literary/academic/technical.
* Masu-stem is stiffer than te-form to join clauses
* before , is usually not said in legal sentences
AB is another example. But the difference is small, and AB is not particularly casual, either. An even stiffer variant is , which is a norm in legal sentences but should be avoided in ordinary business conversations. See: Inaccurate ruby for ?
It's difficult to give a shared background for this, but in general, a highly stiff and literary material tends to have more (on-yomi) kanji and less kana.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "formality"
}
|
What is the reading of the town 北谷?
What is the reading of the town ? or ? It is a town in Okinawa. Most Japanese read it as Hokutani or Kitatani. Okinawans say Chatan. Is it a dialect? Could all terms be correct?
|
is actually not _ateji_ , but the usual _kun'yomi_ in Okinawan.
In Okinawan, " _ki_ changes to _ch_", so one gets
> _kitatani_ → _chitatani_ > _chitatan_ > _chatan_
the first step being _ki_ → _chi_ , the second dropping the last _i_ and the last dropping the first _t_ (and contracting _chi a_ > _cha_ ).
As a name of the particular town in Okinawa, it has only one reading in Japanese, namely . However, there are other towns written with readings ) or ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words, ateji, ryukyuan languages"
}
|
How would you express "A demands B" in japanese
How would you express "A demands B" in japanese. In the sense that 'demands' is being used as a synonym of "absolutely requires". But using this expression instead of "requires" has a nuance. To me the nuance of this expressions is slightly refined or authoritative, or even elitist.
For example, a luxury car commercial: We see a close up of shiny curves, the voice over says,
“New thinking demands bold designs".
Other examples might be;
'creation of the new demands destruction of the old'
'poverty demands action'
'quality demands time'
and so on.
[edit] Looking at side by side corpses I came up with:
A B
And Then I was advised that IT was better to say:
A B
or
A B
But I'm not sure if the nuance is conveyed.
|
The subject of usually has to be a human. When the subject is an inanimate idea, "A demands B" is a typical ("thing-as-a-subject construction") sentence that looks fairly odd to the eyes of Japanese people if translated too literally.
AB and AB will look far more natural. If you need the nuance of "absolutely", you can use , or instead of .
> *
> *
> *
>
(For the first one, I would prefer a free translation like )
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "expressions, phrases"
}
|
What function does と serve in this phrase?
>
> ****
>
The bold part is the one I don't really understand, the rest is included for context. What function is "" serving here?
|
This itself is a plain old quotative particle. The part before this is the content of the evil wizard's .
> ...
> ... (who) protected Princess from the clutches of the evil wizard who attempts to destroy this planet
In case you've missed it, this is an archaic version of , or "I will destroy."
* archaic -an conjugation
* What is the verb ending of mean?
* Is there a difference between and ?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle と, reading comprehension"
}
|
What is 死んだってなるもんか
From a manga. A guy wants a girl to become his property. She retorts:
> (new bubble)
I get that she doesn't want to.
I think the translation might be something like "The property of someone like you?! I'd rather die!"
I'm puzzled by the construction of . I know that is like a rhetoric question. Is V the "even if" ? How does that sentence work?
|
Yes, just means "even if I (must) die", which is inserted between and . () here is a plain verb, "to become". The sentence makes perfect sense without this clause:
> **** !!
> I won't **become** (such a thing as) the property of someone like you!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
What is the name for a blackboard eraser?
I found the term but the definition refers to a pencil eraser. Is there a name for a blackboard eraser? Thank you.
<
|
{} would be just about the only term ever used.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "words, word requests"
}
|
Is there a difference between 事務室 and 事務所?
I want to say that I work in an office. I researched both terms. Shitsu is a room, but I assumed that sho is used more for location. Which term is more appropriate to use?
|
is for a room, and is for a facility which usually has more than one room.
If "office" refers to a certain room in an organization, use . If "office" refers to an entire building, floor or organization, use .
**EDIT** : The same is true for the translation of "laboratory"; you have to correctly choose between and .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words, kanji"
}
|
What is the difference between 問い and 質問?
I found this explanation but I don't really understand it.
> ****
>
> **** (source)
|
My opinion is different from what the dictionary says...
As a noun, is perhaps closer to _problem_ , but is a fairly literary and "big" word. Basically it's only used in the following cases:
1. In serious examinations, where is still used.
> ****
2. Important and fundamental questions/problems that may not have an answer (philosophical question, political question, ...).
> * ****
> * ****
3. As a stiff synonym for (good) in a context related to education.
> ****
4. In old novels, stiff literary works, etc.
> **** (source)
is a common word, and it refers to a question thrown to somebody else, expecting a concrete answer, either casually or formally. "Where is the station?" is a typical but usually not called a . If you ask something to yourself ("What should I do next?"), that's never a , either.
Maybe we can add this to "wago is more stiff than kango equivalent" list.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, wago and kango"
}
|
What does それだけかかってしまうんですね in this conversation mean?
I found this conversation from a Japanese learning website and I don't understand a phrase here. Please help!
Question: What does mean here?
Does here imply that that the fee that varies from distance alone will cost you a lot already, not to mention other fees like...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> 4
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
Source: <
(I don't know whether the site creator is here at stackexchange or not, but anyway thanks so much for the great resources. I hope I'm not doing anything illegally. Just for educational purposes.)
|
This means "to that extent", "as much", "accordingly" or "correspondingly", referring to the long distance from Tokyo to Hokkaido. It can be rephrased as ().
here is used in the same way as the "as much as " construction, as in , and .
Examples:
*
*
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, particle だけ"
}
|
What is the difference between 約 and 約束?
What is the purpose of adding to if the meaning stays the same and the other meanings of are enough different to not be mixed up with the one in question?
>
>
>
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> (source)
|
The noun is virtually not used in modern Japanese. If I understand correctly, it's not used even in official legal documents and such. Maybe an ancient character in a fantasy novel or a samurai drama might use this?
Anyway, is too short, and people usually need a longer word for everyday usage. There are many kanji whose on-yomi is (, , , , ...). Please see the discussion below.
* If is the kanji for school, why do I need to actually say school?
* What's the difference between and ?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What is the conjugation form, grammar of もうすぐ込んできそう ？
> 5 11 30
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
source: <
**_Question_**
From this conversation, I understand that means something like, it seems like it's going to be crowded soon.
But what is the grammar structure of ? What is the conjugation form being used here?
|
Maybe you've missed the subsidiary verb ? Here's the breakdown:
* : te-form of the godan intransitive verb , "to be crowded"
* : masu-stem (pre-masu form) of the subsidiary verb , "(gradually) over time"
* Difference between - and -
* (): "to seem; to look like"
* : conjunction for marking a reason, "because"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations, subsidiary verbs, aspect, auxiliaries"
}
|
Who is the doer when we use the verb 崩す?
is a transitive verb so it should have a doer(omitted or not)
In this sentence, the doer seems to be , he destroyed himself with alcohol:
> Drink brought about his downfall.
But in the following sentence, it doesn't work well to say that is the doer since it seems that he is not voluntarily ill:
> , . He has been off school with a slight illness this week.
Is the doer omitted in this sentence? If yes, is a sentence like correct to say that he is ill because of a cold?
I don't find any occurrence on google search so I think it is not natural but I don't know why in this case?
|
> {}{}{}{}, {}{}{}
Without a doubt, the subject/doer of the verb phrase would be , but that is not to say that voluntarily chose to become ill. You might have to forget the translated English word "destroy" here because that could fool you in your attempt to determine the "doer".
is the subject/doer of both actions and in this sentence. There is no unmentioned subject/doer here.
> "He has become slightly sick and has been absent from school this week."
You ask:
> is a sentence like {} **** correct to say that he is ill because of a cold?
No, it is not correct, grammatical or natural-sounding. You can say instead:
> ****
using a .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What are the pizza delivery guys called?
I was thinking of the word , or but it doesn't read right.
|
Most definitely _not_ , unless you are thinking of a person from Pisa (though I think that they are technically .)
I went to dominos.jp and found the following:
![Dominos.jp online orders](
Obviously, is the word for delivery that is used in connection with pizza. At that point a simple dictionary lookup for showed that is the word that you are looking for.
returned no results in the dictionary.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, word requests"
}
|
What is the difference between 織機(しょっき) and 機 (はた)?
Does **** mean the device, while **** means the concept?
Or maybe one of them is more formal than the other?
|
Both refer to the device of weaving, but modern automatic power-looms are usually called () or (). Traditional, manual looms are typically called () or () in novels and fairy tales. In academic contexts they're called anyway (see Japanese Wikipedia on ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances, wago and kango"
}
|
What does ー mean in this context?
(I'm sorry if it is a duplicate, I tried to search unsuccessfully)
After :
> **** (source)
I don't have the impression it generally appears in NHK news article...?
|
It's a . It also works like an English em-dash, but here it's adding an "emotion" to the sentence. It makes the sentence look somewhat like a monologue. Its purpose here is the same as Japanese (`…`) or English ellipses.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "punctuation"
}
|
Is チョンボ commonly used to mean mistake (outside of conversations about 麻雀), even by people who don't play it?
I heard someone say in a situation where they could not possibly be talking about . I don't know if he plays or not, but it made me wonder, how common is using to mean mistake among people who don't play ?
|
Yes, can be used in non-mahjong situations. As you know, it is originally a mahjong term, but its meaning of "making a mistake" has been carried over to everyday usage. It is even in dictionaries.
As for how common, I don't hear it all too often, but enough for me not to automatically assume it's about mahjong just by hearing it.
Note that there are many mahjong terms that have made it into everyday use. are ones I still hear used a lot.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "usage, colloquial language"
}
|
What is the origin of the foreign word サクランボ?
`` means `cherry` in English.
However, it is different from the direct conversion of cherry, ``.
What is the origin of this word?
Which language does it originate?
|
# From Japanese (and perhaps some Chinese)
There is no borrowing here, as the opening part explicitly shows Japanese **sakura**. The etymology is, as most often assumed,
< {}{}
, where ‘monk’ could refer to the cherries being as smooth as a monk’s shaven head. The word is still spelt in Kanji, so there is nothing really surprising here beyond kun plus on compound.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "etymology, history, nouns"
}
|
Are typhoons more commonly referred to by number or name?
Do Japanese ever assign a name to a typhoon, or are they always numbered? In most countries the name is more commonly used.
|
Yes, they are named according to the conventions, but colloquially they are more or less always referred to by their ordinal number (reset every year).
The only place I personally can remember having seen the names mentioned in Japanese is on the website of Japan's Meteorological Agency (JMA). See e.g. this one:
{12 ()
<
The JMA has the official responsibility of naming Typhoons in the vicinity of Japan, where they cycle through a list of names. However there is also the PAGASA (Philippines) "unofficially" naming some of them. For details, please see the extensive Wiki article: <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, numbers"
}
|
What does 9月とか10月なんですよ mean?
What does 910 mean?
>
> 910
> 7
We were chatting about typhoons. Does it mean "What? We still have September and October, you know"? In particular, I want to know what the "" means.
|
The used here is a way of listing, it's somewhat the informal counterpart of , which means that it is a listing that goes on "1, 2, 3..."
So let's breakdown this chat:
> - When it comes to Typhoon.
>
> 910 - It is September, October...
>
> 7 - I haven't heard of typhoons happening in July.
Therefore:
> When it comes to Typhoons, they usually happen in September, October... I have never heard of Typhoons in July.
Another quick example where I use a lot:
> Japanese Person: Where did you go in Japan.
>
> Foreigner: I went to Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, etc.
Edit: **" I wanted to know what the nan desuyo meant."**:
is the contraction of Basically, since this person is exaplaining to you something about Typhoons, he/she is adding the particle, to add more emphasis to the explanation.
Now, since is a noun, you gotta add the before it. Therefore,
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, words, sentence"
}
|
What is the difference between 悩み and 疑問?
On the Q&A site OKWAVE, it says that its purpose to help people resolve their questions and/or problems, and it uses and .
According to Weblio, has the meanings of “trouble(s), worry, distress; agony, anguish; a problem”, and has the meanings of “(a) doubt; a problem, a question”.
Does anyone know the difference between these two terms?
|
The relevant quote is shown and linked below:
OKWave
The key meaning of is a worry; a concern. Distress and anguish are also listed as definitions. This is something that takes place in the mind of a person. It is an emotional response (occasionally a disorder) usually caused by anxiety due to improper grasp of or lack of information, though it need not necessarily be based in anything other people would consider reasonable or concrete.
The key meaning of is a question; a doubt. When happening internally, this is something that would not necessarily have an emotional component, more a byproduct of the logical reasoning process or simple curiosity.
Simplifying the translation of the expression to 'questions and concerns' might make it more relatable.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, word choice"
}
|
Help with 出てしまって vis a vis people afflicted with disease
> A: …
>
> B:
>
> B: …
>
>
>
>
Preliminary translation:
> A: Summers are really hot here so…was it difficult for you?
>
> B: We were surprised at first.
>
> B: I think it's called... heat illness.
>
> Downed kids also **?!?!**
>
> I also had take care what I cooked for them.
Context: B has moved to Japan with family for the first time. It's July and apparently B's family had a rough time with Japanese heat.
The problem here for me is the **** bit. **** is kids/children/girls who were downed by the illness. But I don't really get what **** is doing here. Literally, and out of context, it would probably mean something like, completely leave. But if I would use one of the movement verbs to say someone got ill, I'd say someone got in/got under illness.
So what is it's meaning here?!?
PS: Yeah, I know has a lot of the meanings but I'm not sure which one would apply.
|
is shown on Weblio as 'to knock down'. In this case, it would read as 'Kids who have been knocked down' or 'Kids who have been affected'. What they have been knocked down by is the summer heat .
Some of the uses of are to say that something has 'appeared', 'been revealed', 'shown itself', or more relevant: 'been produced'.
While the translation that I would suggest would be 'Some children have been negatively affected by the summer heat, we're careful regarding what they eat.', I think other (more paraphrased) translations such as 'Some kids have become ill from the heat. One must be cautious with their diet.' would also be fine.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Why たく isn't used in negative form in this sentence?
>
I have become a little confused about this sentence since it is not negative and still, in order to say _want to_ instead of is used.
Or maybe there was a misspelling when the author was writing the sentence, in which case it is ****
Could it be that this is not, in fact, a negative sentence and is used in a positive sense to convey the meaning _want to say_?
|
+++
There is no single "negative" element in this verb phrase.
Among the 4 words, I hope you know that **all but the last one need to be conjugated into their {} ("continuative form") in order to form the correct verb phrase**. In that process:
becomes **** .
becomes **** .
becomes **** .
And stays the same.
Thus, is a 100% correct verb phrase meaning "I feel like saying", "(something) makes me want to say", "Every now and then, I want to say", depending on the context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of 人減 when used as a noun
In my studies, I've come across the noun `` used in the context of population.
An example would be,
``.
`` means to diminish / decrease.
Thus, I hypothesize the meaning of this noun is to express
`population has decreased [to 110 thousand]`.
Is my assumption correct, or is the meaning different?
|
It means "decrease/drop (of population) by 110 thousand".
"The population has decreased to 110 thousand." is translated as "11" and it means "The current population is 110 thousand".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, nouns"
}
|
Is this proper use of 敬語 in a business situation? ご所望の方の方がいらっしゃいましたら、日本語のメニューもご提供できます
For context, I am writing a menu for a made-up restaurant, and want to provide English and Japanese restaurants. This is an exercise I made up for myself. I want to include a phrase that is like, "A Japanese menu is available upon request." I have written this sentence, but I am not sure if the is used correctly.
> []{}[]{}
I wanted to use the honorific form for (as it is describing the customer) and the humble form for (as it is the action of the business). I wasn't quite sure if should use or , but I think it is a Sino compound noun + type verb I picked .
|
> {}{}
That reads quite well until the very end .
Normally, you can only the items (dishes, drinks, etc.) on the menu, but not the menu itself. Thus, unless you are actually selling the Japanese menu itself, it would be more natural and appropriate to say:
> {}
Your choice of the honorific is correct for Sino-loanwords.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness"
}
|
と使います: Why と is used instead of を？
I am preparing for my exam and have a question about the purpose of using in a sentence. Does anyone know why is used but not before the verb in the sentence below?
From my textbook II (pg.67):
> ****
|
I think is being used here instead of because it is indicating a quotation or the words that are being said. And also here possesses the meaning of speak + use.
You **USE** this word.
Not in the sense of using an item. So it is a bit like here.
You might also be interested in
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle と"
}
|
Please help translate this sentence. 請求する行為によって時効を中断しない限り,
Cited passage:
> () ****
() Source: <
I think the overage passage is saying that if one doesn't protect his rights, then those rights might be loss. Now, I don't understand the highlighted sentence meaning and usage.
means [by the act of claiming (your money back)], while means [as long as it's not breaking the legal/valid period] right?
So how does it all fit in with the latter part of the sentence. To me, it seems like he's protecting his rights but then finally he loses it (). Please help translate.
|
unless
Unless you interrupt statute of limitations by the act of claiming (your money back), you finally lose your claim.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Is the ー (ちょうおん) character used with Hiragana and Kanji?
It appears that the character is limited to Katakana. Is the character used in writing Hiragana and Kanji?
|
You're right that it is normally used in katakana, but it can sometimes be used in hiragana words, as a point of emphasis, to lengthen a sound more than it normally would be:
You can add it to adjectives. Otherwise, the word in question is generally written out in hiragana rather than in kanji, but it is apparently alright to add it directly to a kanji for emphasis or silliness:
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, katakana, hiragana"
}
|
In terms of Japanese crime syndicates, what is the difference between 組 and 会?
As you can see in this one Wikipedia article, there is a long list of these syndicates. Not only that, but most of them have or as a suffix.
According to Weblio, has the meanings of “A company, a party, a team, a crew, a gang”, and has the meanings of “A society, a club, an association”.
Is there a difference between the two suffixes when they are applied to crime syndicates? I'm just curious.
|
usually follows a founder's family name (e.g., , , ). This is because was originally a naming convention of Japanese carpenters, who worked in a smaller, family-like organization in the past. There are still many (benign) general contractors named like `family-name + ` in Japan (see this list). Japanese yakuza borrowed their convention.
is a more generic suffix which can follow a place name (e.g., named after Sumiyoshi Town, Tokyo), a "concept" (e.g., "cooperatively governed", "rising sun of Okinawa", "fellowship") as well as a person name (e.g., founded by Genji Kudo). There are tons of NPOs named like .
Anyway, once it has been established as the name of an organization, there is no meaningful difference.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, word choice"
}
|
Would a japanese person recognize this icon (fa-language) to represent translation or language change?
I assume that to an English reader the kanji here doesn't matter much and I think any non-english symbol would pass (at least in the right context), but for a Japanese reader? Are those kanji a Chinese thing only perhaps or recognized in all kanji-using countries?
And most importantly: Would it be weird to use those on a Japanese website?
Thanks for your help!
|
The lower one is indeed , a kanji meaning _sentence_ or _text_. The icon makes perfect sense to Japanese audience, too. The upper one is not a kanji I know, but it looks like a Korean consonant (it probably does not have its own meaning). If you only target at Japanese audience, I recommend you use the lower one.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, kanji"
}
|
What's the パ in 非ホジキンリンパ腫?
In the Japanese word for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, where does the before come from?
|
Lymph =
Lymphoma =
There is nothing mysterious about it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology, katakana"
}
|
What does なくた mean in 理解されなくたっていい?
I am reading . Right off the beginning comes a sentence: "".
I am sure it means "It is OK that it is not understood by anybody". However, the puzzles me:
1. Shouldn't past form be ?
2. I google and Google only returns .
Thanks.
|
You are parsing the sentence incorrectly.
> {}{} ****
It is + and not + .
is the negative passive-voice form -- "not being understood".
is a colloquial way of saying . You have surely encountered before, I presume.
> "I would not care (even) if no one understood me."
Or more literally,
> "I would not care (even) if I am not understood by anyone."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, parsing"
}
|
Why is が added at the end of この小娘が?
Why is added at the end of ? Is something being omitted here? Is it just a figure of speech?
|
Nothing is omitted there.
This is a sentence-ending particle expressing insult, swearing, cussing, etc. It is often pronounced by us native speakers, too.
> {}
Thus means:
> "You little slip of a girl!" or
>
> "You little bi***!"
The "right" translation will always depend on the context.
Lastly, the suffix of insult is often inserted between the noun and the (but not in that clip).
To be fair, it can be hard to say **** with the double- when the last thing you want to do in cussing is to stutter.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "particles, sentence final particles"
}
|
「なでさすられて」の文法は何ですか。
|
{}{}("to stroke & rub")
**** Passive voice
"to be stroked and rubbed"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of ジョンさんはきのう五時間しか寝ませんでした 。
So I saw this one in one my books and was wondering how it gets translated into John slept five hours yesterday.
> .
Any kind of explanation is appreciated, my book maybe covers it? But I can't seem to find an answer.
|
When you use it takes the negative form of the verb. It means that a person only does that and nothing else. A more accurate translation of your sentence would be John slept for 5 hours (and did not sleep any longer)
>
> I only drink water and nothing else
>
>
> I only eat chocolate and nothing else
is also used with
>
> I just want to protect you and nobody else
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, past, particle しか"
}
|
「希望」の使い方・意味、類似表現
can anyone explain how do i use kibou in a sentence. I wrote this sentence in my assignment.
My teacher corrected this sentence as
I don't understand how should I use the word kibou in a sentence. What exactly does kibou mean and in what situation should i use it.
|
Your attempt is grammatical, but I think your teacher thought it was unnecessarily grandiose and stiff. (I think you already know the difference between wago-and-kango.) Although we see used in songs and documentary videos all the time, is not a word we use on a regular basis. When you want to say "I hope so" or such in a daily situation, usually you should use , , (), , etc.
Still, you can use when you seriously declare your choice. It's perfectly fine to say or in an interview or such. If you have a chance to write a Japanese curriculum vitae, you may see . Japanese high school students often fill a form called to tell teachers their intended future course.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, nuances"
}
|
Difference between 満足 and 円満
I am confused about the usage of two words and . According to dictionary is satisfaction and is perfection, peace, harmony and satisfaction.
So I used it in a sentence :
>
And my teacher corrected it as:
>
Can anyone explain the situation when I should use and when to use .
|
means “being satisfied (by/with something)”. means “being in good terms with each other”.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, sentence"
}
|
What is なんでって a contraction of in this sentence?
> …
> "Right now I'm at grandpa's" (source context)
In this case the speaker is on the phone so his speech is casual and fragmented.
I already have an idea of what the sentence means, what I am hoping to understand is:
* What is a contraction of?
* And what it is doing in this sentence grammatically? What nuance does it add?
I know that is a contraction of but what is , is it ? I know is often or sometimes but that doesn't seem to make sense in this context, at least to me as a beginner.
|
The actual phone conversation would have gone like this:
Guy:
Mom: ****
Guy: **** {}
> What is a contraction of?
It is of **** . This is the informal version of the quotative particle .
in this context means {}or {}, which would _roughly_ translate to "Why? Because...".
> And what it is doing in this sentence grammatically? What nuance does it add?
/ here introduces the speaker's intention of replying to the question asked by the other person. The question here is of course "Why are you at your grandpa's place?" asked by Mom to which the son replies ("No reason.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, colloquial language, contractions"
}
|
Logical analysis of the sentence 「アメリカとの関係が悪くなったイランからの原油の輸入が減ると考える人などが多いためです」
>
: is a noun phrase. is the head noun.
: is an independent clause.
: refers to the previous independent clause that, being bounded with the particle , becomes an indirect quotation.
Translation: Because many people think that from Iran, being in a bad relation with USA, importation of crude oil will decrease.
Is it right? Any suggestions? (Sorry for my bad English. I'm not a native English speaker)
|
Your understanding is correct. (Context: the price of oil is high.) The basic structure here is
> ...
>
> This is because there are many people who think ....
(I omitted the "" for I wasn't able to embed it in the translation.)
What they think is
>
which can further be decomposed into
> []
>
> Import from Iran, whose relationship with the U.S. has worsened, will decrease
(So user3856370's translation in the comment is sufficient.)
As for the reason why Iran-US relationship has anything to do with Japan is that we might follow the US's policy regarding such foreign relationships, for the U.S. is one of the most fundamental ally to Japan.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, syntax"
}
|
What does "kittie-kittie-kittie" mean and how is it spelled correctly (in transcription)
What does the most famous line of the movie Audition (Ôdishon, 1999) mean and how is it transcribed correctly using Latin letters?
It sounds (!) like "kittie, kittie, kittie, kittie, kittie" and is uttered, when the female character puts long needles into various sensitive body parts of her victim. The DVD-subtitles in various languages provide words like "deeper, deeper, deeper" or "pricking, pricking, pricking". Unfortunately, my DVD has no Japanese subtitles, and I can't find it translating those English words with the help of dictionaries.
|
I have never seen this film, but guessed you may be hearing (kirikirikiri). I tried typing into google to see what would happen, and it autocompleted to (Audition) so I think this is your answer for how to correctly write it in romaji. Here is the google search.
As for what it means, Chocolate says that it is an onomatopoeia, which according to this giongo list possibly meaning 'a sharp drilling pain' which sounds relevant for the context.
As an aside, the 'tt' consonant in American English 'kitty' happens to sound similar to Japanese r, which I think is why you heard it that way.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "word requests"
}
|
Can a verb end with 〜ます before the conjunction ので?
I know that you can end a verb with at the end of a sentence. I also know that you can end a verb with before the conjunction .
So, what about ? Can you end a verb with with before the conjunction ?
|
yes you can. is an explanatory particle, similar to . after a form would be used to explain what will follow from it. A quick google search for yields several results, including a Japanese Stack Exchange Q&A:
Can you use the polite form with ?
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
On the topic of 美化語 (Refined Language), are there any websites that list words that take お〜, ご〜 or neither?
I'm just wondering, because I think it would be helpful to know which words should be prefixed with , which words should be prefixed with , and which words should not be prefixed with either of them.
|
There's this general rule to add or depending on whether the word is read with {} or {}, but there are exceptions to it. I think Japanese people just use it the way it sounds more natural to them. In my opinion this is one of those things you learn practicing.
Anyway here is the list you are asking for, not sure if it's complete though:
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "prefixes, bikago"
}
|
Does a kanji with only a kun'yomi reading indicate a Japanese origin?
Does a kanji with only a kun reading mean that it originated in Japan?
|
It appears so. However, some of those kanji that originated in Japan (called {}) also have "on" readings and not just "kun". A common example is {} / {}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
}
|
Usage of 目黒 outside of 目黒区
I am wondering if can be used as a noun outside of its usage as a district name.
Examining each character,
* eye, vision, sight, etc.
* black, guilt, etc.
provides a couple of interesting interpretations:
* black eye
* vision of guilt
Is it possible to interpret in such ways, or is it simply a district name that holds no other meaning?
|
Questions like these are usually best resolved by looking in a (monolingual) dictionary (and/or on a Wikipedia disambiguation page).
For example, has two entries for :
> ****
>
> ①
>
> ② {} 1
>
> * * *
>
> ****
>
>
While the second entry is about the Tokyo district _Meguro_ , the first entry lists two meanings — one being a particular bird species, a bonin white-eye, the other being a name for a small tuna.
lists yet another meaning, namely that can be used as a different name for "pupil", which is usually _kurome_.
The etymologies of "tuna" (=?) or the district _Meguro_ are not 100% clear, but in the other cases it is quite clear that it is used for the literal meanings of "eye" and "black".
Using with other meanings (such as "guilty vision") which are not listed in a reasonably complete dictionary will most likely just result in confusion.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, usage, names, word usage"
}
|
「〜てもらおう」の意味は何ですか。
> ****
|
has a basic meaning of "get / make / induce (someone) to do (something)"
In the case of **** , the form could mean either "make it understood / make you understand (something)" or "make you accept (something)".
When you further conjugate this with the volitional **** ending, which indicates a potential future act, **** ends up meaning something like "intend to make you understand/accept" or more simply "will get you to understand/accept".
The inclusion of in the example sentence makes me think this is probably meant to talk about "understanding", so...
> ****
would mean something like
> 'I'm not thinking, " **I'll get (someone/you)** to understand everything all at once."'
or more fluidly in English:
> "I'm not planning to make you learn everything all at once."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "subsidiary verbs, volitional form, giving and receiving"
}
|
Issues translating "get an ultrasound."
Talking about pregnancy with my Japanese friends has been a challenge because I have struggled to translate some English concepts.
`Ultrasound` is one of those words.
is the word I find as the translation for `ultrasound.` However, because of the existence of the character, I find that this is referring more to the ultrasonic _waves_ , and not the procedure. Is my suspicion warranted here?
Would it make more sense to say:
>
or
>
I'm leaning towards the use of after , but I can't put my reasoning to words. It just feels better to me.
Finally, is my next translation nonsensical?
> On the 24th, we are getting an ultrasound of the baby.
> 24
|
I think is casually used, but __ might be better. You can also use . So how about saying...
> //
> /
> /
* * *
> On the 24th, we are getting an ultrasound of the baby.
> 24
Your sentence looks good to me. You can also use /.
> /
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, word requests"
}
|
How does atsui (あつい) sound like English 'hot'?
McWhorter, J. PhD Linguistics (Stanford). _The Power of Babel_ (2003). p. 293 Bottom.
> For example, the words in Thai for _fire_ , _die_ , and _rim_ are _faj_ , _taaj_ , and _rim_ , just by accident! Long lists have been composed of correspondences like this between hopelessly disparate languages; it can be almost funny. According to the Proto-World advocates’ modus operandi-allowance for stark differences in word shape and a permissive position on what constitutes related meaning— English and Japanese could be shown to have a historical relationship according to these words I have always noticed:
>
> . However I don't know what [ott-SOO-ee] represents, and IMHO no variation of sounds even close to English "hot".
While Japanese _namae_ vs English _name_ is a famous example of false cognate, this list includes many obviously far-fetched examples. I don't think you should take them too seriously.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "sound symbolism"
}
|
Dangling Particle Question
I encountered the following passage in a mystery manga. The detective character is explaining the evidence the "true" criminal (as opposed to the puppet killer described earlier in the book) left behind. The evidence had to do with computer data that the killer did not verify. I've done my best to reproduce it in the layout it originally appeared in
****
****
Could someone please explain the function of the bold that doesn't seem to have a or equivalent after it and the bold that doesn't seem to be functioning as a subject marker or a sentence connecting particle. Part of me suspects that the is marking the subject of and I would be satisfied with that explanation. I'm very uncertain about the though.
|
is indeed marking the subject, or rather subjects, of . Everything gets a lot simpler if we string all of the text together
>
and then parse it out like this:
> ()
> ****
> ()
> ****
> ()
>
The subjects are our and . This looks confusing only because they both happen to have fairly substantial qualifying subordinate clauses in front of them.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle と, particle が"
}
|
Trying to understand this use of 〜た方が
I am still stumped on understanding this one sentence:
> ****
>
>
(source context panels)
In this case the speaker is talking about a go player who is bullying a weaker opponent by playing aggressive but meaningless moves.
I tried to translate it as:
> "He would be much stronger if he played with his real ability, but he's not playing a single correct move."
I tried to interpret as AB that is described in pages like this post, but still I think I am on the wrong track.
How is actually being used here, and how do I make sense of this sentence, grammatically?
Related: - also read when referring to a person?
|
This () refers to a person. They are clearly comparing two _players_ , not two _actions_. means "the one who just made a move", that is, the stronger player.
Related:
* Is "~" a set phrase of sorts?
* Help with translation, and
* Use of in sentence ( or ?) + translation
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
Referring to the Four Seasons of Japan
To say **"Four Seasons"** in Japanese would you say:
**Shiki** or **Yottsu no kisetsu** or will either do?
|
Both mean "four seasons", but is a mere combination of ("four") and ("season"), whereas is a dedicated word for that concept. Arguably, can be seen as a more "beautiful" or "colorful" word that has a stronger/vivider association with the beauty of changing nature, seasonal events, and so on. may be preferred when you need to emphasize the number _four_ for some reason (for example, "Draw four icons that correspond to each of the four seasons").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage"
}
|
What is the difference between 数学 and 数理?
I noticed that both terms referred to the study of mathematics. Is there a difference in usage between the two terms?
|
is (pure) mathematics.
refers to mathematical sciences, "group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper." In other words, use difficult mathematics to solve actual problems that matter in human life, such as cryptography or machine learning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
Why is a baby called 赤ちゃん？
Why is a baby called ? The term means red. Is the term "red" specific? Can the term refer to baby animals as well?
|
For the etymology of "baby" gogen-allguide.com says the following:
> ****
>
>
The passage says that _akachan_ (as well as _akanbō_ or _akago_ ) has its origin in the fact that the skin of newborn babies is red.
(The passage also discusses the unlikelihood of a competing theory that comes from Korean , but this is not relevant for your question.)
You can use the word for describing the young of animals as well, but of course this has nothing to do with them being red or not.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 23,
"question_score": 20,
"tags": "meaning, words, etymology"
}
|
Is there a triple vowel extension in this character name?
From the manga Hunter x Hunter, one of the character's Japanese names is . It looks like the is getting its sound elongated twice, with the small and the . In English it gets translated as Uvogin, but I would have thought the name would be then.
Is the same as ? Is that possible?
Or maybe is this a slight pronunciation difference, like and
|
This type of combination (adding after a katakana of the _same_ vowel) is fairly rare, but I occasionally see it in fictional names. (Sometimes creators want odd-looking names...) Basically works like a long vowel marker, but from my experience, the length does not exceed two morae even if another long vowel marker follows.
* , , , : Pronounced in two morae, like , , ,
* , , , : Usually pronounced in three morae (like , , , ), but some people may pronounce them shortly (like , , , ).
* , , , : Pronounced in three morae, just like , , , . "Double-elongation" does _not_ happen.
To take another example, (Voodoo) is occasionally spelled as , but this is pronounced the same way as .
So I think is pronounced just like . But if it were (non-small ), most people would read it with a "double-elongated vowel", as discussed in this question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, katakana, manga"
}
|
見事な活躍 ～ use of 活躍
While studying for the JLPT, I ran into the phrase "". I have always assumed that means to use effectively or to one's advantage as in
>
But when I looked up in a dictionary, I found out that it means active (which I think I understand); apparently it also means success when paired with other words (I saw many examples on Weblio), so means a brilliant success. I would love to understand how this is different from and how you can use in this kind of situation.
|
In your example, I think you meant {} instead of as in
>
is when you participate actively in an undertaking like work, sports, etc.
is to utilize or make good use of knowledge, talent, technique, etc.
As for , it means to succeed in attaining a goal, a dream, target, etc.
Some examples I picked up from the internet:
>
This does not mean that women are expected to succeed in the hotel industry, but that they are expected to actively participate in it.
> 7
This means "7 traits common to successful women". Replacing with here will change the meaning entirely.
Hope this helps!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
Trying to figure out 激し目なのばっか乗せて回った
> ****
This part gives me trouble. What does mean? What about and ?
Context: he's explaining why his son doesn't like planes.
|
> {}{}{}{}
Where should I start?
> i-adjective -(minus) +(plus) / means " _ **rather [adjective]**_ ", " _ **[adjective] in a more/less than average way**_ ", etc.
, therefore, means " _ **rather intense**_ ", " _ **more extreme than average**_ ", etc. since this context is clearly about amusement park rides.
(I like wearing T-. - + = . )
is a nominalizer, so **** means " _ **the more intense ones**_ " with the "ones" referring to the park rides.
is the colloquial way of saying (" _ **only**_ "). In informal speech, you will also often hear and as well.
means " _ **I used to made him ride a whole bunch**_ (of the more intense rides)." Verb in te-form + means "to (verb) repeatedly".
So, the sentence means:
> "That's because when he was little, I used to make him ride only the more intense ones/rides at the amusement parks."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
指導に当たる meaning? To teach someone or to be taught by someone
I was reading a passage about the life of Hideyo Noguchi and found this phrase. The biography said
> 3951
>
My question is, does that mean that Hideyo taught and instructed the local physicians in Africa or was he taught by those locals?
|
{} here means "to be in charge of (a task)", "to take on (a job)", etc.
Thus, {}{}{} means:
" ** _He was in charge of training local doctors_**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Meaning of もの in this title/name
An enemy (a monster) in a game I was reading about is called []{}, which is translated as " _Time Devourer_ ". Is the used as sort of a -er suffix, or does it have a different function?
|
> []{}[]{}, which is translated as "Time Devourer"
As @bjorn says in the comment, the can be []{} "person/someone", as well as []{} "thing/object/something".
It's (perhaps intentionally) written in Hiragana because it's referring to a monster.
> Is the used as sort of a -er suffix, or does it have a different function?
The is a noun here, not a suffix. is a noun phrase, the relative clause modifying the noun .
[]{}[]{}-- _lit._ "someone/something [that eats time]" → "a time eater, a time devourer"
As pointed out by @bjorn, []{} is read as when used as a suffix. eg []{} person in charge []{} victim []{} engineer ([]{} can be used in compound words, too. eg []{}[]{} hard worker []{}[]{} unmarried person)
[]{} can also be used as a suffix. eg []{} explosives []{} publications ([]{} in compound nouns: []{} summer clothing []{} good luck charm)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, usage, relative clauses"
}
|
そんな事で変わる未来じゃないだろう where's the subject
I'm reading the manga _Orange_ and one of the lines that's said by a character is
>
So far, my understanding of the sentence is:
>
> Even if we tell (him) to be careful not to fall
The next clause is where I get a little tripped up:
>
The translation from the anime is _"we won't be able to change anything."_ So the question is more of a grammatical question, not so much a translation question.
It's saying that the " **(Something)** is not the future that will change by doing that" but the **(something) isn't specified. What is that something?** In other words, __
In a simpler example, if I say and there's a cake in front of me, then the meaning is clear: This cake is not the one I'll eat tomorrow. So is the same grammar logic happening in my manga sentence, and there's an implied subject that's happening somewhere in the conversation?
|
I think you can read it like:
> ****
**(That kind of future)** is not a future you can change just being careful.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
〜により used twice in the same sentence
Context: explanation of the Friction Stir Welding process. ![enter image description here]( In the fourth sentence I don't understand why there are two .
> **** ****
What is that is causing the process? The movement of the tool or the gradual plastic flow? My translation attempt:
> Thanks to the movement of the tool the joining surfaces become agitated and unite thanks to the gradual plastic flow.
Also, in the sentence could you explain if refers the plastic flow being caused by the rotation of the tool or if it refers to the rotating tool being dragged? Thank you for your help!
|
Your translation attempt is fine. Wording could be slightly different but that is largely a matter of how you want the sentences to "feel". You understand the meaning of , although "thanks to" seems like a very colloquial way to phrase it. I might choose "due to" or "because of" or perhaps "by (means of)", although that's nothing but a matter of preference.
There are two because the sentence references two things being the cause of something:
> **** = by/due to **the movement of the tool**
and
> **** = the surfaces to be bonded are gradually/steadily/systematically stirred and joined together by **the plastic flow** (of the metal).
As for , it's saying that the method of "dragging by rotation of the tool" results in the plasticity.
Thanks to @By137 for correcting my misunderstandings regarding "plastic" and "method".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, ambiguity"
}
|
えっと。。美琴ひどい人だなって思われるかもしれないけど、下手にかかわらない方がいいんじゃないかと、思ったり
>
The context is that is advising the listener not to approach another person () who is an acquaintance with a bit of a bad attitude. had gotten into an argument with another person. was in the wrong but won't admit it. The listener does not know well, but jokingly offers to teach her some manners. Then says the above line.
At first I thought was afraid that the listener would take offense to being called . But now, based on the context, I'm thinking she's afraid that the listener will think "she's implying that is a jerk and shouldn't be approached, how rude".
Can you tell which it is just based on the above sentence? How?
|
Based on your explanation of the context, really it boils down to being afraid of . is concerned about what would happen to the listener (and potentially other related parties) if the listener got involved.
means to recklessly get involved in a (usually sensitive) situation
> You might think I'm a horrible person for saying this, but I think it would be better if you didn't do anything...
I think understanding the phrase is the key you were looking for.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Why is くなかった wrong and ではありません preferred in this sentence?
I was taking a n5 grammar test and I came across the question:
> {} {}
The answer I chose was . However, the quiz said the correct answer was . Why is that?
|
is a _na_ -adjective and thus is followed by (or by < )
>
> _lit._ that person is famous
>
>
> _lit._ that person is a famous person
>
>
> _lit._ that person is surely going to become famous
You can think of or as the negative of (which in turn is the polite form of whose negative would be or ). Hence
> ****
> _lit._ that person **is not** famous
The point of the question seems to be to test your ability in identifying _i_ \- and _na_ -adjectives correctly as well as inflecting these adjectives. One cheap way of recognizing _i_ -adjectives is by their dictionary form, which always ends in an _okurigana_ (like …). Here does **not** inflect like an _i_ -adjective. Of course, _i_ -adjectives would inflect like
> ****
> _lit._ that person **was not** fast
where is the ending you chose. Here _hayai_ means "fast" (note the as _okurigana_ ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, adjectives, jlpt, i adjectives, na adjectives"
}
|
Two or more verbs modifying a noun
I would like to know about how we deal with two or more verbs modifying a noun. Do we connect the verbs using the TE-form or do we keep them in their original tenses?
> **** **** (Found this sentence on a native site - <
In this case it seems that the correct choice would be to use the original tenses of the verbs.
But, I've also thought up sentences like:
> ****
I don't know if using the te-form is correct but it seems to make sense.
Are both forms of using two or more verbs to describe a noun correct? If so, the cases where we have to use one or the other are different?
|
If you use the form, order is implied. In your example, you bought the book then read it, so the is appropriate.
In the example sentence you gave, the accompanying thunder (isn't happening before since there's no
> Because of the rain, which brought thunder and has been continuing since yesterday, the train is (currently) late
So to answer your question, if the sequence of events matters, the form is correct. Otherwise, you don't need to use the form to connect two verbs
* * *
Though you didn't ask about this in your question, the first sentence you posted actually isn't a very clear sentence because it's not clear whether is modifying or . Instead, the article recommends the following 2 revisions:
>
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, て form"
}
|
Meaning of this どうだとか言う construction
The context I found the usage in (which hopefully should suffice here):
>
>
> …… ……
I'm not entirely sure what is doing in this structure. Reading a similarly answered question didn't clarify it for me unfortunately. Should it just be treated as a set expression like in the previous question, and if so, what does it mean here? Or am I just misunderstanding in this usage (which I think of as meaning "what" or "how")?
|
> ****
is a common and informal expression describing how a person habitually brings up the topics that are quite unimportant and/or irrelevant in the eye of others.
The part can often be replaced by , etc.
Thus, if I had to translate:
> ……
I might go with something like:
> "S/he is always talking about things like what's (up) with the Suzumiya girl."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the difference between 武道 and 格闘技?
When I was looking through the Category List on OKWAVE, I found these two listed under the (Sports and Fitness) sub-category.
When I looked them up on Weblio, I found that both and could be translated as “martial arts”.
Is there a difference between these two terms?
|
is skills to fight with enemies. has mentality related to the code of samurai in addition to the skills. For example, boxing is but not .
Not only the skills but also cultivating own character is important in . , , , , , , , , affiliated with Japan Budo Association.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Do unit words belong to a word or a specific object?
I recently though about words that have multiple forms as real objects. For example a ticket can be a paper slip, or an email receipt.
Does the way of counting them change based on what it is, or does the unit word belong purely to the word itself (with the traditional meaning)? For example, are 2 tickets emailed to me still 2 if it's not printed?
|
Counters apply to words. I was unable to find a specific reference for electronic tickets, but from a related discussion regarding electronic books it is clear that the Kindle store and other vendors use the normal counter for real physical books ().
Beyond books and tickets, my personal impression is that unit words relate to the **original idea** , and not to the various physical or virtual embodiments of that idea. Consider large animals, which are counted using the big-animal counter . One example is alpacas, which are counted as usual on Japanese Wikipedia using 1, but small stuffed alpaca toys are also counted using . The counter when used for stuffed animals is not directly related to the size of the stuffed animal, but is instead related to the idea of the original alpaca.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "counters"
}
|
Meaning of も in Xは日本でも有名だ
> ****
> Nagaoka's firework display is famous in Japan, and 1 million people will come to see it over a two day period.
What does the (in bold) add to this sentence? The meanings of 'also'/'even' don't seem appropriate here.
|
I think by the writer meant "all of Japan" as opposed to just or . That is the only justification for using I can come up with. But in that case or would be a more appropriate word. As written it sounds to me as if the fireworks were first and foremost famous outside Japan or weren't located in the country.
So the has its usual meaning of "also/even", but the is used with a slightly unexpected meaning. I take that the general drift of the sentence is "Nagaoka's firework display is famous outside it's locale too, and so it draws a million people from across the country over a two-day period."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle も, particle でも"
}
|
二十歳を[頭]{かしら}に translation
This kanji what does it mean in this sentence?
> 3
I looked up the meaning of and still don't understand the meaning of the whole sentence. Please help translate.
Thanks
|
> {}{}3
here means the " ** _first one on the list_** ". In the context of the siblings, it refers to the oldest child.
> "With a 20-year-old (at the top/as the oldest), we have three boys in our family."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, kanji"
}
|
What kind of periods can I put before にわたって?
I came across this question when doing some JLPT N2 practice.
>
>
> a
>
> b
>
> c
I think that all three options are correct syntactically. All three are periods of time, so I thought I should choose the semantically best answer - b. This is because the other two options are not as worth talking about. I mean, "consecutive holidays" sounds more like a topic to chat about/discuss than just "May" or "a week". b also makes sense because during consecutive holidays, people do tend to travel a lot, so it would be natural for a town to have a lot of visitors during that time.
However, the correct answer is c and I don't see why. My book says this about the use of :
>
So I should put a long period of time () before . However, the correct answer is just a period of one week. And speaking of , I can only think of Golden Week, so my answer also is a period of one week.
Why is the correct answer c and why are the other answers wrong?
|
The only corrrect (or natural-sounding) answer would be c) {}.
To use the way native speakers would feel most appropriate, the ~~ part must physically be in the following structure:
> ** _Cardinal_** Number + Counter Word of Time period + {}
Among the three choices, only fits that deccription.
{} does not fit because strictly speaking, the here is the **_ordinal_** number in nature ("the fifth month") if not in the physical form. You could use or instead. 31{} and {}30 would also be appropriate.
{} could not be used, either, as does not refer to a specific time length. Besides, how many consecutive holidays there are in May (the Golden Week) differ from one year to the next depending on what days of the week the holidays fall on.
You can safely say []{} or simply instead without using .
**_Exceptions:_**
It is also appropriate to use the following phrases in [Phrase] + **without using an actual number**.
{}/{}
{}/{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt, time"
}
|
Why な instead of の is used in the anime title "はるかなレシーブ"?
There is an anime named "" this season. While the official English name is just using the Romaji (i.e. Harukana Receive) instead of translating the meaning, from the Chinese official translation, it seems that the name of the anime means "Haruka's Receive". As the main character is named Ozora Haruka, I guess this translation is correct?
If that's the correct meaning, then my question will be why instead of is used to connect the 2 nouns? (i.e. why "" but not ""?)
|
Why would you base your argument on the Chinese translation in the first place? Translation is a translation.
> = ++
>
> ≠ ++
That is because the names of the two main characters are:
{} {}
and
{}
That is **** and **** .
Thus, = +
There never was a reason to name the story **** .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, particle の, particle な"
}
|
Article about Amazon Speaker being used for donations
I'm reading this article on how Amazon allowed their speaker to be used to donate to Japan's Red Cross. In the final sentence they get a quote from a Red Cross member, but I cannot make sense of the word **** and the pairing of the word ****
I know ~ means while doing a verb and that is to express a want or desire. Also I believe can only be used to express one's own wants/desires. So I am not sure of my translation.
> ****
>
> My Translation: A member of Japan's Red Cross Society said "People who could not donate until now can also enjoy while wanting to donate"
|
Your assumption that can only be used to express your own desires is the problem here.
> Verb in -form + = Want someone to do verb
The person you want to do the verb (if they are mentioned) is marked by , e.g.
>
> I want Yuki to teach me Japanese.
Your sentence:
>
> We want even people who've never donated before to have fun making a donation.
Note that the people they want to do action are not marked by here because they have been promoted to the topic of the sentence (but with replaced by ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
What is the purpose of はある in this sentence?
> **** (source)
I've been told that this sentence is describing the size of the mask being half the size of the face, Can't we simply say instead?
|
This type of means "at least". That is, the mask covers roughly 55-70% of the area of the face.
* Does mean 'at least' in this sentence?
* Can be used to mean "at least"
The sentence can be rephrased as , , etc. But does not have the same meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, particle は"
}
|
Why would you use 好き to describe a favorite object?
After taking some notes from various classes, I have come across some of the same translations:
{}{}Favorite Music
{}{}Favorite person
etc.
Why would one use {} instead of {} or {}? Are all correct, and its just a personal choice? (with the occasional exception of {}) Thanks!
|
There are several ways to say favorite, e.g. {}{}{}{}{}, etc. Use of either of these is a personal choice, but of course using a would indicate a higher degree so and as in the following examples:
> {}{}{}
>
> My favorite subjects are science and music.
>
> {}{}
>
> I like arithmetic too, but social studies is my favorite.
>
> {}Guns N' Roses
>
> I liked rock music since high school. In particular, Guns N' Roses was my most favorite band at the time.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
}
|
Word select: 食べます？／飲みます？
> ①...…
> ②...…
|
{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, usage, verbs, word usage"
}
|
Meaning of the phrase 表す通り
The context for this phrase is in a list of kanji spellings (kanji with hiragana), thus the definitions are not provided.
Breaking the phrase into its components:
`` \- to reveal, show, display
`` \- avenue, street, way
Taking the second part (way) in a non-literal sense leads me to conclude the phrase means roughly,
`the way shown` or more concisely `as shown`
Is my conclusion correct?
|
Yes roughly means "as indicated", but it's not used on its own. It has to be preceded by some subject. For example:
> *
> as his appearance shows / as indicated by his appearance
> *
> as the name suggests
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, kanji, phrases"
}
|
How should I understand 「会社員はこの計画を部署の知識として理解する。」?
This sentence was in a document describing a company's quality management. I have seen this kind of sentence many times and the part always throws me off.
"understand it as knowledge"
What does that even mean? If it just said "Employees must understand this plan" there would be no problem, but since it says "Employees must understand this plan as the department's knowledge" it doesn't make sense to me. If the goal is to have the employees understand the plan, what is the point of adding "as the department's knowledge." It doesn't add anything to what's being conveyed. At least, it looks like it doesn't **in English**.
So, in **Japanese** , what is it that is being added by saying ?
I'm not asking for a translation but an explanation. I get the feeling an explanation in Japanese would be particularly helpful, but feel free to use either.
This is the second sentence of a 2 sentence paragraph. The first sentence being: ``
|
In general, is not an idiomatic phrase, and its actual implication depends on the context. It can be used both in positive and negative ways. It typically means either of the following.
* [positively] to understand systematically (as opposed to learning by rote in a fragmentary manner)
>
* [negatively] to just know something in the head (as opposed to actually experiencing/realizing)
>
Often used with contrastive-wa ( **** ).
In your case, however, it says , and seems to mean "a must-have piece of knowledge for the department". I want a little more context, but is probably adding the nuance of "knowing it's important for the department" and/or "although it's a local rule".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, phrases"
}
|
Meaning of 小動物系
Context: a man reads some online posts after accusing another man of being a pedofile.
![enter image description here](
What is the meaning of ? Considering the context and the fact that images of young girls came out when I tried to look for it on Google Images, I think the meaning is not simply "small animals system".
Also, could you explain the meaning of and "!"? I think that the first means "illegal DVDs", while te second sounds to me like "really?!". Is it correct? Thank you for your help!
|
****
In this case doesn't mean _system_. Instead it refers to a certain category of girls. describes girls you could compare to small animals in terms of cuteness. They obviously can't be tall or overweight, but they also must behave in a certain lovely manner. You can read more about this use of here.
****
You're right, these are DVDs that can't be sold in the open. Specifically, the term nearly always refers to sexual videos.
**!?**
This is a shortening of !?, which indeed means _really?!_ \ _are you serious?!_.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, slang, internet slang, metaphor"
}
|
What is the difference between 訪れる and 訪ねる?
According to goo, We can say but not and we should instead say if we use the verb . Does it have a nuance? Does it open the doors to another interpretation(visiting his house instead of visiting him for example)?
I know this classification is debatable, but is JLPT 1 and is JLPT 4 on jisho.org, is more formal or rare than ?
|
Regarding frequency first, is roughly three times more common than on BCCWJ. is seven times more common if we limit the results to Yahoo! blog/chiebukuro articles, which indicates is even less common in relatively casual written materials. I personally think you should master first. But is not uncommon at all, and you may have to learn it before JLPT 1 level.
IMHO, is a neutral word usable in business settings and other everyday situations. You can also say . (Note that is not a keigo and you often have to use honorific or humble / instead.)
On the other hand, when an object is a place name, I feel is a rather literary and somewhat "nostalgic" term typically used with historical attractions (), one's hometown (), temples/shrines (), etc. Using it with nearby modern facilities (e.g. ) is fine in stiff novels, but it can sound a little off in ordinary blog articles and such.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does あいつ and こいつ imply in various situations/contexts?
I've read that and can mean "that person over there" or "this person over here", respectively, and also that (at least, as far as I'm aware, for ) they are an impolite way of referring to a person.
In manga I've seen scanlators interpret in front of another person as "you bastard" or "you bitch"... but also that if referring to a person that they are talking about as , it gets interpreted as just "that guy" or "that girl".
What scenarios would imply what when using the phrase and ?
|
// is blunt and somewhat rough, but that does not necessarily mean it's insulting or derogatory. It can also work as a sign of close and frank relationship with someone. Let me list some situations.
* It's always rude and insulting if you used it referring to a stranger or someone higher than you.
* If you're clearly upset, it's closer to "that bastard", "darn you", etc.
* When you use it to refer to your close friend, it may suggest you can talk to them in an unreserved manner.
* There is nothing wrong with a father referring to his child with , although it does sound blunter than .
* A stereotyped tsundere girl refers to someone she likes with all the time.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, politeness"
}
|
べんきょうを します / べんきょうします interpretation and use
I was told that in
*
the **** is the direct object of the expresion and in
* ~
the **~** part is the direct object Is that right? but besides that, whats the diference?, how must be interpreted and used?
|
In , is functioning as a noun. So, the literal translation of this phrase is "do studying", and the direct object is . If you want to specify what you're studying, you can say ~ like "do studying of ~".
On the other hand, in ~ , is a verb "study". So, the literal translation is "study ~", and the direct object is ~.
I think there is no difference in use between the two phrases. they just mean the same thing.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Difference between 上、のみならず、ばかりか
I was doing some JLPT N@ practice, and I got this question wrong:
>
>
> a
>
> b
>
> c
I chose "a" while the correct answer is "b". According to my book, all three answer seem correct.
My book says that (only quoting the relevant parts):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I thought it boils down to whether the former and latter half of the sentence are "at the sane level" or not, If they are, then or . If the latter half is more "surprising" than the first half, then . But still, why instead of ?
|
What follows must be greater things in the same field. e.g. JLPT / . In this regard, is versatile.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
}
|
Difference between 仮、一時的、臨時 when expressing "temporary"
All of these words express "temporary" but I can't understand the difference and in which contexts each are used.
For example:
> **** A temporary bandage
>
> **** A temporary residence
>
> **** A temporary train
Are they all interchangeable in these sentences? What is the difference?
|
* **** is more like _tentative_. It describes something is to be replaced by an official/final/permanent one in the future. For example is a tentative title.
* **()** is an antonym of _regular_ , _periodic_ or _scheduled_. It describes something is an additional, unscheduled or "ad-hoc" one.
* **** is _temporary_. It describes something is not permanent.
For example, in a job hunting context:
* **()** : You are tentatively or unofficially hired for evaluation. You may be fired if your performance turned out to be poor.
* **()** : You are hired outside the regular/scheduled recruitment process. The employment relationship will be permanent unless otherwise mentioned.
* **()** : Temporary employment. Your employment will finish after a certain period.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances"
}
|
About the grammar of「寝ぐらに」
>
What I don't know is the phrase ' **** '. I guessed it is a grammatical clause but the search came up with no optimistic result.
However, with the search engine, I found that the Japaneses used it very often in forums and blogs, such as ' **** '.
Can anyone tell me the meaning and the grammar behind it, thanks.
|
is a nonstandard writing form of the word (), which means bird's _roost_ , and by extension, animal _den_ or _lair_ , and also in the way these English words could describe that of human.
> = _be using as one's sleeping spot_
Some Japanese words that can be decomposed into multiple units, even if they have kanji as a whole, are occasionally written in combination of kanji that represent a part of the word.
>
>
>
>
>
Sometimes it could be helpful to search an unknown wordform in all hiragana to find the word you want.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
I don't understand the difference in meaning of ようにする and ようになる in this particular sentence
apposed to
I understand that the first sentence is intransitive and the second is transitive but I don't understand the difference in meaning
From my understanding they both mean 'I was able to make a habit of waking up early'
Thanks for any help!
|
>
> I reached the point where I can wake up early in the morning.
e.g. I used to be no good at getting up early, but after a few months discipline I don't have a problem anymore.
>
> I made sure I can get up early in the morning.
e.g I set my alarm clock for 5:00 am.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, transitivity"
}
|
The meaning of 石松 in 待ってください用心棒なら この石松が
I am looking for the meaning of in this context ( ) but I cannot find it anywhere. Also, this sentence is one that was interrupted, hence the abrupt "".
|
is the speaker's name. He's offering his service as a .
You said he got cut off, so the sentence could have ended something like
**** or ****
Or, if he is using
****
There are hundreds of possibilties, so these are just some examples
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
番組のタイトルに「踊る」、どういう意味を表していますか？
|
OP
/※
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "meaning, nuances"
}
|
「ずいぶん」と「ずいぶんと」の違い
> ****
|
****
> ****
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "adjectives, adverbs"
}
|
Does 同棲 always have a romantic connotation?
Take for instance the noun,
`` which roughly means a `group living together`.
Does `` _always_ have a romantic connotation, or is it possible to use it in a non-romantic sense. For example, to describe a group of friends living together?
|
While the main contemporary usage is for non-married people with a romantic affiliation to be 'shacking up' together, this is not 100% definitive (see the Wikipedia page).
Other words exist () to indicate simple cohabitation, so for all intents and purposes, a romantic link would be implied (Weblio page).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, nuances, nouns, connotation"
}
|
What is the difference between プログラム and 日程 in the context of a スポーツ大会?
I was doing some JLPT N2 practice and got this question wrong:
>
>
> a
>
> b
>
> c
When I saw option "a", I immediately thought that it was wrong, because I thought and are the same thing. I thought they both refer to "what happens at what time during the ". connects two _different_ topics of discussion, with the latter being the more important one. Therefore, I concluded that "a" couldn't be the answer.
But "a" is the correct answer! I concluded that and must be different somehow. After looking up images of , I found schedules that says what happens at what time, which is expected. But when I google "", photos of all kinds of sports events come up, making the meaning of even more mysterious.
Jisho says that means "schedule; program", which doesn't help in understanding why and are different things.
|
To me, an average Japanese speaker, {} and are two words with two separate meanings even though I must admit that they can overlap in meaning _to a small extent_. They are, however, definitely not "synonyms" of each other.
refers to an over-all (or "rough") time schedule of what takes place on what day at what time. **It is often used to tell only on what date(s) the event in question occurs and nothing else**.
tends to refer to a much more **detailed** schedule of the event. It would list when and where every little event within the event takes place, who are scheduled to participate/appear, when the breaks and meal times are and for how long, etc.
This is why the sentence:
> {}{}
makes perfect sense because for any kind event, you would normally need to decide on when (what date(s)) it should take place before deciding on the minor details of all the components of the event.
means "setting ~~ aside".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words, jlpt"
}
|
How to parse the following "N1+に必要となる＋N2"?
I am not sure whether or not I have learnt this grammar before. I am reading a book about OpenCV and found a sentence as follows.
> OpenCV
The confusing part is the grammar
N1++N2
where
N1=OpenCV
and
N2=
I know
* `N1N2` that means let N1 be N2.
* `NNa-adj` or `Ni-adj-stem` that means making N a condition represented by the adjective.
Is it possible to say the following?
> OpenCV ****
|
> Noun 1 + {} + Noun 2
can only mean:
> "Noun **2** (which is) necessary/required for Noun **1** "
becauseNoun 1 + functions as a relative clause modifying Noun 2. In other words, **between Noun 1 and Noun 2, the latter is the "main" noun of the whole phrase**.
Thus,
> OpenCV{}{} ****
means:
> "the computer vision (technology) necessary/required for effectively utilizing OpenCV"
For those who are wondering, the in is a nominalizer, making it possible to treat the phrase OpenCV just like a noun. That whole phrase is what the questioner is calling "N1".
Finally,
> Is it possible to say the following?
>
> OpenCV ****
No, it is not possible. and mean very different things; therefore, they cannot be used interchangeably. I could not think of an exception.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
「かえって疎まれる」の意味について
{}
|
{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What does "とは" mean in these sentences?
I can't understand why "" is being used in the following sentences:
> 1)... **** ...
>
> 2) ****
|
the particles are used to mark a definition or explanation of something. The structure is `<thing you are going to explain/define> <description>`
Let's take a look at those two sentences. I've bolded the English words that are translated from
So in the first sentence the speaker says,
> I have a question. That question **is** "why is everyone wearing a mask?".
the marks that the speaker is about the explain/define what his/her question is.
The second sentence is the same structure. The sentence is explaining what (or hay fever) is.
> Hay fever **(is/can be defined as/is explained as)** the allergy to plant polen.
This site does a good job of explaining the basic uses of if you want to learn a little more.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, particles"
}
|
興味を持ってきている versus 興味がある
> 1. ****
> 2. ****
>
Which sentence sounds more natural?
|
Sentence 2 is better. Using both (describes change over time) and (describes continuation of state) at the same time sounds odd to me. But you can safely say:
> *
> *
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Does the particle 'の' change the meaning of this phrase?
To say "Japanese language school" in Japanese, sentences 1 and 2 can be used? or they have different meanings because of the use of particle '' (sentence 2)?
> 1. []{}[]{} (nihongo gakkou)
>
> 2. []{} **** []{} (nihongo no gakkou)
>
>
|
Both are correct and both have the same meaning.
The only small difference would be that {} **** {} would look/sound a tiny bit more informal than .
The use of often makes the phrase more informal.
{}{} is more informal than though both mean "the Japanese government".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle の"
}
|
Relative clause with both direct object and head noun as object
From here:
> ****
> According to the land ministry, three companies were operating in a way different to the rules that the nation had decided upon. The nation had chosen inspections which investigate amount of gases that are emitted and the amount of fuel that is needed for running. They also recorded that they had made inspections in accordance with the rules.
This is my best effort at translation but I think something is not quite right. The part in bold is bothering me. It looks like has two objects i.e. and .
I parse as "the rules chosen by the nation". But also as "The nation has chosen an examination". I can't join these together to make anything meaningful, hence why I wrote two separate sentences. Am I parsing this wrongly?
|
is the object of . A simplified version of this sentence is:
> 3
> The three companies were conducting examinations.
is modified by a long adverbial expression ("in a way that is different from rules set by the government").
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle を, parsing, relative clauses"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.