INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Difference between 泊まる and 留まる
I'm just studying Japanese, and i know that is like you Staying a night like hotel / some place that temporary , but i just found is also meaning stay/staying too in Basic Kanji book , but i don't know what does this word specifically mean to and when to use both of this word.
|
Since has already been answered I'll try explaining . describes the position and movement of an object/person/anything, more specifically, "staying in place"/motionless state of an object, which could potentially move. e.g: Bird stopping on the tree, chemical molecule in space.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, words, verbs, definitions, word usage"
}
|
Trying to understand what does 見え mean in this short sentence
I'm new to japanese and I'm having a hard time trying to figure what "" means.
I don't know if the correct interpretation is either "She looked like an angel" or "She saw an angel". I'm not sure how ni particle is working here :/
For context purposes, this is the full description of the item:
> .
Any help will be appreciated, thanks in advance!
|
Yes, I think your guess is correct :) Both can be true but in this context latter interpretation sounds more probable.
In normal Japanese (ni mieru) would mean by 99% chance “she looks like...” but in literal, a bit old-fashioned Japanese (ni mamieru) means to meet someone.
Therefore the interpretation of the sentence would be, “Gertrud, who was a sacred woman (?) of the Queen, met what she calls an angel, and came to know the story.”
The sentence is very vague and hard to understand, maybe it is intended that this sentence makes us to think what it really means.
Related link:
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
o'clock kanji pronunciation 時
Is **** read as "toki" or "ji"? Duolingo and Google Translate don't seem to be in agreement.
|
When following a number is read 'ji'. It is pronounced 'toki' when it refers to a point in time, in which case it will often take a relative clause that simply means 'when...' (literally 'the time when...').
When you are looking for a word rather than a whole sentence, you are better off with dictionaries, for instance
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, readings, time, multiple readings"
}
|
Meaning of メリ and メリ子
Context: in the manga Dead Tube, a girl is being raped while being filmed. Among the comments on the video, some users wrote and .
What is the meaning of the two comments? To me it looks like some internet slang, or is just a transliteration of the English "merry"?
Here you can see the whole page. Thank you for your help!
|
This is this onomatopoeia, the sound made when a moderately-hard object (wood, leather, etc) is being cracked, ripped or torn. is similar. I think what's being torn or broken is obvious from the context. Actually, is a common onomatopoeia to describe this type of situation (try googling with ).
is not a word I know, and it's much harder to explain. Perhaps some peculiar wordplay is happening. is commonly used in a girl's name, and / is also used as a diminutive (e.g., , ). In addition, is occasionally used to make a bit cuter variation of an onomatopoeic/mimetic word (e.g., → , → ). So, although is probably a made-up word, it is working as a funny expression used to describe what's happening to this girl.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "katakana, manga, onomatopoeia, internet slang"
}
|
~ことがある for more than one thing
In the Genki II textbook, there is a phrase that goes like this:
> **** ****
Now, I understand that this roughly means that "I've never seen or heard of pickled plums or nori algae.", but I was wondering why there is no particle in the sentence.
The "basic" structure sentence for having the experience of something is
> ~
Since there are two things that are being referred to, I would have written it something like this:
> **** ****
I know this probably isn't correct, but can someone explain in to me? Why is there no particle in the original sentence?
|
> or
is a very commonly used phrase to express two negative verb consecutively. In English it's like saying 'Neither have I seen it nor heard of it.' Although it doesn't always have to be negative
>
Roughly translate to 'This and that are all...',is used when you want to group few things together and sounds more inclusive. On the other hand directly points at a single thing/object. And lastly...
>
As you mentioned is an improper use of in your example, but
> **** **** ("I don't have the time today too")
Is correct since points at the noun 'time'. I guess it is a completely different use case, but it is an useful phrase.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage, syntax, particle が"
}
|
passive ambiguity in this sentence
>
>
> After saying that, she directs a bow at me.
the other party is making a request so there is no doubt in context who is bowing.
In isolation i find rearanging this relative clause somewhat ambigious.
* ()(/)
*
Are any of these explicilty incorrent?
|
>
is a relative clause modifying , so rearranging it to a normal word order...
> I am bowed to (by her)
This is passive, so turning it to the active voice..
> She bows to me / She begs me
Cf.
→ I am asked (by her)
→ She asks me
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "relative clauses, passive voice"
}
|
Value-augmenting なれば
The following quote is from this article.
> ****
I wonder what means here. What value does it bring over having simply ?
|
I think using rather than in your example shows that there is **a wish or hope** that planting such plum trees will contribute to the relaxation of the visitors.
English has a similar way of using a conditional expression to express a wish or hope. For example...
* " **If** you **_wouldn't_** mind taking that poster off the wall."
* "Yeah, **if** you **_could_** just get me some cereal at the store."
* " **If** I **_could_** just have a moment of your time, sir."
In Japanese an expression with ~ + {} is common. For example...
* {} **** (I hope you will use it)
* {} **** (If you could just fill this in for me)
* {}{} **** (If we could have you could come to our location next week)
The meaning of these examples can change significantly if you remove the ~ construction.
* (I think you will use it)
* (I think he will fill it in for us)
* (I think they will be coming to our location next week)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, ambiguity"
}
|
Subject and extra information
I'm learning Japanese on Duolingo.
I was wondering:
means 'The school is in Japan'
What is the difference between and the Japanese translation of 'There is a school in Japan'? I thought arimasu could be translated as 'there is'...
Thanks in advance
|
If I am not mistaken this question is not about at all (if so, please change the title). It seems to be a matter of focus and of what is already known.
> ****
means 'Talking about the school, it is in Japan.' We know of the school and we give extra information about it.
On the other hand,
> () ****
takes Japan for granted (so to speak) and we say something about it: 'In Japan there are schools.'
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning"
}
|
Etymology of ～かもしれません
So, today one of the topics boarded in the lessons I'm taking was the form
>
Now, I'm thinking the part comes from the potential form of . That way, in the sentence, it would mean something like "can't know", giving the "guessing" property of the form.
Could someone confirm if this train of thought is correct? Also, I haven't found a meaning for the bit, so I would appreciate one if possible.
|
I would think that comes from the verb which means "to be known" rather than "to know".
The part forms an embedded question e.g.
> ****
> What times does it begin? Please check.
> Please check what time it begins.
is a tricky particle. I'm going to claim that it means 'even' in this context, but I think it is more subtle.
Putting it together we have
>
> Tommorow, will snow even fall? It is not known.
> It may snow tomorrow.
I think it is best just to treat it as a set phrase though.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, etymology"
}
|
meaning of なく followed by なし
In the context of a very well fortified place,
what does mean?
It seems like it would mean: none may enter, none may leave, but I'd like to make sure, and understand the naku form better.
So I'm pretty sure naku is the adverb form of nai, which is nonexistence. Nashi means "without".
I've also considered naku might be a shortened nakute in the sense of naide/zuni.
Taking these meanings, the sentence would mean: no person enters without leaving, but that doesn't make sense in context. Just based on context, something like none who enter may leave would make sense.
The more I think about it, the more I get confused. Any help?
|
These are two separate clauses.
{} {} [Nobody enters] + [Nobody leaves]
As you suggested, can mean 'without' in some contexts, but its basic meaning is . In this case it just serves as a negative construction.
From Steve Wright's Quora answer: Both -naku and -nakute are used to continue a line of thought, but -naku draws a line or distinction between clauses, while -nakute aims to suggest a connection, sometimes even a cause-and-effect relationship between the clauses.
As this sentence is using the continuative form to bridge the clauses, is appropriate:
> 'Nobody enters, nobody leaves.'
As far as negative sentence endings go, , , , and can all be used. The choice of which is often determined by tradition (convention) in set expressions, personal choice, and nuance.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, renyōkei"
}
|
Meaning of オレンジ in オレンジは右側です
I couldn't find the answer to this.
Sometimes when I'm on the subway in Japan when getting close to the next stop in some trains it can be heard **** , not sure if it's **** though. Meaning the exit is on the right or left side, any clue if it's saying **** or anything else? If **** is being said, why orange?
|
They are probably saying:
> {}
Meaning, of course, the exit is on the right.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Is the で in という理由だけで a form of だ or the instrumental particle?
I'm trying to figure out how to say "Maybe it's just because ____, but..." in Japanese, but I'm not sure how to place 'just because' in its own clause that way.
If I'm not mistaken, the expression '____' roughly translates to 'just because ____'. However, since I've only ever seen it used as part of a sentence about something else, like '', I can't tell whether the in it acts as a particle, or the te-form of the copula.
Obviously, this is a problem when I'm trying to use the expression as a clause to add to in my sentence. Does anyone know the proper way to do so?
|
The use of here fits the second Wiktionary definition:
> with, by, using: indicating the means by or with which something happens
The here attaches to , rather than . 'Via' and 'per', and 'for' could also be suitable translations given the right context.
& For that reason; on the grounds of _____.
I assume you want to add to mean 'but'. If you show the specific sentence that you have in mind and attempt your own translation a fruitful answer may emerge.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, expressions, particle で"
}
|
What does the で do in this phrase?
I'm trying to translate this phrase: which I believe roughly comes out to be: "I have surpassed all living beings!"
My question is: how is used in this sentence? It is preceded by the noun, according to Jishou, , which means "to establish a large lead above one's competitors". After the particle is , meaning "to transcend". Since they both have similar meanings, I am confused about how the particle connects the two in a sentence.
|
would usually be written in hiragana instead of mix of katakana and kanji. And it is a very casual word (in the sense it should not be used in any formal occasions).
So as you mentioned, somewhat means 'exceed by far', and means 'transcend' in formal translation. When you connect these two together with , becomes an adjective for . Thus even if you remove from the sentence it makes perfect sense. So in English
> 'to transcend **by far** '
the bold part would be the equivlant of
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, particle で"
}
|
Translating あくまで一応ですけどね
Translators say:
means: doggedlyinsistentlypersistentlystubbornlyto the bitter endto the endto the lastto the utmost
means: tentativelyfor the time beingin outlinejust in caseonceone timeso far as it goes
I couldn’t understand how to solve this puzzle
|
It's very hard to give a correct translation without any context, but usually means something like "You know, this is just for making sure", "Well, I know this is not mandatory/critical", "I'm suggesting this merely as a backup, after all", "I don't have a strong opinion, though", etc., depending on what is actually referring to.
is a difficult expression, in this context it's closer to "just" and/or "after all". Basically it's emphasizing the meaning of . See: Meaning of in
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words, usage"
}
|
Spaces and end of sentences in まんが
Up until now, I think have I never seen a space in the Japanese textbook I'm using (Genki). However, when I started trying to read this , I realised that, sometimes, there are spaces. Since this one is the very first I'm reading, I don't know if it's specific to this series, or happens normally. Anyway, I've attached a picture where this appears (last panel, on the left, between and ).
Due to the lack of punctuation, I'm guessing this is a way of separating sentences, but I'm not sure. Another option that comes to mind is that it is used to facilitate the reading, like how they do it in children's books. Still, that shouldn't be applicable here (at the very least, this isn't supposed to be a book meant for children, I'd say). Could someone clarify this for me?
, it is an implicit rule to use spaces instead of the reading and punctuation markers, and users of the internet who are influenced by reading these manga and its lack of punctuation are numerous.
In other words, depending on the publisher, they may use fewer or more punctuation markers and you just have to get used to that style.
Edit: As @Ringil mentions, this applies mainly to periods and commas. Exclamation points and question marks are used fairly ubiquitously, as they are needed to convey any tone that would be unrecognizable without them.
It should also be mentioned that often ellipses take the place of spaces, depending on the publication.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "manga, punctuation"
}
|
Does the phrase がんばする makes sense?
Person A: {}
Person B: ****
Is it right to use that last phrase by person B?
|
> Is it right to use that last phrase by person B?
The answer can be yes or no. is understandable, but is far from standard. You should avoid using it if you are still learning how to write standard and correct Japanese sentences. Of course the correct form is , which is a godan verb.
That being said, if you really saw said by a native speaker in an online chat or such, it's probably not a typo, either. Native speakers often play on words and use funny and loose expressions knowing they're not standard, and is one of such examples. Actually is not entirely baseless because "!" on its own is recognized as a (bit outdated) expression meaning "hang in there!" or "do your best!" (hence the name Gamba Osaka). is not common enough to be called an established slangy verb, but you can easily find real examples of it with a simple Google search.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of 折らで in a haiku
From Basho:
>
I have the impression that would be without . If that's the case is it an artistic choice or some obscure grammar?
|
In classical Japanese, after an irrealis-form () means in modern Japanese. So means or "without snapping off".
> ###
>
>
>
> **……**
This is surviving as part of (etymologically, copula- + + contrastive- → "unless so", "if it were not" → "unique to", "found only in")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, classical japanese, literature"
}
|
Why is the meaning of kanji 閑 "leisure"?
The kanji contains + . Why does gate + tree mean 'leisure'?
|
The word meaning _leisure_ was originally written as.
depicts _moonlight_ streaming through a _door_ , indicating the original meaning _crack, space_. This was extended to mean _free time, leisure_.is no longer used, so:
* _Space_ is now written as
* _Free time, leisure_ borrowed the identically pronounced character.
is a compound of a _wooden_ obstructionblocking a _door_ , indicating the original meaning _fence, railing, obstruction_. This meaning is no longer used by the character, so there is no confusion as to whatmeans.
> The word representing the original meaning of[]{}( _Zhengzhang_) OC: **/*ɡreːn/** ) is cognate to[]{}( **/*ɡ·raːn/** ; _handrail_ ) and possibly{}( **/*ɡrɯːnʔ/** ; _boundary, limit_ ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
}
|
Meaning of 寒くなる vs. 寒くなっています
Today it crossed my mind how could I translate this, and some confusion arose with the verbal forms to use.
If I wanted to say "I got cold", I would say
>
However, for "I'm getting cold", I would use
>
That left me wondering what would mean, as I would also translate this has "I'm getting cold".
Is there no difference between these in English? If not, what would be the difference in their meaning?
Side note: I omitted the bit in the sentences before since I'm only interested in the conjugations.
|
Actually, because is a change of state verb,does _not_ mean "it is getting cold", but rather "it is cold"- or more specifically, that it got cold and remains in that state.
Any verb that signifies a change in state used with means that the change happened in the past and _remains in that state_. That is why, for example, means "is dead", not "is dying".
To properly say that it is _getting_ cold, I would use the - pattern. Thus, my translation would be:
>
> It's getting cold.
You can use - with a change in state verb ( in this case) to show that something has been gradually changing until now. A more in-depth explanation on this can be found here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "nuances, verbs, conjugations"
}
|
Which part is the tail in 人参{にんじん}の尻尾{しっぽ}
What is meant by a "carrot tail"?
> {}{}
Is it the green part or the orange part?
A google image search does not really help, since "carrot" comes up in every one, but no picture I have found has arrows with labels for the parts of a carrot :D
<
|
As @Yuuichi Tam says, this is the orange thin part of the root. You could also have deduced this by elimination: the green part would undoubtedly be (also in recipes).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "words, food"
}
|
Meaning of the construction ～て〇〇年／〇〇か月になります
I saw the construction
>
and it looks strange to me. Here is my question: does this construction mean that the action continues until now?
For example:
>
My teacher said that this sentence means:
> I started working 10 years ago, and have worked until now.
Is this correct?
|
/ refers to either "the continuation of the result of a past action" or "a habitual action".
"A5" usually means you are still working at A (continuation of the result of ). This is different from plain past "5A", which implies nothing about your current situation. In English, the former is like "It has been 5 years since X happened" and the latter is like "X happened 5 years ago." Similar examples include:
> *
> (implies you are still living in this town)
> * 2
>
In addition, the same construction can express a habitual action that has been repeated for some time ("to have been ing for ").
> * 2
> * 300MAX (title of this novel)
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, verbs"
}
|
What is the etymology of kanji 関?
I didn't find an explanation or clear etymology for the kanji .
|
Kanji etymologies are often more an aspect of Chinese than Japanese. Wiktionary tends to be a good source for Chinese character origins and some sense development.
* Entry for
* Entry for older _kyūjitai_
As we see there, this was originally composed as semantic (meaning) element ("gate, door") + phonetic (sound) element (probably something like //*kroːn// in Old Chinese), referring to a door being closed or locked.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
}
|
The kanji for "YOMI": Word For "Reading the Mind of Your Opponent"
"Yomi" is a Japanese concept used by game theorists and high-level, fighting game players. I came across it in February 2019 in a novel and it is quite hard to find information about it online. All I need is the kanji though...
|
The word you're looking for is , which is an extremely basic word that means "reading". The verb itself is something you may want to learn on the first day of learning Japanese, but is a conjugated form. Its "dictionary form" is .
In gaming contexts, also means predicting or guessing what will happen in the near future. ("Reading the opponent's mind" seems a little too specific to me because can be a purely logical process. For example a recent computer chess program can do better than human beings.) It's critically important in card games and board games like chess, but of course action game players have to do some , too.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, kanji"
}
|
「というのは」と「というのも」の違いは何ですか。
> ****
>
> ****
|
The difference is very small, and they are interchangeable in your examples.
I may be wrong, but I feel this has something to do with exclamatory-; I feel there is a slight degree of "emotion" or "intention to persuade" in . sounds a little more objective and logical, and it may be preferred in serious essays.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "conjunctions"
}
|
Meaning of く も in this sentence
This sentence is from Doraemon:
> **** .
I think it means "It is not that rare/uncommon". But I don't understand the use of here. Should it be interpreted as + ?
1. Why did they use here? I thought i-adjective + = adverb while it should be noun in this case.
2. Why did they use instead of ? Thanks
|
> ****
> Something like that is not _really_ rare.
It's + **** \+ . is the ku-form (continuative-form) of .
This is like "well", "(not) quite", or "(not) really". This type of appears in many sentences, and it essentially makes the sentence sound milder and more reserved. For example, ("That's not correct") can sound harsh, but ("That's not _quite_ correct") sounds milder.
Related:
* Usage of in a Specific Context
* in V
* What is the difference between and
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Order of a dialogue with と言えば and となって
I've been reading examples of how to use , and in one of the examples there's this part:
>
I'm thinking the situation here is that first your boss gives you the same lecture again and again and at the end he says , to what you can respond with . In this way the conversation will end easily()
Is this right or is the situation different? I'm asking because It kind of seems like someone(not sure if the boss or the speaker) says after the speaker said
|
This sentence is putting forth the theoretical:
> If your tell your boss, who is giving you an endless lecture, 'Yes sir, I'll be sure to remember what you've told me.', (the rest of) the talk will end smoothly, with him thinking 'He gets it now, doesn't he.'.
Or, put in the form of a conversation:
> 'Blah, blah, blah. Do this. Don't do that. Blah blah.'
> 'Yes. sir. You are absolutely correct. I'll be sure to remember that.'
> 'You've got it, huh?'
The final in can be viewed as rhetorical in the sense that the boss is making a statement of observation, either to himself or to the theoretical employee. Related answer here.
doesn't mean that it is spoken, it can just be a thought or a tone.
*Incidentally, according to Kotonoha, the is by far the most popular way of writing the expression with 149 results. and having only 13 results between them. Use of in this circumstance seems to be considered incorrect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, pragmatics"
}
|
Is it possible to express the difference between the English phrases "I don't want to do that" and "I don't want to have to do that"?
Is it possible to express the difference between the English phrases "I don't want to do that" and "I don't want to have to do that"?
Where `I don't want to do that` can simply be
`I don't want to have to do that` means that you don't want it to be the case that a certain action is necessary to accomplish something or resolve an issue, etc.
An example situation might be a strong fighter is somewhat of a pacifist but is told someone is coming to challenge him that won't let up until one of them dies. The fighter is confident in his ability to win, and so says "I don't want to have to do that (kill him)"
Grammatically, should do it, but I can't say I've heard that in actual use. Is there a more common expression? Or does this `want to have to` way of thinking about things not work well in Japanese?
|
> Is it possible to express the difference between the English phrases "I don't want to do that" and "I don't want to have to do that"?
It is possible unless you want the Japanese "equivalent" for the second phrase to grammatically "look like" the English.
When literal translations fail (and they fail frequently between Japanese and English), there are often set phrases that convey the meaning/nuance of the original to the target language.
The best match that I can think of would be:
followed by:
{}{}
and perhaps:
{}or
At the very least, I can guarantee the naturalness of the phrases above.
Your phrase is actually "okay" except it sounding rather textbook-like and overly polite. It is not something a fighter would say before a match.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, expressions"
}
|
Why 112 is pronounced as ippyakujuuni instead of ichihyakujuuni?
I ran across Jim Breen's page (< regarding numbers, it links to an image (provided below) which I found confusing.
![enter image description here](
It reads 112 as ippyakujuuni, and 1386 as sensanbyakuhachijuuroku. I would expect ichihyaku or hyaku, not ippyaku, for 100. And sanhyaku, not sanbyaku, for 300. What is behind this strange reading of 100 there?
There is also similarly strange reading of number 2 036 521 801 in Wikipedia, which is ni-jū oku san-zen rop-pyaku go-jū ni-man sen hap-pyaku ichi. Why san-zen, not san-sen? Why rop-pyaku, not roku-hyaku? Why hap-pyaku, not hachi-hyaku?
|
* Normally, 112 is read . is used in some rare situations, but it's simply wrong elsewhere. See my answer here: In conversation can you just say "" or must you say ""?
* 300 is always (san **b** yaku), not . 3000 is always (san **z** en), not . They may seem irregular, but you have to remember them. See this chart.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "numbers"
}
|
Expressing doing something in case of/as a precaution for some other possible occurrence
I see that is an expression that means "just in case" in general, but how does one express "I'm going to do A in case B happens"?
For example, "I'm writing in pencil in case I make a mistake." Would that be translated simply as , or is there a better way to capture the nuance of doing something expressly for the purpose of insurance against some other possible occurrence?
|
> "I'm writing in pencil in case I make a mistake."
How about...
****
or maybe...
****
* * *
Example:
Take your umbrella in case it rains.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, english to japanese"
}
|
understanding ある in と言うだけある
The whole phrase is , I know from consulting translations that it says "he is as strong as he says himself" (earlier Hikaru said that he doesn't know his rank but he thinks he's pretty strong) but am still not able to fully understand it using my own power.
![enter image description here](
It is written here in this scan from the , but in the version which I own, it is written , like so.
After a little investigation i think that is this , so is "just as [he] says", but I am still not able to understand this because the only hits for I have found are after nouns suggesting the ["there is only [noun]" meaning of ](
So my question is, why is here and what does it mean?
|
I think "he is as strong as he says himself" is a valid translation. () is short for . This itself is a verb meaning "to be" or "to exist". in this construction refers to something abstract such as "quality", "value", "reason" or "truth". So is the same as , which literally means something like "There is as much amount of truth/value/strength as he says" or "There is something to the extent that he is saying."
According to 2:
> ###
>
> …
>
References:
* JGram -
* Learn JLPT N2 Grammar:
* What does refer to in
* Shouldn't this phrase using mean "just for that"?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Weird Inflection -されていかん
I am reading Alita Battle Angel, and I came across a sentence that I do understand, but for some reason is conjugated to the negative. Please could someone break the sentence down for me?
> > (After becoming just your head, you have become rather talkative)
>>
>> { **{}…**
>>
>> (My intelligence is influenced by the body I possess...)
My understanding is that gives the meaning of 'somewhat, fairly, quite', but I do not know why is not in the plain form. Also, what does it do when the passive form of the main verb is used?
|
in this sentence means "no good", "of no use", "it sucks", etc. It's adding the speaker's feeling about the mentioned fact (). is almost a lexicalized expression, and it is also used like English "oops", "don't do it" or "oh my gosh". It sounds a little pompous or dialectal.
Related:
* What does do?
* Meaning of in following sentence
* Use of "" in the following sentences
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "dialects, passive voice, modality, によって passives"
}
|
Meaning of おまちする
From: <
Context: The character who says this to you (the player) is on the subway along with you. They are also about to battle you.
>
means "long awaited" from what I can tell, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what would mean. Does it mean "to wait a long time"?
What exactly would the full sentence mean then?
|
is the humble form () of . So is the humble way of saying , "I was waiting / I've been waiting (for you)." ( is the humble form of .)
For more on the humble form +, please refer to: Do all verbs have an honorific and humble form?
>
> "Welcome! I've been waiting for you!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, word usage, keigo"
}
|
What does 王室宮内庁を予算ごと回す mean?
For context in the story the king is saying how he would love to live "here" (referring to the kingdom that the character speaking is in control of) and she responds with:
> ****
I had to google to find out what meant, and I believe its the equivalent of the Imperial Household Agency, in this case an agency that deals with all matters related to the royal family.
I'm a bit confused with regards to what means in this context however. Could someone please help me understand?
Thanks
|
Your understanding of is fine. In fiction, is often used as the name of (non-Japanese) agencies related to royal affairs.
The verb has various tricky meanings including "to run (a company)", "to moderate (a conference)", "to make ends meet", "to hand over" and "to assign (a task)". The meaning of depends on what the king's request is, which you did not explain. Probably she is saying either of the following:
* I can think of "it" if you hand over the control of and its budget to me
* I can think of "it" if you can manage the and its budget yourself
If you're still in doubt, please share the whole context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What does からか mean?
I'm translating the following sentence from a book (exact sentence is directly after dialogue in the picture).
> ****
I have absolutely zero clue what "" means in general and in the context of the above sentence, as I've never encountered it before in my Japanese classes (I know what "" and the sentence-ending "" mean, but not this). Can someone explain what it means?
Edit: Based on Ringil's answer, would the following be a possible, accurate translation while taking the into account?
> "The doubtful interest in the silver-haired foreigner’s voice was unusually fluent."
.
>
With the , the speaker is no longer certain for the reason. The speaker is now only speculating that the reason for the unusual fluency was because the foreigner was excited/agitated. The indicates speculation/doubt. You might have seen a phrase like before. It's the same idea.
EDIT: If you want an accurate translation you could say something like
> The silver-haired foreigner was speaking unusually fluently. Perhaps it was because he/she was excited.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particle から, particle か, modality"
}
|
whats does あなたわ友達ですか？ means
So I have recently have gotten into japanese and my close friend who is from japan is teaching me japenese, one of the sentence she wrote is this which I sort of understand and I know is refering to me, but eventually I don't have the knowledge to put it all together yet, if anyone could help it would be nice
|
Well really I would be assuming he meant " Are you my friend?" or " you're my friend? " although the sentence should really be and even that translation is a bit generic but yes that's what he must have meant. (formal) you topic marker particle ( not spelled ) friend formal/polite particle basically meaning being etc formal/polite question particle
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
Describe a span of time of 1 or 2 years, without being too literal
I'm looking for a word like "sometime ago", "a while ago", that is good for describing a 1-2 years span of time.
I feel like **** is for shorter spans of time, and **** is for longer ones. Is there something in the middle I could use here?
I wanna say something like:
> I worked for that company sometime ago
Without being literal about how much time it has been since I've worked there
>
|
{} might be what you're looking for. From
> ――
Note that some other dictionaries like and think the referred to time is relatively far in the past: for the former and for the latter. But I think this word fulfills your requirement for the vagueness of the time pretty well.
Using your example you might say:
>
I think it'd be fairly close to something like `I used to work for that company` in English.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
}
|
How can 若い時 and ずっと work in this sentence?
I'm trying to write
> "I have wanted to study Japanese from a young age"
And I have
> "."
Does this work? How can I make it more correct?
|
Your usage of is just fine, but there are some other errors. A minimally corrected version is:
> **** ****
* refers to one time point in the past. But your desire is a longstanding one that have remained even after you were no longer . So you should use ("from") instead.
* Your desire basically belongs to the past, so you need to use the past-form of .
Optionally, you can express your longstanding desire up until now using , which is a way to express the continuation of an action. is an adjectival expression that does not straightforwardly connect to , but you can add and say:
> ****
This one is longer, but sounds more sophisticated and natural to me.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax, tense, aspect"
}
|
How do I write "ワンピースは実在する" vertically?
I'm assuming there's certain punctuation involved in this sentence, but I don't really understand what changes in the process of switching from horizontal to vertical writing.
|
This sentence has no punctuation. Only will flip to a vertical line, the rest stays the same.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "manga, handwriting, anime"
}
|
How would you say "I like to go bowling" and other suru verbs?
I would like to learn how to say "I like to go bowling" rather than "I like bowling." That is, I want to emphasize that I like to do it, rather than that I like the sport in general.
I believe would be how you'd say "I like bowling (the sport)" but not necessarily that you like to do it yourself.
I see that is a suru verb. Does that mean that I should change it to a verb and then noun-ify it with as in ? Or would this be unnatural because is already a noun?
|
I don't know why is categorized as a suru-verb in jisho.org, but sport names are generally just nouns in Japanese. Some English sport names are based on verbs ("to ski", "to fence", etc.), but they are still nouns in Japanese. You have to say **** , **** and so on in formal and standard Japanese. (But, as always, can be omitted in colloquial language.)
>
> I like bowling. (unspecific)
>
> ****
> I like (to go) to bowl. (i.e., actually playing it myself)
If you want to be very explicit for some reason, you can add ("actually"). For example:
>
* * *
By the way, you can safely nominalize a (true) suru-verb with , too. For example, and are both perfectly fine.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "verbs, english to japanese"
}
|
What is the meaning of 七五三 in the sentence, 七五三のしゃしんです。
I was looking at the following sentence under a picture that I unfortunately cannot provide:
>
I believe the sentence reads "It's a picture of 753"... which doesn't make sense.
I know that we have the numbers here (7), (5) and (3). However, I don't believe numbers are structured like this in Japanese, as far as I know. Methinks this sentence is trying to say the number 753, but in Japanese, wouldn't that be instead written as ?
Am I wrong, am I merely interpreting this incorrectly, or is there another problem I am overlooking? May someone please help me and correct me if I am wrong?
|
Just to make a proper answer, (read “shichi-go-san”, _not_ “nana-go-San”) refers to a traditional Japanese festival and is used in the literal meaning “seven, five, three”. From Wikipedia:
> Shichi-Go-San (, lit. "Seven-Five-Three") is a traditional rite of passage and festival day in Japan for three- and seven-year-old girls and five-year-old (and less commonly three-year-old) boys, held annually on November 15 to celebrate the growth and well-being of young children.
At a guess, the sentence refers to someone’s photo from this festival.
By the way, it’s not the case here but long numbers written out positionally with Kanji for numbers (plus for zero) without etc. do happen in Japanese (e.g. in price lists) although they’re rare in spoken speech AFAIK.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, usage, syntax, numbers"
}
|
How do I pronounce/Translate this last name: マッキェネン into english?
I'm translating this book, and the character's full name pops up as " ". I managed to translate the first name as Claudia, but I don't know if I should use McCunnen, McCullen, or some other possible translation for her last name, and thusly I am in need for some advice.
|
Here is a screenshot of the official site of the X360 port (Flash-only):
![enter image description here](
So she is officially **Claudia McCunnen**.
always corresponds to the "N" consonant, not "L". Even without this site, we can say McCullen is not really a valid transliteration.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, pronunciation, names"
}
|
Meaning of 生命線を守る in the following sentence
Context: a boxing champion is arm-wrestling against another boxer. The champion is on the verge of losing, but he still doesn't give up, so the other boxer thinks:
>
>
>
>
> **** **** …
In Kenkyusha dictionary I found these two examples:
> _guard one's lifeline_
>
> _threaten [menace] sb's lifeline_
So it seems that it is a common collocation, but what is the meaning in the sentence above and in general? Other than referring to the lifeline on the palm of one's hand or to something of vital importance, can simply be a synonym of "life"? Can it refer to a person's survival istinct?
In the manga page, there's actually a line that is "tied" to his fist. While here you can see how he "breaks" the line of the opponent when he beats him.
I would also be grateful if you could explain the value of that after . Thank you for your help!
|
This type of (usually figuratively) refers to something that keeps you alive when you are in danger. Loss of means death (biologically or figuratively). It can be a physical rope, food, oxygen, money, internet connection, or anything depending on the type of danger you're facing. is also used in a similar manner.
In this manga, refers to increased strength exerted only when you're close to defeat. (So...something like this. In Japanese there is a word ; is there a generic term for this in English?) That visible line is an illustration of this concept.
after is simply the te-form of .
* * *
Bonus:
* also refers to this line on the palm.
* in katakana usually refers to basic infrastructure of a society (electricity, gas, water, etc.) See:
* _Lifeline_ in English also refers to emergency telephone counseling. This is sometimes referred to as in Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, words, manga"
}
|
Meaning of 彼女だけは普段と変わらなかった
I'm trying to understand the following passage and the meaning of in this context.
I think it means the following: Even after had changed, she was still the "same" in front of . However, for this interpretation I would have expected something like which makes me think that it could mean something different.
> ……
>
>
>
> ……
>
>
>
>
>
> ……
>
> …… ****
>
> ……
|
> ……
refers to .
"Even after had changed, she (=) was still the same."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What does レベルが高い mean in this context?
>
Which of the following has the closest meaning with in this context?
1.
2.
3.
Putting aside number 1, both 2 and 3 seem correct. But usually refers to the quality of goods and services, and while might sound correct, I don't know about .
|
is a little ambiguous, but basically it's a common phrase to refer to universities listed in rankings like these. is instantly understood as "hard-to-enter" at least in this country where is very important. Naturally, a is also difficult to enter.
is not a combination we normally hear in the first place. Google results for this phrase mainly include pages that have and . If you insist, I would imagine is like a university with gorgeous furniture and high expenses; it's not directly associated with academic levels.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of ガッといく
Stumbled upon this phrase. Dictionary as well as google does not yield any results. Example would be: 3
|
I think this is rather than . While sometimes takes , doesn't make sense here. is roughly the same as .
Either way, and are both used, and the meaning of the part would be the same. (also written as ) is a Japanese mimetic adverb that describes how an action/word is vigorous, powerful, quick or sharp. It's perhaps dialectal (I feel Kansai speakers tend to use it more often).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What's the difference between 時間がいる and 時間が必要?
In this thing I'm reading, I see the following sentence:
> ****
The speaker is talking about a long standing problem that the protagonist has. It seems like it's , but is there any nuance difference that would cause the author to choose to use that instead of ?
|
There is no significant semantic difference, but is a wago and is a kango (Sino-Japanese word). This means sounds relatively stiffer. While is also a perfect choice here since she is talking about something serious, is mainly used in most casual daily conversations. Perhaps is closer to "need" or "want", is closer to "require".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, wago and kango"
}
|
Unknown Japanese saying: 世に孵ることを拒む卵はなく、 芽吹くことを拒む種子もあり得ない
I'm having some issues translating the first part (bolded) of this metaphor/saying(?) into English.
> **** .
How does the verb work on the part of the sentence, and does the full sentence end in the adjectival phrase "" or does it end with a nai-form ""?
The two possible translations I have at the moment are:
> In life to hatch out is a circumstance that to prevent the infant’s cries, is impossible as the seed denys its circumstances to bud.
and
> In society to hatch out is an occurrence that to prevent the infant’s cries, is as impossible as the seed rejecting its circumstances to bud.
|
Let me break it down to smaller chunks...
refuse to hatch into this world (← relative clause that modifies )
egg
(topic particle)
don't exist (← continuative form of ())
refuse to germinate (← relative clause that modifies )
seed
either
can not exist
To put them back together, I think it means something like...
>
"There are no eggs that refuse to hatch into this world, and there cannot be seeds that refuse to sprout out, either."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation, word choice, usage, phrase requests"
}
|
Xに捕まる vs Xに捕まえられる
X was used when describing the speaker getting grabbed by X when trying to leave.
Why was the intransitive used over passive when it was X...?
|
In Japanese, there are a few verbs that take and seem to have "inherently passive" meanings. ("to be found by ") and ("to be caught by ") are representative examples of this. They are called or "passive-like verb" by some linguists. See my answer here: Other uses of the particle in If you are interested, this article (in Japanese) investigates their nuances and etymology, but it's too difficult at least to me :D
Now, specifically about the difference between and , they are both correct, but people usually use the former because it's shorter. I cannot think of any example where is better. (This does not mean all are preferred over the longer ones -- and are both common and are even preferred depending on the situation.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "passive voice, transitivity"
}
|
Can から be omitted in てから?
In this sentence: "Toukyou ni hikkoshite, go-nen ni naru, " => Since moving to Tokyo, it has been [it comes out to] five years.
From this site: <
-form is interpreted as if it was . Is this possible, and if so, usual? I do see -form quite frequently when sequencing actions and/or indicating a causality (e.g. ). But so far, when explicitely expressing "since" had always been used. It would be nice if someone could explain this phenomenon above, or at least point me to some ressources :)
|
I am a Japanese. you can use "Toukyou ni hikkoshite kara, go-nen ni naru" as well as "Toukyou ni hikkoshite, go-nen ni naru" this type of sentence is used when you want to show the "time lapse".
"" of "" -> this sentence show a reason.
Does that make sense?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "て form"
}
|
How to read 火日参拾月参
I'm trying to figure out on how to read this properly
>
, but I still don't understand why it's supposed to be " **Monday** ".
I (think I) do know the following
> = month 3 = March
>
> = 3 1 = 13
But then I'm left with
> = ?
I tried looking up just the days of the week...
> = Tuesday ; = Monday
...but that confused me even further.
|
I believe it's written right-to-left. After changing the direction, it's:
>
Or:
>
Which reads "March", " **13th** (day of month)", " **Tuesday** ", respectively. Perhaps the translator was also confused :)
As you probably know, the standard format of dates in Japanese is `month day `, optionally followed by the day of the week. For example, today is "228()".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does the prefix ご in this sentence mean?
I'm aware that
means how many people are in your family? But the how is used? What does mean?
It would be the same as
/?
|
It's similar to the honorific .
Japanese honorific prefixes and (‘O’ and ‘Go’)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
初めてです, is '初めて' an adverb?
I saw following quotes:
This is my first time to America.
I've learned about `<n.> <n.|adj.> `. Checking at several dictionaries, '' is an adverb. Is it OK to use an adverb in `<n.> <adv.> `?
|
No, you cannot attach to an adverb. But is **both** an adverb and no-adjective. (A no-adjective is a special type of noun that is semantically similar to an English adjective. See this question.) You can confirm this fact in jisho.org's entry. For example, you can say , which means "(my) first (trip to) America".
(Similar things happen all the time also in English; _fast_ as in "this train is fast" is an adjective, but _fast_ as in "this train runs fast" is an adverb.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "adverbs"
}
|
what does しにみえてる mean?
The phrase in question is:
In context, I think it means something like "Hirose-san came to ask for a teaching game, but..." but I still have not been able to break down my understanding of this phrase to my own satisfaction.
It is the form that I am stuck on. As I understand it, usually means that something appears a certain way (appears to be asking for a teaching game?), but in that case then I would expect the form or when attached to a verb, I have not been able to find this form of +
I also understand that v1 + + v2 means to do v2 for the purpose of v1, for example means to go see something. But it seems this only applies to movement verbs like and is not such a verb.
I also thought of (trying to ask for a teaching game?) but I don't think that makes sense here either and anyway there is no form.
Thanks again for all your help.
. You can think of it as a slightly less polite variant of .
> ###
>
>
>
> ―
Thus, this _is_ a movement verb, and the grammar of applies in this case, too.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is からすると contraction of から判断すると?
Is contraction of ?
|
I think is a contraction of nothing; it is a set phrase by itself. But meaning-wise, yes it means either ("judging from ") or ("from the standpoint of "). Here's an example of which does _not_ mean :
>
> From his point of view, I am an idiot. (rather than "Judging from him, ...")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Meaning of 一軒 in context
This is from the manga ×JK , a 4-koma about the life of female otaku. On this page two colleagues are discussing how it’s not easy to be an otaku when one is no longer young and friends get busy with life and family.
.
Incidentally, the page is titled but this seems to just refer to them both crying and not related (?) to the line in question.
|
Otako is saying "how about a drink?" refers to one izakaya/pub. "?" and "?" almost always mean this.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, manga"
}
|
Is there a rough variant of 飲む{のむ}?
Just as there are so-called rough synonyms for {}, namely, {}, {} and {}, to represent eating with different nuance, are there any known variants of {} for drinking?
|
You can use with drinks (usually alcohol), too.
> ###
>
> **** () ― **―**
But note that is a relatively uncommon word usually used to emphasize one's vulgarity or laziness. is much more common in daily conversations of ordinary people, but I think there is no equivalent of for drinking.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, verbs, synonyms, casual"
}
|
What is the etymology of kanji 問?
This kanji "ask" when I researched on it I found that the part is a phonetic and this common with kanjis contain .. but i found this site which says that this part in kanji not a phonetic but it has the meaning "to hide something behind the gate" and this meaning + kanji meant that to "ask" about something which hidden behind the gate or the door.
Is this etymology right? And if it's right how did the author know this information about the meaning of " part using" in the kanjis?
|
[]{}( _to ask_ ) is rather straightforwardly constructed from semantic( _mouth_ ) and phonetic[]{}. There is no meaning contribution by, andwas the original construction since Shang Dynasty oracle bones.
`
![enter image description here](
2.9.10
16419`
* * *
The linked website in the question is unreliable - there are three major errors in the explanations just on that page. Of course, there is nothing wrong with using those explanations as a mnemonic, if it helps you remember the _kanji_ better.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
}
|
What is the Japanese word for a judge in a court of law?
I have looked up judge, but I am finding a number of words and am not sure how they are different. Is there a general word that is most common?
Words I found include: saibankan saibannin hanji houkan shichoku
|
The catch-all term for (proper) judges in the modern Japanese judicial system is . There are also **** ("lay judge / jury") for important cases.
Legally speaking, is a subclass of . roughly refer to who are not ("chiefs") nor ("assistant judges"). For example, Japanese (Supreme Court) has fifteen 's, which consist of one **** and fourteen ****. That being said, laypeople do not see the word very often. I may be mistaken, but I feel news articles for the general public usually use when they report domestic incidents. I see the word mainly from translations of foreign news and detective dramas.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, word requests, english to japanese"
}
|
What or where does 所 refer to in しかるべき所に相談をしておきたい
I guess my question here is clarifying what means. Obviously something like makes sense to me however, I'm not quite sure I understand what the example I have provided (how can one discuss with a place).
Would I be right in assuming that could be used to refer to the police, a suicide helpline, etc.
> **** ...
|
I think you're trapped by one "literal" translation too much. In Japanese, there is really no difference in usage of between and, say, . X means either "to consult X" or "to consult at X". Or "to go to X and consult" might work in both cases.
literally means "should-be-so", and this has a nuance along the lines of "appropriate place to consult on this issue". This can refer to anywhere where someone in charge formally takes care of your issue. Depending on the issue, it can be a department in your company, a government office, a clinic, or a police station.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
How to know the real eytomolgy for any kanji?
When i ask on this site for the eytomolgy for any kanji .somebody comes (like user called droooze) and answer my question by explaining the eytomolgy and giving a pictures of the kanji in the seal script or bone script ... etc My question is what is the source which those who answer my qustions take this information from?
|
One English-language source is The Complete Guide to Japanese Kanji.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Question about それに following a verb in dictionary form
So for context, doesn't like the speaker and the speaker just said something to make think even less of him. Could someone give an explanation on why is directly following a verb and what its doing.
> {}{}{}{} **** {}
|
> {}{} **** {}{} **** {}
The core structure of this sentence is:
> X Y
>
> "X turned into Y."
X =
Y =
In order to avoid using twice, the author is using here. The same thing actually happens in English as well using "that" or "those".
> "The chairman's expression turned into _**that of**_ a man looking at filth."
functions as a relative clause that modifies .
Other examples:
{} **** {} ("The winters in Russia are colder than _**those**_ in Japan.")
{}{} **** {}{} ("That guy's taste in music is completely different from _**that**_ of mine.")
{}{}{} **** {}{} ("What are the differences between companies that flourish and _**those that**_ decline?")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of ご休憩一時間コース
Can anyone help me understand what Hiragi means by "" in the below? Is this to be understood literally, or does it have some other type of meaning?
>
>
> ……
>
> ……
>
>
>
>
>
> ……
>
> **** ……
>
> ……
|
This is a reference to a Japanese "love hotel" ( _rabuho_ ) and the activity people typically do there. The keyword "/rest" is a good indicator that tells us a hotel is a "love hotel". See: <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What does 水をこざく mean?
I was reading something and saw the following lines spoken by an old male artist:
>
>
> …
>
> ****
Someone else then responds:
>
This was all overlaid upon the following image:  in water are you really (floating) on top of water? What kind of image am I supposed to be seeing here?
|
According to this it's something like "to wade through." Without further context, it sounds like it's some kind of "sink or swim" implication.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, dialects"
}
|
What does ことだけ mean in general?
According to this, "noun + + " mostly means "regarding noun" when it is used.
By adding a to the end, (so that it's now "noun + + + ") does this change the meaning to something else, or does it change the amount of regard given to the noun?
|
> does this change the meaning to something else, or does it change the amount of regard given to the noun?
Neither. It **adds** the meaning of "only". When X is a noun, X forms another noun phrase. And `noun + ` just means "only ". So:
* X = things regarding X; things about X
* X = only things regarding X; only things about X
> *
> I am thinking about you.
> *
> I am thinking only about you.
> ( _Not_ : I am thinking things that are related only to you)
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, particle だけ"
}
|
Meaning of 前を歩いてた人
Context: in the manga , a girl named Naeshiro is thinking over the friendship between her boyfriend Riku and a boy named Mihara. Both of them are boxers, but Mihara is older than Riku and is thinking about retiring from boxing after an injury.
> **** …… ……
>
> ……
I don't understand who admires whom, Riku admires Mihara or Mihara admires Riku? I don't understand this because I don't know how to interpret . Does it refer to Mihara in the sense that he has "walked the boxing path" before Riku, so he is like a senpai to him?
Here you can see the whole page. Thank you for your help!
|
is not really a tricky expression. It just refers to someone who was more successful in the field of boxing. Normally, his age is less important than his actual career (a strong younger boxer can be a ). But in this case, Mihara was like a senpai to Riku, too. In non-romantic contexts, the subject of is normally someone lower than the object (e.g., , ), so who admires whom is implied by this verb itself.
If I understand the context correctly, the sentence is saying:
> I (=Yuki) wonder if Riku admires Mihara more than Riku likes me (=Yuki).
Note that, technically speaking, the part is ambiguous; the exact same sentence could mean the following:
> I (=Yuki) wonder if Riku admires Mihara more than I (=Yuki) love Mihara.
You know the story, so you know which interpretation is correct.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, verbs, manga, adverbs"
}
|
Meaning of katakana at the end of okurigana in this song lyrics
Listening to Japanese music I stumbled upon this song called by . I liked it so I went to look up for the lyrics and its meaning, and there is a part of those in which something is used that I would like to have explained.
The thing is, at some points in these lyrics katakana is used at the end of okurigana. What's the meaning? What's the usage? Why are those sentences written like that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Those aren't okurigana. They're just normal sentence-final particles. They're normally written in hiragana. Sometimes Japanese people will use katakana to add special emphasis on a word, but in this case it's just an affectation, like a girl writing a heart instead of the dot on an i.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "katakana, song lyrics"
}
|
と for talking about tomorrow
> ****
>
> (if it rains tomorrow, I won't go to the park)
Is it correct to use in the sentence above?
I know that is used like the English "whenever." So, my guess is that the sentence is not correct because it's only about tomorrow, not something which happens every time (I'd say ......). However, today I heard it from a person whose level is very high, and now I'm not sure I know everything about this meaning of . Thank you for your help!
|
is used mostly for conditionals where the consequence is an expected one. For example:
> (The road gets wet when it rains.)
But what you want to say carries an intention, and also, there is only one outcome, meaning that if it rains you won't go to the park and you won't go somewhere else. So I'd use :
> (If it rains tomorrow, I won't go to the park.)
Also, you could use or as well, as they are used for conditionals with assumptions.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
Dictionary form + と for a single occasion
> ****
As far as I know, `a dictionary verb form + ` is used to mean "when/if", "whenever" (e.g. (it's always like that)).
But the sentence above is about a particular day, a single occasion. As I understand it, they should say,
> ... ...
or
> ... ...
Why is used in this situation?
|
V() in that case is used to convey the meaning that the actions happen in succession, that B happens **in the continuity** of A, in the sense that there is no temporal break between the two actions.
In your case, "getting down from the train" and "taking totto's hand to go out of the station" happen in one go, there is no pause.
V() V()both carry the nuance V **** , in other words, perform the second action _after the first one was completed_. The two actions are **sequentially** performed.
Hence, the alternatives you offer are in fact quite different nuance-wise. What is written in your book implies that the mom grabs her kid's hand "smoothly", instantly, as soon as the door opens. In the two other cases, it sounds as if they:
1. got down from the car
2. (maybe there was a small break, maybe they looked for directions?) _then_ , she grabbed her kid's hand
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle と"
}
|
Is 長 in Japanese related to “naga” in Thai and Sanskrit?
The kanji (“nagai”) means “long” in Japanese.
And “naga” in Sanskrit and Thai means “snake” or “serpent”.
It seems to me that there could be a relation between them given that snakes are usually described as long.
Is there any relationship between them? Do they have a shared origin?
|
One could extend that hypothesis to ask if there's a connection between English _long_ and Yiddish _schlong_.
* English _long_ ultimately derives from Proto-Indo-European _*dlongʰos_ (“long”).
* Yiddish _schlong_ is from German _Schlange_ ("snake") and ultimately derives from Proto-Indo-European _*slenk-_ (“to wind, twist, slink, creep”).
That is, no apparent connection.
Back to your particular thought:
* Japanese - _naga-_ is thought to derive from, or be cognate with, obsolete verb _nagaru_ , root of modern verb pair _nagareru_ ("to flow") / _nagasu_ ("to flush something, to make something flow"). I've also thought these might be related to verb _nagu_ , modern _nageru_ ("to throw").
* Sanskrit नाग _naga_ ("snake") ultimately derives from Proto-Indo-European _*sneg-_ (“to crawl; a creeping thing”), the same as English _snake_.
So again, no apparent connection.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "etymology"
}
|
Difference between 黒齣 and 黒駒
I'm trying to figure out if there's a difference in meaning/translation between
>
and
>
.
**A bit of context:** both show up on black background. There is no further context to be given.
The first one I've seen translated as **black scene** , which makes sense because according to this, **** can mean either _frame_ or _scene_ in this context.
For the second one, the translation was also **black scene** but I'm not entirely sure if it's indeed correct. I think I found the correct character (here and here), but translations like _horse_ or _shogi piece_ just don't make any sense to me.
I have the feeling they both mean the same, but I just want to make sure.
|
> it shouldn't matter which game/animation
Yes it does matter. Even native Japanese speakers cannot explain the interpretation of such a rare word without knowing where you saw it.
is not a regular word. As @broccoliforest suggests, googling it points to one specific anime called . I checked the first episode, and found that it heavily uses flashing typograms of seemingly random archaic words. is one of them. Meaning-wise, it should mean "a frame filled with black", but I don't know if it's a real word or a made-up word of Akiyuki Shindo. Either way, I bet you won't see this word again outside this anime.
Regarding , it's not an ordinary word, either. If you saw it in a work related to , it's natural to assume it's just a typo for . is a fairly rare kanji, so it is no wonder if someone mixed it with .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, homophonic kanji"
}
|
Are there more casual ways to say "flowery speech/language" aside from 美辞麗句?
I came across a situation where I wanted to use a phrase like "flowery language" or "flowery speech", I looked it up and found {}{} online.
-
### I did a little research:
Initially I looked for the root in another dictionary. I found {}{}{}{}. I asked a Japanese friend and they said they had never heard of this word nor the first part of the word.
I also searched another dictionary and came back with {}{} and {}{} as viable options. I'm not sure about but with that same friend they had seen or used it before.
Which would be the best way to convey "flowery speech/language" while not becoming to complex for everyday conversation or business talk?
|
I do wonder how old your Japanese friend is, but you do not have to answer.
While may not be an everyday kind of word, I would imagine that the majority of the adult native speakers would know what it meant.
More informal phrases that carry basically the same meaning as include:
{}
{}{} or {}
etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
For the Kanji 校 is the fifth stroke connected to the sixth stroke?
Some websites online show the fifth stroke as a vertical line straight down connected to the sixth stroke, while others (and in Chinese) have it as a downward diagonal dash. Is there are difference between the two?
Similarly, is the first stroke in connected to the second or a diagonal dash?
Is this always the case whenever a Kanji has something similar to these two?
|
It's the difference between printing, handwriting, and calligraphy.
This element, called nabebuta or keisankanmuri (), should be connected and vertical for more formal (printed) styles, and will normally be disconnected and 'diagonal' for calligraphic styles and many handwritten styles.
There is not right or wrong unless you are talking about a particular font style.
When practicing kanji early on, it is normally recommended to stick to a more 'standard' style, like Kyokashotai (thanks @drooze).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "kanji, stroke order"
}
|
What kind of inflection is occuring in passive vb + かかった?
I was using Jisho.org to help me figure out the tense of the following passive verb
>
when it decides to combine (passive form) with thereby forming "" as a 'recognized' whole verb (recognized meaning its fully underlined in the link thingy).
I still don't know what the two 's mean, although my bad gut intuition is saying that the first is a question particle, thereby making it a passive question parsed by .... I really am confused as to what it means and how to parse the segments correctly.
> Original sentence: ……,
|
> Verb in {} (continuative form) +
means:
> "to be about to (verb)", "to be on the point of (verb)ing", etc.
The first verb used in this expression can be either in the active or passive voice form. Active or passive, Japanese verbs still inflect in the same manner.
**_Active voice_** : is the of
**** = "was about to kill"
**_Passive voice_** : is the of
**** = "was about to be killed"
The two 's cannot be separated as is just one verb.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "conjugations, compound verbs"
}
|
Combination of causative-passive and intransive verb with a direct object?
I am struggling to understand this sentence’s structure:
>
I think I get the idea of causative-passive as in “I was being made to finish the homework”. However, I noticed that we have the intransitive verb and not the transitive . But we also have a direct object . Unless I am the object in this case? I am really confused.
Would this sentence translate to:
**I couldn’t be made to finish the homework in time.**
Or to:
**I couldn’t be made to be finished with the homework in time.**
Also, I can’t think of a way not to add the ‘potential form’ in English. Is there a potential form hidden there somewhere in Japanese?
|
() has both a potential meaning and a passive meaning (along with other two less common meanings). For example, means both "to be able to eat" and "to be eaten". In your sentence, has a potential meaning.
* : (simple intransitive verb) "to end"
* **** : [causative] "to make something end" (i.e., "to finish something")
* **** : [causative- **potential** ] "can make something end"
* **** : [negative-causative-potential] "cannot make something end"
* **** : [past-negative-causative-potential] "could not make something end"
>
> I could not finish my homework in time.
You can say the same thing using the transitive verb :
>
> I could not finish my homework in time.
Related: Is there a reason why the passive and the potential form are identical (at least for / verbs)?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "parsing, passive voice, potential form, causation"
}
|
The past tense for the quoting particle って
I have this sentence in front of me
>
which is translated as:
> she said she couldn't stand hearing a male voice near her ear.
If I am right, here, is actually translated as "said" which makes me realise, I am only familiar with the present form of quoting particles and . Taking into the account that is the present form of the verb, and the translation is about something which happened in the past, I feel that I am actually ignorant about the grammar of the quoting particle.
How do we know if the quoting is about something which is happening now (says) or something which happened in the past (said), do we use the same quoting particle for past and present? If so, how do we recognise the difference?
|
The quoting particle (or ) is tenseless, just as the quotation marks `"` for direct speech ( _she said "I want to sing"_ ), or `that` for indirect speech ( _she said that she wanted to sing_ ) are tenseless.
The tense is reflected in the verb that is used with the quoting particle, e.g.
*
*
*
In your example sentence, the correct tense for translation into English has to be determined from the context of the original sentence, as there is no verb to read off the tense.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, particle と, tense, quotes, particle って"
}
|
Can verbs simutaniously use the volitional form and negative form?
I came across the following sentence in a book:
>
and searched on Jisho.org for . It sent me to saying that " is the negative form" of
However, I know that for that to be correct, it would have to be , not what is written in the book. Then I remembered that the could be from the volitional form; and looked through my Genki 2 textbook, but failed to find the conjugation for negative volitional phrases, which means that is either not volitional, not negative, or I'm leaping down another dead-end rabbit hole again via wrong analysis of what the text means.
|
There is a negative volitional. It's ~ and it's not super common outside some fixed patterns like
> **** ****
>
> ****
However, it doesn't apply here anyways as that's not the grammar that's happening here. By the way, Jisho made a parsing mistake: the negative form of is .
The main issue is that you seem to be parsing the sentence incorrectly. is a noun. The means `without any` and is the continuative form of (it works here like an adverb pretty much). Maybe you've seen the phrase before? So then means without any .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage, conjugations, parsing"
}
|
Does the nanda at the end of ここはどこなんだ mean "what"?
Does the at the end of
> ****
mean "what"?
Reason I'm asking for help on such a obvious question is my brain thinks is the explanatory ; which I know is wrong, but its the only answer my brain is supplying at the moment. And I doubt "" is "what", as that would make the full sentence translate as "What where is this place/here?" which does not sound correct in the least bit of sense.
|
Yes, you are right in your speculation:
> is the explanatory .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
How to say "Some" in Japanese
I need to communicate that I am allergic to some sunscreens (but not all). I know that 'some' is a difficult concept to get across in Japanese, so how would I say it in this specific case?
ie. "(some)"
|
> ()
>
> ()
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, nuances, word requests"
}
|
Difference 記念日 vs 周年
What exactly is the difference betweekn and ? I found both to mean "anniversary". Thank you in advance.
|
just indicates the number of **years** that something has been in continuing or in operation. This term is used in regards to anniversaries, but only as a description of what the anniversary is for.
is remembrance or commemoration. Adding to it makes it 'Commemoration **Day** ', or 'Anniversary'.
These two terms are often used together to indicate both the celebration/commemoration and what specifically it is celebrating.
> 10 **** () ****. Day of celebration of 10 years of marriage; 10-year (marriage) anniversary.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, nuances"
}
|
How to say unpredictable in Japanese
I'd like to say "I like anime because its unpredictable". I found out through searching online that translates to predictable, however I'm not sure if this is correct.
My entire sentence:
>
My second question would be, does translate to generally in the way I've used it above.
|
One common way that people phrase this is by saying "don't know what will happen next". Using the most basic vocab, I will say something like
> []{}
means next, and / means to occur (not to be confused with ).
Edit: to clarify, both and are acceptable usages. In fact, upon further research, is a more common way to say it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "phrase requests"
}
|
Translation of 答えを知っている人はいませんでした
I started studying _Modern Japanese Grammar: A Practical Guide_ by Naomi McGloin et al. In section 1.2, there's the following example:
> []
Which is translated as:
> [Surprisingly,] no one knew the answer.
This translation sounds a bit off to me. I'd say that the sentence roughly translates to "[Surprisingly,] the person who know the answer is absent", which isn't equivalent to provided translation. I guess it'd be more adequate if the original sentence was something like "[] ". I think that difference between "no one knew" and "person who know was not here" is quite stark. Second one implies presence of someone who know while first one does not.
Is this an error in the book or do I understand it incorrectly?
|
"To be absent" is not the only translation of . X can mean both of the following:
1. X is (temporarily) not here; X is away; X is absent
2. There is no X (anywhere); X does not exist
You have to determine the correct interpretation from the context. Usually it's fairly easy.
> * Extraterrestrial intelligence does not exist.
> * There is no Nessie.
>
Regarding , it's indeed ambiguous, at least technically speaking. If has been already introduced in the universe of discourse and a listener/reader understands who is that person in this context, then your interpretation may be possible. Otherwise, "There was no one who knew the answer" is the natural interpretation of this sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Will expression retain the same definition if particle is changed?
> ………
> ****
I came across the expression on jisho.org. I don't know if replacing the expression's with (because is already used earlier in the sentence) will allow me to use the definition when translating. Is this allowed?
|
cannot take another object because itself is the object of this transitive verb. What is said as a word is not important.
is an "incomplete" expression because it lacks a direct object. It should be preceded by an object or a quotative- to show the content of the speech. itself is like an adverbial expression "as (physical) voice" or "aloud".
> *
> *
>
See this question for more examples: What does "" mean?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, particle に, particle を, relative clauses"
}
|
How to link two cause–effect statements in close succession?
Take for example the following sentence,
> Since I didn't have time, I couldn't go, so I declined the offer.
Here we have two cause–effect statements:
* Since I didn't have time, I couldn't go. ()
* I couldn't go, so I declined the offer. ()
Would it be natural to combine the two Japanese sentences and write
>
I don't recall ever a sentence with two s (or s) in such close succession of each other. If I were to change the first into , I would get
>
However, this seems to imply
*
*
which is different from what I want to say. What's the most natural way of connecting two cause–effect statements? In English I think this most often takes the form "Since ____, ____, so _____."
|
> "(A caused B) and that in turn caused C."
>
> "(B happened because of A) and that made C happen as a result."
The easiest and safest way to express these ideas without sounding awkward and unnatural would be to _**not use two conjunctions**_ like in your example sentences above -- + + + , etc.
Instead, one could use only a single conjunction and a {} (continuative form) or a te-form.
** and single conjunction** :
**** ****
is the of . One of the important roles of is to describe a reason/cause, remember?
**Te-form + single conjunction** :
**** ****
The te-form can also be used to state a reason/cause.
Please remember that between the two sentences above, the second one using the te-form sounds more casual to the native ear.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "conjunctions"
}
|
What’s the difference between “用” (you) and “使って” (tsukatte)?
What’s the difference between “” (you) and “” (tsukatte)? Both mean “to use”, but when would you use one over the other? Are they interchangeable?
_Please explain by making reference to the below examples._
> **reitou-you Binīru fukuro**
>
> plastic bag used for freezing
>
> **Facebook ya SNS wa tsukatte imasu ka?**
>
> Do you use Facebook or social media?
Please note: I am a beginner, so would appreciate answers that aren't too complex.
|
The in **** is a noun suffix which means something like 'used for', 'for the purpose of' etc.
in SNS **** is the te-form of the verb meaning 'to use'.
These are completely different pieces of grammar and are not at all interchangeable. If you don't know about the te-form then I suggest you go and research it. It is an absolutely vital and fundamental thing to learn. There are loads of resources on the internet that will teach you about this.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does そういうこと mean in this exchange
I'm struggling to understand what Amane means when she says in **** . I'm assuming failing to understand this is what is also causing me confusion in understanding how that follows on to the second part of what she says "" in the following exchange:
Context: Tomoyuki has been living in Tokyo for a while but he has come back to town, whilst he was in Tokyo he was in regular contact with Amane, however Megumi did not know this. Amane, realizing that she has screwed up by mentioning this (she knows that Both Tomoyuki and Megumi like each other) she quickly tries to remedy the situation before Megumi gets the wrong idea.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ……
>
>
>
>
>
> ……
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> …………
>
>
>
> …………
>
>
>
> ……
>
> ****
>
> ……
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
Amane wants to make Megumi understand that her mail exchange with Tomoyuki while he was in Tokyo was nothing more than friends keeping in touch (she wanted to know more about Tokyo, and he wanted to hear updates from -- what I assume to be -- his home town).
Amane's here means "that's how it is (implied: so you don't need to worry)”, where "that" is the above-described situation she is trying to convey to Megumi.
To reassure Megumi further, she follows up by prodding Tomoyuki with the question "You probably have around 10-20 mail friends, right?" -- a fairly strong hint that he respond with "yes" regardless of how many he actually has, in order to demonstrate that Amane being just one of his (supposedly many) mail friends isn't that big of a deal.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Meaning of ものかわ in a Haiku
Bashō: .
I’m completely lost by . Any idea?
|
The original should be:
> {} **** **** {} ****
The expression in question is **** and not **** , which would probably be why you could not look it up.
As @Chocolate stated above, means **"trivial","trifling","of no significance"** , etc. in Classical Japanese. It has a nuance similar to that of " **to hell with** " without the vulgarity.
Thus, the haiku means:
**_"I won't be bothered with hangovers whilst the flowers are in bloom."_**
One final note:
When Japanese people say "while the flowers are in bloom", they are almost always referring to a very short period of time. That is why we might want to get drunk and not care about it if it were only for a few days.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "classical japanese"
}
|
Describing personalities, saying colourful
How would I describe characters as being colourful ?
Would this be fine?:
Also when describing a characters growth, would this sentence be fine?:
If it helps, I'm trying to say that the characters display good character growth.
Also what is the difference between and
|
The title of the question says "personality", but OP clearly said this "colorful" refers to one's physical color (clothing, hairstyle, etc) in his (deleted) comment. So I'll cover both.
### Physically colorful (hairstyle, clothing, body paint, ...)
>
Yes this is acceptable except that is a typo. It should be **** .
>
But you could just use a loanword and say:
>
This may be fine if there is enough context, but it looks a little confusing because it's ambiguous (one colorful character vs. many characters with different colors). If there are many characters with different colors (like _Power Ranger_ ), consider , which is unambiguous.
### Colorful personality
("has many colors") does not work here. Please try to rephrase it and find a better word/phrase using a dictionary. ("lively", "vivid", "cheerful", etc)
* * *
Lastly, means character in the sense of "letter", "alphabet", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
だいぶ撒いとるしなあ means what?
- greatly? - spread? - ?
UPDATE: the context is the following. It's a scene from anime 'Your name'. The mayor is giving a speech in front of an audience. Then the focus is moved to a couple of people standing in the back among the crowd. A man says, "He's going to be reelected anyway". A woman says back to him . In the subtitles it is translated as "I heard he's been dishing out the pork". As far as I understand here is used to creat a list? Like she's adding to the man's point. And is just for emphasis? So "And (he's been) greatly spreading (rumors/lies?) (about himself?)
|
> {}
In the context of politicians running for elections (in small towns), {} can usually mean just one thing -- **"to go around giving citizens/voters things that have monetary value"** in order to win their favor. The original meanings of the word are " **to sprinkle** ", " **to scatter** ", etc., so one could see the connection.
is an intensifier.
is used to give an example. In this case, it is one example of the reasons why he would be reelected.
. This is a sentence-ender for a light kind of declaration that also functions to seek agreement from the listener. It is similar to and in meaning.
Thus, an example translation would be something like:
**"He sure has done a great deal of handing out stuff around us, hasn't he?"**
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Meaning of ちはース
Context: a boy shouts **** after seeing that a fan club for a boxer has only female members. He is happy to discover this since he is the kind of guy that always tries to flirt with pretty girls.
I understand that this is an exclamation expressing surprise, but is it common? Does it have an exact meaning or it is only onomatopoeic?
Also, is it vulgar? Something like "holy shit", or is it more similar to "wow"? I am asking this because the character shouting it often speaks in a vulgar way.
Here you can see the original page. Thank you for your help!
|
This is just "Hi".
* ////etc is a very casual version of . Of course this is pronounced "wa".
* For "", see: What does at the end of a sentence mean?
Jisho.org also has an entry for this. Other variations include , , , , and .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "colloquial language, manga, greetings, abbreviations, casual"
}
|
Following a train of thought
I was listening to an English conversation yesterday and had a question. The speaker was having a conversation, and then suddenly made a comment that didn't seem to relate to the previous topic.
I wanted to say, "I can't follow her train of thought" or "that conversation doesn't seem to follow any train of thought.
I know that train of thought is but what very would you use for "follow"? Not right?
|
I think{}{}might be the word you're looking for.
> ****
* It's hard to follow what she's saying
> ****
* (Her) way of speaking is hard to follow
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs, phrases"
}
|
Question about kanji 分?
As we know this kanji means "divide / part / minute / understand" and many other meanings but these are the main meanings .. and I can understand the first two because they are related to the etymology of the kanji but I can't understand the meanings "minute" and "understand"...
I read before something like "because it meant part and minute is part of the hour it also meant minute", but I think this is not a clear explanation, because for example second is a part of the minute and the hour is a part of the day so why does this kanji especially mean 'minute'?
And for the last meaning I didn't find any explanation .. how does this kanji mean "understand"?
|
In Japanese, "understanding" is actually addressed with the intransitive verb , which means "it breaks down", i.e. "this breaks down/makes sense (for me)":
****
Note that (Japanese) is the subject here (hence ), and it's the thing doing the breaking down, or in more 'English' terms, being understandable/comprehensible. The Japanese usage is, of course, a bit more metaphorical.
As for hours/minutes, this is largely educated conjecture on my part, but it's pretty reasonable to consider minutes as being merely divisions or parts of an hour.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
どこ and なに in subject questions
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
As far as I understand, the manager is asking what exactly has broken ( _which part of the computer is broken?_ ). If we said in this situation, would the answer be _the computer_?
When shall we use and in subject questions?
|
Yes, your assumptions are correct.
As just means 'what', asking 'What is broken?' would be met with incredulity, as you already told the rep that the computer is broken.
in cases such as this these, means 'which part of'. In essence, part of the subject is being omitted in the query from the rep. The full sentence would be ****
This use of is fairly ubiquitous for specifying the part or specific location of something ('Where does it hurt?', 'Which section/area of the park should we meet?', 'What don't you like about me?', etc.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "questions"
}
|
The difference between 時 and 時は
I know that it's correct to use after , and it's also correct to omit it. For example:
> ****
>
> ****
How does the meaning of the sentence change when the particle is used and when it's not? This may be a slight change, but still.
|
> ****
> ****
You might say the latter to imply...
> "I used to swim in the sea in my childhood ( _but now I don't anymore_ )."
Here, the is functioning as the contrastive particle ().
* * *
You might also say the latter when responding to a question...
> "What did you often do in your childhood?"
> \-- " _In my childhood_ , I often swam in the sea."
Here, the is functioning as the topic particle ().
* * *
You'd say the former to just neutrally state that you would often swim in the sea in your childhood.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, particle は"
}
|
What does it mean when multiple 々 marks follow a 、?
I was glancing at some old manuscripts from the Heian period ( pg. 10) when I saw the following: ![ pg. 10](
I know that typically means to repeat the previous kanji, but what does it mean when its following a ? Also, is there a reason there are so many of them in a row like in ?
|
is called{}{}{}it is used to repeat 1 previous character.
> **** = ****
When there are multiple it means to repeat _'n'_ previous characters.
> * **** ... =
>
> * **** ...
>
>
&
> * **** =
> * ****
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 21,
"tags": "punctuation, symbols, kanbun"
}
|
Distinction between 早速 and さっさと
Both and are adverbs with the meaning "immediately, quickly, at once." What distinction in connotation or usage exists between the two terms?
|
is kind of rude way or try to order someone else, when you try hurry someone else. I.e. . (Go do it quick man!)
is more often use as positive way which you think people do it quicker than you thought, such as immediately. I.e. (Thank you for reply me immediately)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does おとこえしや mean?
This is a sentence from by .
>
My question is, what does mean?
|
It's a kind of plant, , plus the non-exhaustive listing particle .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "parsing"
}
|
What is the difference between [上手]｛じょうず｝ and [上手い]｛うまい｝?
I've read that [] is formal and [] is casual... nothing else?
|
I think the biggest difference is that generally means "good at something", and can mean that, but it can also mean "tasty" (as in food). The related word means "savory" (the '6th' flavor, found in things like eggs).
Grammatically, is a na-adjective, whereas is an i-adjective, so they conjugate differently.
(the adverb form of ) can be used with for the common expression ("to go well"), whereas you generally wouldn't say .
While I guess you could say is more formal than , would be an even more formal way to describe someone else being good at something.
As a side note, generally when talking about yourself being good at something, I would recommend instead of either of these two words.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
What does 分 means in "国分寺"?
As i found in jisho dictionary here
This word "" means "state-supported provincial temple"
means "state or region" and i understand why it is in the word
means "temple" and of course it must be part of this word
But what is the function of here?
|
Its English translation does not express the meaning of ''. Also, '' means national and country here rather than state or province. According to Wikipedia, "Buddhist temples established **in each of the provinces** of Japan". So, here '' means split up ''. That is why a lot of this kind of temples exist everywhere in Japan. You can see its detailed explanations here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Can です be used attributively (as a modifier of a noun)?
Goo dictionary lists the (attributive) form of copula as but does not provide an example of an attributive usage. Can be really used attributively? I have problems finding any example of it.
|
According to this page, the attributive connects to only and .
>
>
>
It's also possible to say and at the end of a sentence, but this / is usually categorized as a sentence-end particle rather than a noun.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "copula, attributive"
}
|
Was simply 思う omitted here?
The sentence in question:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
For full context: <
My attempt at translation:
> On the other hand, (I thought that) they grow to adulthood in the blink of an eye (and) I became a bit sad.
Well, I think that or (to chain the {}{}{} phrase to the ... phrase) was just omitted after the particle here, but I want to be sure that I'm right and didn't misinterpret the sentence out of flippancy.
|
I think you are misunderstanding means, it doesn't apply here. is when you think (you are not certain if is a fact or not, you think it may be true).
So there is no (I thought that) in this sentence. It is a fact that how the speaker felt and the speaker realized the fact the children grown up so quickly. {}{}{} is also a fact that how he felt because of the reason "the children grown up so quickly".
The speaker do not "think" () he become bit sad, the speaker simply feel sad.
So how I would translate is:
(this is a speaking sentence and speaker is speaking in a very casual way like express to a close friend with a sensation feeling, so maybe you should consider express in such way.)
> "On the other hand, they grown up quick... in just a blink of an eye... That made me little sad...."
This might not be a perfect translation, but I hope it gives you some direction.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.