INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water
A recent post about translation reminded me of the following saying:
Before enlightenment, chop wood carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood carry water.
It is said to be coming from zen buddhism, which is commonly referred to as a Japanese school of buddhism. I was wondering if this saying is actually commonly used in Zen (in Japan), and especially what the writing would be.
Although it seems interesting, I am by no means a practitioner of buddhism. I came across this saying a lot when searching the internet, but never with a source of translation. Zen originated in China and buddhism uses a lot of sanskrit texts, so perhaps the saying is not of Japanese origin in the first place, but it never hurts to ask, right? | This page attributes the saying to the Chinese proverb
>
after Wu Li (). In Japanese I could only find blog posts that said the saying comes from English. Searching Chinese pages, however, there are almost no exact hits and Wu Li was a painter and poet, but a convert to Catholicism. Smells like a saying that fits well with the Western concept of Zen Buddhism, but has little to do with it. Maybe someone fluent in Chinese can help find out more. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, expressions"
} |
Is 以降 inclusive?
If I say:
> 16[]{}
It means I cannot participate after the 16th.
However, what about on the 16th? Is it also implied that I cannot participate on the 16th either? Or, that I can participate on the 16th, but not after? | Yes, it is inclusive. All the similar phrases that use are inclusive: . However, unfortunately a lot of people do not know this and use them carelessly without thinking.
If you wanted to express "After the 16th but not including it", you could say:
> 16
However, I would be more inclined to say:
> 17 | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 19,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "time"
} |
What's the difference between もともと and そもそも?
What's the difference between the usage and meaning of and ?
They both seem to mean something like "from the start/to begin with/originally" in dictionaries, but I believe their usage differs. I've seen numerous explanations by searching:
* The accepted answer at this Chiebukuro page says that it's a difference of time for and logic for .
* This page says that , but not can be used for expressing the essence of things or for criticizing other people, and that the former is subjective and the latter is objective.
* Another page in that same thread says that is the state before a change, and is used for how things come about/the essence of the situation etc.
While dictionary definitions for and are very similar, I think the examples there are making me lean more towards the second explanation, but I think there also might be some other ways which they differ. | I think all three answers you listed pretty much nails it. I'll add some examples.
(1) -> good
(2) -> good
(3) -> ok
(4) -> weird
All sentences above roughly mean "it's my house, so you should leave". But the implied reasoning is subtly different. In (1), the implied reason is that "This has been my house (i.e. history), so you should leave". In (2), the reason is "This is by logic (e.g. legally) my house"
In (3), the implied reason now changes to "This house had been and is mine, so you should leave". Now, (4) sounds a bit weird because implies logical ground, yet the speaker is using past tense. That draws attention from the listener because it implies that that particular logic does not stand anymore. Why would somebody leave the house if the logic is not valid anymore?
-> good
The above sound again ok, because it merely states that by logic that house had been this persons, but now it is not anymore. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
I have no idea what this is saying. Can you have two topics in a sentence?
This sentence looks like it has two topics in it. But when I try to translate it, it doesn't make sense (to me obviously). My direct translation is: `A white box on top of the couch a green lamp is on top of the desk.` Obviously, that's not gonna work. To me, it's like the first phrase is missing a verb. What am I missing? | As ssb and fefe wrote, the sentence consists of two clauses which share the main verb . In this particular case, it would be easier to read if the author put a (“”) in the sentence:
>
However, unlike commas in English, in Japanese is rarely ~~(if ever)~~ grammatically required. Authors are free to use wherever they feel that it makes sense to make a pause when pronounced. (But see this post by snailplane for an example where omitting would make a sentence ungrammatical.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particle に, syntax, particle は"
} |
How do I express "to survive" in a more metaphorical sense?
My friend published a multi-part video on Facebook. I wanted to comment "I survived for only one episode", as in "It was so bad I couldn't keep watching after just one episode", but I wasn't sure which word would fit for "survived". (I'm also not really sure this is a metaphorical usage.)
I thought about:
> 1
>
> 1
But, I think both sound really, really ridiculous. | Yes, both are bad.
"1" would be "it's down to the [last] one episode", and thus it's actually the opposite of what you want to convey.
"1" would mean "all but one episode were lost", and again it doesn't make sense (but given the context, it'll probably be understood.)
If I were you, I'd go with | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, translation"
} |
Kanji reading: 一人KY、実？中
This morning I took this picture, finding the `KY` poster amusing:
!enter image description here
**QUESTION:** What is the kanji before `` ?
In Gjiten I can't find it by combining the radicals of and , nor by number of strokes (17?) plus radical.
I guess the poster says "If you don't pay attention to your environment, you are at risk" (which the side text says too), but knowing the kanji would confirm or infirm this hypothesis. | It says KY
The word you're looking for, {}, means "put into practice." You were having trouble finding this because it's on the left, not . The meaning depends on what KY is. As user snailplane points out, it likely means {}, which would give the phrase KY the meaning of "Individual disaster readiness/prevention/preparedness in effect," or something more elegant along those lines.
The right side text, , means "you (have to) protect yourself." The stuff on the far left and far right seem irrelevant, although I'm not sure which side text you're referring to. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, meaning"
} |
Volitional + と + Verb
_(In this question, I will use "Volitional" to mean "V-()".)_
As I understand it, `Volitional + + ` is a phrase meaning "to try to do something". I've also seen similar phrases, but with different verbs instead of ``. Here are some examples, some of which may be incorrect:
> * {}
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
I'd like to analyze this as a general pattern, `Volitional + + Verb`. Here are my questions:
1. Is it a mistake to try to analyze this as a general pattern?
2. What exactly is the grammar in this pattern?
3. Specifically, what function does `` have?
4. Is there a fixed list of verbs that can be used after `` ?
Please let me know if I'm thinking about this the wrong way. | Here is how I would categorize these usages. There are probably other ways to explain them, and I do not claim that mine is the best in any sense.
(1) , , and are just the usual use of the particle which signifies quotation, and there is nothing special about the combination of a volitional and . For example, I think that particle in the following two sentences is used in the same way:
> I thought, “I will go abroad in the winter vacation.”
> I thought, “This exercise is easy.”
(2a) is a fixed phrase which signifies “try to (do).”
> try to answer the telephone
> try to grab a star
(2b) A combination of a volitional and can be also used adverbially to signify “trying to (do)” or “in an attempt to (do).”
> stand up (trying) to answer the telephone
> extend one’s arm trying to grab a star
I am not sure what in the question is supposed to mean, but it can be usage (2b) if the rest of a sentence is arranged appropriately. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 22,
"tags": "verbs, particle と, volitional form"
} |
What might be the meaning of the word or phrase 'こよかな'
I cannot really comprehend koyokana in the following short sentence: shoppu itte koyokana.
What meaning does koyokana give to the "shoppu itte" part. How could I divide koyokana in mind: koyo ka na or ko yo ka na | " " is a slangy way of saying the following:
>
Assuming the subject is first person, here is how one can break it down:
To the store
Shall I go [to the store] (literally "shall I go to the store and come back"). * is the volitional form of . Without a question word, this could be translated as "Let's go [to the store]."
question word
indicates pondering this question. As a particle at the end of a sentence, can denote emotion or emphasis. The more extended it is the more emphasis, i.e.," "
So in natural English, the sentence becomes:
> Hmmm, should I go to the store or not? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
Syllable final -t in early modern Japanese?
There is an unsourced claim in the Wikipedia article on Early Modern Japanese that its phonology admitted syllable-final /t/.
This seems unlikely, since to my knowledge all reconstructions going back to OJ posit the same gross syllable structure as the modern language.
Does anyone know where this claim originated, and whether it's true? | I think it's fairly widely acknowledged that Middle Japanese introduced syllable-final /m/, /n/ and /t/ because of Chinese loanwords, and that first the /m/ and /n/ merged into /N/, later /t/ turned into /tu/.
I think you are right that syllable-final /t/ has never existed in _native_ Japanese vocabulary. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "phonology"
} |
Why are movies/video-clips counted with 本?
I just noticed in my Facebook uploads that for my videos, it says I have `25`. What's the reasoning behind using `` to count videos or movie clips? The only line of reasoning I can come up with would be thinking of the the movies as as old reel of actual film
!enter image description here
Even though they are circular, they are more flat than long, so I would think those would be counted as `` instead of ``.
So what's the reasoning for using ``? | A good resource for this type of question is . It includes the following:
>
There is further information on various cases when it may be counted as , , , (kan), (koma), , , etc. For more details, I recommend consulting this at a library or getting your own copy. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "counters"
} |
Difference in nuance between 頂ければと思います, 頂けませんか, and 頂きたいんですけども
I've recently started using the expression , but I'm not 100% sure about its precise nuance.
Is there any difference in nuance between
*
*
* ?
To my non-native ear, the first feels formal, the second very standard and the third a tad more casual. Apart for the difference in usage that would ensue, is there any difference in directness (in the sense that ~ is more direct than ~)? | * comes from something like -te itadakereba (saiwai) to omoimasu (as far as I know). It's most certainly polite, but it does have an ellipsis in the middle, and that's not good, usually, in terms of politeness. It means "If you could just do (I would be glad/you would save me/etc.)"... so you're asking for a favor, but you don't really think the listener will say "no" as a reply.
* is (the most) polite and formal. It's still a real question, and this is really important, specially in terms of politeness.
* isn't a question and you have "n-desu kedo", explicative form, plus a contraction (that I really don't like because of gaaru's way of speaking... but this is a matter of personal preference). At least I would use ...keredomo.
I'd use the first one with a coworker, the second one even with my boss, the third one in different occasions (when I want to be polite, but not particularly formal). At least this is the way I've always looked at these expressions. I hope it helps. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "nuances, politeness, word choice"
} |
足って used in Ponyo Song
> **Possible Duplicate:**
> What are these forms: , ?
> Is this equivalent to
From the Ponyo theme song:
!
Why is given the conjugation, as if it's a verb? I usually only see that for , which has nothing to do with feet. What's going on here grammatically? | This isn't a verb -- it's the usual quotative . The meaning is hence something like "These things called feet are neat, aren't they. Let's have a run!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
} |
Difference in nuance between 証明 and 証拠?
I know that both of these words mean "proof", but I can't figure out what the difference is, or if there's any at all. Can anyone explain to me the difference in nuance between these two words? | is used for conceptual proof, e.g. in the mathematical sense.
is substantial proof in the sense of evidence, like evidence used in court, e.g. as in the phrase
>
> to be backed by evidence | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "nuances"
} |
Why is 仕事 pronounced as こと
> **Possible Duplicate:**
> Why are some lyrics words written in kanji whose usual reading is not how it is sang?
So, we were reading Hunter X Hunter manga in Japanese (page 16 if you're interested) and stumbled upon the following sentence:
> {}
And we figured out the following (probably incorrect) translation:
> The truth is, I was always aware about my father's (work? thing?) ...
The furigana next to says and we thought it to be strange, because we usually encounter as (work), moreover we were unable to find the reading in the dictionary.
To sum it up: Why is read as in this case and what does the sentence actually mean? | I am not familiar with the manga, but this is a fairly common way of expressing words that have a double meaning. For example, judging solely based on the one sentence you posted, I would guess that the speaker's father has some unusual job, like maybe he's an assassin or something like that. What the speaker would be actually saying would be , but what he specifically means is that he knows about his father's job. Just a way of showing textually both what he says and what he means. You'll often see this in subtitles for movies as well. One simple example I always remember is when I saw Tron here, they always said {}. So just think of the top as what they say and the bottom as what they mean. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pronunciation, creative furigana"
} |
Do people say じゅういち or いちいち when saying 11?
I heard this sentence.
I looked up and it could mean `11` or `one-by-one` or `separately`. I'm guessing this in sentence it's saying 11. However, I'm wondering if normal for saying 11. | You got it wrong. Even if it meant `11`, I would then ask you "11 what?". `11` does not mean much.
I have not met any cases where it means `11`. If I check it out, there is nothing about it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, numbers"
} |
How to say "items remaining from last meeting"?
I am setting up a meeting agenda and of the items is "covering the items left over from last meeting".
I though something like "” Would have worked but it turns out that isn't a word and I have having trouble finding alternatives.
Any ideas? | A Japanese here. is a totally appropriate word that would be correctly understood in a business setting. But boy, you are right, it's not in the dictionary!
If you insist on finding a word that's in the dictionary, I'd suggest or . and are often used in a business set up (sometimes you see a box labeled), and / both refer vaguely to a thing, an issue, or a matter, making it usable in a broad context. Plus they are formal enough. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, translation"
} |
Is かわいい wago or kango?
is sometimes spelled in kanji as . This seems to be an reading which points to a Chinese loan, and Chinese does have this word.
However, the meaning of as "cute" in Chinese seems to have been a borrowing from Japanese. Originally it meant what its individual kanji meant, "able/deserved to be loved". For example, the Chinese Union Version of the Bible, translated in 1919, often uses to mean "deserving of love", which is incongruent with its modern meaning borrowed from Japanese.
Also, seems to have been in . would have come from "pai" which would be a stretch from _on'yomi_.
So seems to be . Why then did it get assigned a pseudo- reading? | It is native Japanese (). It is a compound of kao () and hayui (). A simplified view of the phonological development is kapopayu-ki > kaɸoɸayu-ki > kawowayu-ki > kaowayu-ki > kawayu-ki > kawayu-i > kawai-i. Other than the normal p > ɸ > w > Ø, the two major changes are 1) merge of owa > wa and yu > i. is ateji (). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "words, readings, loanwords"
} |
Explanation / Meaning of らしく in 例文
Hi in this sentence '' is used, but I am not really sure about the meaning of . I found this explanation for it, but it doesn't helps me to understand its meaning in the sentence:
* way to use is to indicate that a person seems to be a certain thing due to his behavior.
**** | is one of the way of saying something seems to be a certain way. EDICT has
> **** _aux-adj_
> (1) seeming ... (expresses judgment based on evidence, reason or trustworthy hearsay)/appearing .../(suf,adj-i)
> (2) (after a noun, adverb or adjective stem) -ish/like a .../typical of .../appropriate for .../becoming of .../worthy of the name ...
and is the corresponding adverb.
In this sentence, meaning (1) is intended, i.e.
> ****
> **Seeming** to have noticed someone looking at him, he abruptly lifted his head and at the other end of the street found a cat staring his way. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
pronunciation and meaning of the word 干支崩年
I have this sentence from a text which mentions the death of two emperors, but I cannot find the meaning and pronunciation of in it. The sentence is:
> "394427"
I cannot find the expression in the online dictionary. If I copy only the first 2 kanji it lists the reading of as "eto" or "kanshi" and the meaning as "sexagenary cycle; Chinese astrology". But together with and it doesn't list anything.
Does anyone know of this expression? | Looking at this article, it looks like (in this case at least,) the meaning of this compound has to do with describing the reigning period of particular emperors (in the Kojiki) by using the sexagenary cycle instead of giving a particular Western calendar year. Historians can then estimate emperor reign length against Western (or other) calendars by using this sexagenary cycle notation.
Also, the compound itself can be read: .
Interesting topic!
_**Reference:_**
1. <
2. < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
Function of に in 怒るに怒れない
In the book I'm reading, I came across the following sentence:
> []{}[]{} _(furigana added by me)_
My translation is something like "I couldn't stay angry [at him]". ("My anger melted away.")
I don't actually understand the grammar, though. The phrase has what appears to be particle- following the dictionary form of a verb. It sounds contrastive. I can't seem to find this pattern in my dictionaries, though, so I feel unsure.
I'm interpreting it as (), with a zero-nominalizer after the verb. Is this correct?
Is this a set phrase preserving old grammar of some kind? | This is a common pattern that means "even if I wanted to V, I cannot V" or "no matter what, I cannot V". As such, in your sentence, it means " I could not get mad even if I wanted to.".
As for the grammar, this is a conjunctive particle (). Rather than attaching to the "dictionary form" (), though, it attaches to the attributive (). That is why there is no need for a (zero-) nominalizer. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, set phrases, particle に, nominalization, zero particle"
} |
How do you write the sound "wu"?
As in "Wu Tang" or something similar. Would it be something like ``? I know that "wool" is written as ``, but 1) the "woo" sound is pronounced slightly differently than "wu", and 2) `` doesn't give you the "pushed" sound of the 'w'.
And not just at the beginning of a word. Specifically, I was watching this video of a guy who goes by the name of "Swoozie", visiting Tokyo. How would he (or others) write that name? |
As per Mr.Ito, "In loanwords, the former is usually transcribed as and the latter , as you know. " | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "pronunciation, katakana"
} |
Is there a term for using conjugating verbs such that the sentence continues with another clause?
I'm referring specifically to using the form to form a pseudo conjunction, and specifically the transformation of verbs in formal writing by using the verb stem instead of form.
For example the following sentence:
> ****
Is there a grammatical term for this, either a verb form or some sort of usage term? | I believe that when you use the as a conjunction, the form is referred to as the . This usage is described by .
* * *
For future reference, here's the definition for from (p.475):
> ##
>
>
>
>
> ****
> ****
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
> ****
> ****
> ****
>
>
>
> ①
>
>
> ****
>
> ②
>
>
> ****
>
> ②③ **** ****
>
>
> ****
> ****
>
> **** ****
>
>
> **** **** **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, terminology, renyōkei"
} |
The origin of one of the usages of 狼{おおかみ}
I was watching the anime , and heard the following line:
> []{}
> "Men are all wolves!"
I was curious as to what it means to call someone a "wolf", so looked up in Daijisen and it came up with "someone who feigns being gentle, but in reality is a terrifying person" in the 2nd definition.
But why exactly did come to have this connotation? Does it have similar origins to the English phrase "a wolf in sheep's clothing"? Or something else? | > Does it have similar origins to the English phrase "a wolf in sheep's clothing"?
Yes. A better dictionary would confirm that. From :
> , 2: ( **** )
Early citations for this are from c. 1780. Early citations for may be found from 1638. Thus, the chronology is also in order. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, etymology"
} |
Is みんな being used as a "counter"?
This is from Minna no Nihongo Chapter 15. It's a description of Santa Claus.
>
seems like a counter of sorts (I don't know how else to describe it) for . I always thought it was of the same grammatical category as and . So is basically a "counter"? All the time? Most of the time? Depends on the situation? | I think {} can mean "all" when used adverbially, as well as "everyone" or "everything":
>
> "But the children of the world all know me."
You can also use to refer to more than people:
>
> "All of the cheese has been eaten."
There's some more examples at the Yahoo dictionary definition for {} (for information on the difference between {} and {}, see also How do you know when to use or ?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "syntax, counters"
} |
meaning of 名種設定?
A friend of mine asked me to give him a quick translation of an app he downloaded. One of the buttons in the main menu had this written. I wasn't able to find what it means. | I think you might have confused for , or "various settings". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "compounds"
} |
I am confused about the meaning of the conjugations of [買]{か}う
I am on Livemocha and it says that means "I am going to buy it." But I figure that should be . Also I know that is "I am buying milk." But for some reason, I thought that . could also mean "I am buying milk." In short, I'm confused about when/how to use which conjugation for what. | The basic form in Japanese like actually means both present tense and future tense. The exact tense depends on usage. For example: (I buy milk everyday)(I am going to buy milk) are using different tenses despite using the same .
The difference between and is not on tense, but on the focus. focuses on the action of buying while focuses on the action of going (out). In most cases they can mean the same thing but in some cases no. For example: (Buy stocks online) will never be said as , as there is no "going out" action involved.
The difference between and is that the first one is present continuous while the second one is in future tense. A proper translation would be "I am buying milk now" and "I am going to buy milk"
Sorry for the long answer. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations"
} |
Where does the suffix 〜がる come from?
I've read that several bits of Japanese come from contractions with ``:
* `` comes from ` + ` (source)
* `` comes from ` + ` (source)
* `` comes from ` + ` (source)
* `` comes from ` + ` (source)
* Adjective forms like `` come from inflecting ` + ` (source)
Because contraction with `` seems to have occurred quite a few times, I started wondering if the suffix `` (as in `` or ``) was a contraction of ` + `. I realize this is baseless speculation, but it sounded plausible to me, so I tried to look it up to see if it was right. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about the etymology of `` online, and my dictionaries don't say anything on the subject either.
Is this possible? Is there a better explanation? | This paper briefly lists this as a source:
> [...]
I do not have access to , but it seems it does not support your theory, rather suggests that it derives from and/or {}.
* * *
**Update 2021-12-08:**
The is available (for now, at least) via Kotobank, and the relevant entry is here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "etymology, contractions"
} |
How does ウァ differ from ワ and ヴァ?
I know Wine is written as . I've also seen Whiskey as . In both english words, the 'w' sound are relatively similar (although slightly different). I'm assuming would be somewhat like . But then there is 'Valentinus' written as and I don't understand why is used as VA (instead of ).
Could anyone please point out what the differences (especially between and ) are, I think I'm confused (maybe because we don't have the english 'w' sound in German). | It seems that there is a tradition to describe the sound of Latin /va/ as (which would be pronounced the same as ) in Japanese.
This might spill over into Latin words used in actual Japanese, but the result is mostly a stylistic effect and/or a snobbery effect. There is only one /w/ phoneme in Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "loanwords, phonetics"
} |
What's the difference between 姿{すがた} and 形{かたち}?
Could someone explain the difference between {} and {}?
I've looked up both words, but I'm still not clear on what the distinction is, or how much overlap there is between the two. My mental concept right now is that represents the "outline" or "shape" of something, and represents the features within the shape. I'm afraid this might be terribly wrong!
_(I'm also curious about , but I'm not sure I should include it in this question.)_
Can anyone help? | almost always refers to a person's appearance in a kind of poetic sense. Usually when you refer to you're referring to some kind of beauty or special quality to someone's appearance. It's possible to use this to describe an object, but as I mentioned it takes on a little bit more of a poetic quality. For example:
> (4) ―
on the other hand is a simple word referring to shape. You can use with just about anything and it doesn't carry any extra baggage along with it. So for example you could normally say but not . The latter is only possible when you're deliberately trying to evoke a certain feeling or image around an inanimate object. can also be used in more metaphorical ways and with other nuances, but in terms of how it's different from , you can think of it in terms of people and general shape. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
How do you use counters past 10?
Counter words have different readings for 1 through 10.
How do I use them for number 11 and beyond?
Do I change the counter's pronunciation based on the last digit of the number? So if the number is 21, do I use the reading for 1?
What if it's 20? Would the original counter be used? Like "nijuu-nin" for 20 people? I can't seem to find a guide for using counters past 10. | Here's an article. And another article.
Also, once you know the counter no matter the number you can use them as usual.
* I will buy 2 books = hon o ni satsu kaimasu
* There are 3 people here = koko ni hito ga san nin imasu
* There are 20 people = hito ga ni juu nin imasu
* There are 21 people here = koko ni hito ga ni juu ichi nin imasu
* I drank 4 cups of coffee = watashi wa koohii o yon hai nomimashita | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "counters"
} |
Help to understand the ending verb "動かねーんじゃね"
Original sentence: **** I can't understand the structure of the last verb. So far I understood that (conjugated form) + (negative particle) + (???) + (question particle). What does mean | is the conjugated form of the verb
is the colloquial version of the negative auxiliary verb
is the colloquial version of the nominalization particle
is the colloquial version of the auxiliary verb (the dictionary form is )+ the particle
(or , or ) is also the colloquial version of (but the / here is an adjective not an auxiliary verb)
So... more politely it'd be like or And... if you put it more feminine, I'd say... (I think it's like "I wonder if it wouldn't work" "I doubt it would work" or "It wouldn't work, would it?" ... sorry for my poor English) ^^ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "conjugations, colloquial language, contractions, negation"
} |
Does 寒気がする really mean "have a chill" or is it just cold?
Can the expression:
{}
really mean feel cold and also have a chill (as per many dictionaries)?
To me, to have a chill/bug means to be sick from a virus/cold for a short period: have I missed something?
For reference I give the followings nouns fitting the construction "”to sense:
> [smell, sound, feel, taste] | When you are sick (especially when you have a fever), you sometimes feel the cold as if it were colder than it actually is. [[]{}]( means this feeling of coldness. It does not matter whether it is caused by viruses or bacteria, nor does it matter whether it is for a short period or for a long period. As Chocolate noted, it also means the similar feeling caused by fear. The word “chill” in English has a similar meaning.
(Do not confuse with a separate word [[]{}]( which is written in the same way in kanji.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
How does のは work in this sentence?
Supposedly this means "It is 200 yen that he has.". But I am really not familiar with this sentence construction. Therefore, I'm not sure how everything before works with the rest of the sentence. Or what is doing in the first place. | >
>
> He has 200 yen.
>
> / /
>
> He / has (lit. is holding) / (what he is holding){because makes into a noun="what he has"}
>
> /
>
> as for / 200 yen is
So literally, it would be, "As for what he is holding, it is 200 yen" - "As for what he has, it is 200 yen" - "As for what he has, it's 200 yen" - "He has 200 yen"
turns into a noun phrase, while means "as for".
In natural English, it becomes "He has 200 yen." Without context, I cannot ascertain what is emphasized -see comments below as well as this question:
AB emphasizing B, rather than A
Depending on context, perhaps an implied meaning would be, "All he has is 200 yen." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particles, syntax, particle の"
} |
What's the (real) difference between 飲む and 食べる?
When I first started learning Japanese, I learned that meant "drink" and meant "eat". These translations seemed to work for a while, but then I learned that you could things that you can't drink, like , , or .
While going through various definitions for , I found one in particular that caught my eye (which I've abridged here, taken from the ):
>
>
>
It got me thinking: is the fundamental difference between and whether you chew before you swallow? Can I express these words as:
1. "to pass something through the mouth and into the body _without_ chewing"
2. "to pass something through the mouth and into the body _with_ chewing"
Or is there a better way to explain the difference? | I completely agree that the difference between and is whether you chew it or not. For example, “eat some soup” is , not .
The entry for (, ) in Daijisen has a slightly more detailed explanation in a usage note, although the purpose of the note is to explain the difference between and :
> ()
My translation:
> means “swallow something (liquid, small solid, etc.) which was put to the mouth into the body without chewing” as in (drink some water), (take medicine (orally)), (a snake which swallowed an egg). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 18,
"question_score": 20,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What does "クズな" mean?
Original sentence: Google translates it as "Referee just scrap!" So if we analyze the sentence:
(referee) (GA particle) (???) (only?)
What part of speech is and what does the sentence really mean? | () literally means , waste, trash, litter, garbage, rubbish... and it's often used like "crap" or "a piece of crap". I think it means something like []{} or []{} (worthless, good-for-nothing..?).
The referee
the case particle as a subject marker
crap, rubbish
The auxiliary verb
only, It's only~~
So I think it's like... "It's only he's a crap referee!" "It's only because the referee is rubbish!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Is ない an "auxiliary verb"?
My dictionary says {} means "auxiliary verb". This sounds intuitively correct; means verb, so sounds like a type of verb.
But the looks like an auxiliary _adjective_ , not an auxiliary verb.
This is confusing. I suppose I don't know exactly what a is. Does it mean that is a type of verb? That seems strange, because it doesn't look much like a verb. Or is a wider category than just "auxiliary verbs"? That seems strange, too, because they're called .
What exactly is ? | In Japanese, a is a conjugatable particle, as opposed to which do not conjugate. Like noun, verb etc, is now considered a part of of speech. The terminology is rather unfortunate, but originally (early Meiji) it was sub-classified under the category of verb (). This is due to the influence of English in which represents "auxiliary verbs" which express tense (will, shall, have, be), mood (will, shall, may, must, can, be), passive (be) etc.
Regarding nai, as the dictionary states, it attaches to the irrealis () form. It conjugates, thus having multiple forms: nakaro (< nakara), naku, nai, nakere. More precisely, the only form is nak-. To this, the verb ar- attaches resulting in the other forms:
* naku + ara > nakara: To this, attaches -u and /au/ coalesce into o:.
* naku: The adverbial / conjunctive form () as seen in all adjectives.
* nai < naki. The attributive form as seen in all adjectives.
* nakere: naku + are > nakere. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "conjugations, negation, terminology, auxiliaries"
} |
Questions about the term 自殺志願者
My Japanese friend used the term jokingly in a journal entry, saying she sometimes wondered if she qualified for such a position. I could not find a specific dictionary definition for this word, but found it translated as:
> suicide wanna-be
>
> those who want to kill oneself
>
> would-be suicide
>
> suicide volunteer/ suicide candidate (the latter being the most literal translation)
In common context is this word ironic? Is it a comedic term in and of itself? If it is a common word, is it used mostly in a clinical or in a jocular way? | usually means its literal meaning: “a person who has a desire to commit suicide.” Although anything can be used in an ironic way, I do not think that it is particularly common to use this word ironically.
I have seen the word or similar words in a derogatory sense, “a person who does such a stupid and dangerous thing that it cannot be explained unless he/she wants to kill him/herself.” | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "words"
} |
Equivalent of someone's valentine
How would I describe the designated object of someone's affections on Valentine's Day?
The meaning I'm referring to is meaning 2 on Wiktionary:
> A person to whom a valentine is given or received, especially on February 14th.
>
> Won't you be my valentine?
Goo.ne and Yahoo! Japan describe the concept in Japanese as
> .
Is there a word for this concept in Japanese, and if so, what is it?
If it's relevant, it's being used to describe a guy in Japan, rather than a woman in western countries. | I think the closest word would be , although the meaning might be a bit different.
refers to the person the women is confessing her love by giving him chocolate at Valentine. It's probably close to the English word "Crush", although it is implied that the woman is actively trying to get together with him.
As for the phrase `Won't you be my valentine?`, I think `` could be the closest. Note however that this sounds more juvenile compared to `Won't you be my valentine?`.
These special chocolates are called and are distinguishable from by how fancy it is, how intricate the wrapping is, what the content of the accompanying message card is etc. (Just about any Japanese male can write a book on how to distinguish from ;)
For most Japanese women, valentine day is pretty much the only occasion where they can confess their love to men (instead of vice versa), so it's very significant. Japanese teenagers are particularly obsessed with in Valentine season. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, word requests"
} |
What does はくださらない mean?
I am having problems finding a word in this sentence in the dictionary:
> ?
Unknown word: \-
The English translation is: "And I don't suppose you're going to tell me why you're here, of all places?"
I get the meaning thanks of the translation, but I wonder which word comes from. Looking up gives no results. | () is the negative form of .
() is the honorific form of .
So (+)+ is the negative form of + and + is the honorific of +.
(The negative form of + is (+)+.)
The is the particle([]{}) that comes with the negative (I think)...^^;
Someone correct me if I'm wrong | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 18,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation"
} |
に vs で with state of being (but no verb)
All the vs comparisons I can find discuss using them with verbs. However I recently wanted to say something like "I am alone at home", and phrased it without a verb:
>
But that got me thinking whether it could also have been:
>
because my understanding is that is used in a similar way with / for "existence in a place".
Google has lots of results for both. Can I use either? If so, what's the difference? | I don't see much difference between:
* []{}[]{}and
* []{}[]{}and
* []{}[]{}and
I think we tend to use in daily conversation and when we write when we use / etc. to mean "alone/there's nobody else in the room/house".
However, I see a slight difference between:
* []{}and
* []{}and
* []{}and
I think ~~/ means "I'm (physically) alone/Nobody else is here", while ~~/ can be used for both "I'm (physically) alone" and "I'm (mentally) alone. I'm isolated. Nobody talks to me in class"...
(And I think this is why []{}[]{}(I've been isolated and lonely in class these days) sound fine but sound awkward.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, particle に, particle で"
} |
How should I bid farewell to a superior?
My boss is leaving soon after years of service. What would be a good way for me to express my gratitude for all of his guidance and help?
I am somewhat familiar with the expression but am unsure if this is an appropriate occasion to use it. Are there other phrases that would be more suitable in a corporate environment? | I would say the expression is spot on. Especially since you are trying to express gratitude for guidance, which is contained in the word "looking after; help; aid; assistance". Moreover, is formal and certainly suitable for a corporate environment. To adapt it to your situation, you could say, e.g.
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "expressions, politeness, set phrases, culture, business japanese"
} |
What function does 「しいて」 serve in this sentence?
I have this sentence in a JLPT study textbook, as an example of the use of ``:
> {} ****
The translation is, "If you don't want to eat it, you don't have to, so only eat what you can." I can get that meaning, but, it seems to me that if `` weren't in the sentence, it would still mean the exact same thing.
> {}
The book says that `` is "an expression that shows compulsion", and does not give much else for explanation. So it doesn't really say enough to help me see what `` brings to the party.
What exactly does `` mean, and how does it make a difference in the two sentences above? | WWWJDIC writes (adv) as "by force". In your sentence, is roughly equivalent to , i.e. overdoing it in some way. A more literal translation might be
>
> If you don't want to eat anything, don't force yourself (to eat) and just eat as much as you can/want. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, jlpt"
} |
Can the term メリークリスマス be seen as politically incorrect?
In some countries, some people avoid using "Merry Christmas" and instead say Happy Holidays:
> Thought by some to be a politically correct alternative to Merry Christmas and/or Happy New Year when greeting people in public places due to concern over those who might not celebrate Christmas.
(I'm not sure who'd be offended by Happy New Year - people who don't use a Gregorian calendar?)
Is it safe to use ? If not, are there "politically correct" alternatives?
Searching jisho.org for season's did get some results literally translating as season's greetings, but I expect phrases written in kanji aren't likely to be politically correct euphemisms for "Merry Christmas". | I believe most Japanese think of Christmas as a secular, commercial holiday (gift giving, christmas decorations, etc) rather than a religious celebration of the birth of Christ, so I would think that most would not even think to be offended. It might be out of place to say at a religious (Shinto or Buddhist) shrine or celebration, but I would think this would be obvious. The only reason it became politically correct to say Happy Holidays in the U.S., for instance, is due to the increased presence of religious minorities or atheists in what had been a firmly majority Christian nation. As Japan is one of the most secular nations on earth (with a Christian population of less than 2% of the general populace), I would think this consideration to be mostly irrelevant. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, offensive words"
} |
Why is Jordan (the country) spelt ヨルダン?
I recently found out that Jordan (the country) is spelt , not , which is how it's spelt in a person's name.
Is this based on how it's pronounced in Arabic and/or Hebrew, or how it's pronounced in a European language other than English? | Wikipedia says that Jordan was indeed () until 2003, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs changed it to ().
Jordan is not pronounced in either Hebrew or Arabic (see Wikipedia for a romanization), but in Hebrew the J is [j] rather than a [dʒ]. Whether the change > occurred because J was known as [j] from Hebrew (via the Latin Bible: Iordanis "River Jordan" > , see Chocolate's comment below; also cf. "Jew"), from loanwords from Germanic languages (like Dutch, German, Scandinavian languages) or from all of those together is unclear. What seems to be clear, however, is that the Japanese regarded to be the more natural choice for the transcription of Jordan into , when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to change to , together with 59 other country names and 88 place names. (See this archived newspost from the ). The people of Japan had apparently been complaining that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was spelling country and place names differently from everybody else. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords"
} |
Relation between -ますよ and -ましょう
They sound alike. Are they cognate historically?
Morphologically, is in both cases a particle or part of the morpheme in -? | The short answer to your initial question is no. The historical/etymological spelling of was , which is the expected form of the volitional, since the irrealis () stem of is . Regular sound change explains the rest: becomes .
The same story applies to the consonant-stem () verbs: the old spelling for was (as seen here) etc. However, something strange happened to the vowel-stem () verbs; instead of → → ** or → → **, these were replaced by the forms with we know today. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "particles, verbs, etymology, suffixes"
} |
勤め vs 役目
What is the difference between and ?
Both seems to mean duty ( _something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation_ ), but what is the difference in their nuance and usage? | is closer to "role" in meaning. is what the "role" requires you to do or what people expect you to do corresponding to the role.
You can call them "duty" as they are both roughly what you have to do.
* a.)(That is your role.=That is what you have to do.)
* b.)(That is the role you have to take if you are a parent.)
* c.)(That is what you have to do.)
* d.)(That is what you have to do as a parent.)
is usually more direct and specific than . On the other hand, sounds more abstract and takes one step further than in meaning. Basically,
b.) says: you have to take this role, because you are a parent.
d..) says: being a parent includes this as what you have to do.
To summarize, is used based on who you are as is used based on what others think. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, nuances, meaning"
} |
When to use 洗濯する and 洗う？
I know that means: washing or laundering (clothes). And just means washing. When I'm talking about washing in general can I use the two words interchangeably? When do I have to use one word as opposed to the other? | (I moved my old comment to this answer with more detail.)
is a verb and is a noun. I assume that you want to compare and , which are both verbs.
When you are talking about washing _in general_ , you cannot use because is only for washing _clothes_ (as you wrote by yourself!). For example, it is incorrect to say . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, verbs"
} |
origin of 気にくわない/use of 食う
Does anybody know where the comes from?
> |i don't like his attitude
My dictionary tells me the expression means:
and the kanji is but I wonder does anyone understand the etymology? | There are several theories (or guesses, rather) on this page:
1. is used in the sense of , where means engaging or meshing of gears _or_ occlusion. Thus a more metaphorical use of .
2. is used in the sense of (or ; see def. 10 of ). Another metaphorical use.
3. replaced in the phrase , because was once close in meaning to / (cf. ). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
Where is the personal comparison in this phrase?
I was browsing a language exchange site and came across:
>
And the text under it (translation from the user who posted the entry) was:
> I'm hoping that you are cheerful and positive as me.
To me, translated semi-literally, that looks like "My hope (is you are a) bright, positive person". Where is the equivalent of "as me" in that sentence? Does "" act as both "My wish" and "As I am" in this context?
Or is the translation just not the same as the Japanese text? | This person is getting the "as me" from , but if we were to translate it directly we would probably say like me. My guess is that because this person didn't say "as ~ as me" they probably just put and got "as me" with the "like me" meaning in translation software.
So the Japanese is a little different from the English, and the English isn't perfect. But the comparison is in the phrase , or "like me." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
Different meaning of 何?
While reading some lyrics online, I stumbled upon the following phrase:
>
Which I could myself losely translate as following:
> If I lose **_what_** more (than I already have), will my heart be forgiven?
And this is a translation I found on the internet:
> If I lose any more than this, will my heart be forgiven
Now I'm wondering why means "Any more than this" rather than "What more than this"
Thanks | Their translation is wrong. Yours is accurate.
> If I lose what more (than I already have), will my heart be forgiven?
= My heart will be forgiven if I lose what? (on top of what I already lost)
= What else must I lose for my heart to be forgiven?
(As an aside, I'm not sure whether or not "heart being forgiven" is the best interpretation for the second part... it seems like it could have some other possible meanings, e.g. related to ? ...Not sure) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
Function of の in these phrases
I know that is used as a noun modifier. But recently I've come across these pharases ,.
The first phrases will be sth like strong person of heart/mind, which somehow differs from correct meaning strong-heart person (I think it should be ). And the second one, since clarify meaning for (as in ), I think it should be .
So why are used in these case? | Both could be without changing the meaning. In this case, though, it is possible to use in basically the same way without changing the meaning. This is not the same as the that you learned as a noun modifier, like in , but rather the nominative case (). I am not an expert on grammar, but there is a lengthy post on this subject here (in Japanese). You can also check it on wikipedia in whatever language you desire.
If you cannot read that page, basically it says that this construction comes from a classical Japanese construction that uses the word order {}{}, or some object plus a participle plus a noun. The example given on that page is the old phrase . In the example , would be that object, is the particle in question (), would be the participle adjective, and would be the noun.
If I've made any errors here then please someone who is better at grammar correct me, of course! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particle の"
} |
Is いったい (ittai) a "rude" expression?
The expression (ittai), as in
>
I translated as "What on earth do you want?" with the help of good ol' GT.
1) Is that correct?
2) Is the expression which GT translated as "on earth" considered a "rude" expression? | is not rude unless you make it rude. It has no inherent rudeness within it, but because it carries a fairly strong notion that one doesn't know what's going on, it can be seen as rude if you direct it at someone to express frustration. Like you say, I always liken it to the English phrase "on Earth," as in "What on Earth are you doing here?" This sentence could be read in a friendly way or a rude way, depending on context, intonation, etc. But I don't think it's inherently rude, but rather strong feelings of puzzlement are often used in rude ways.
A more neutral usage in Japanese would be like, for example, you heard a loud banging sound outside your house/door/wherever, and you said which I would translate as "I (am strongly perplexed and) wonder what on Earth happened?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "expressions"
} |
What does the internet slang "草生えた" mean?
I came across the term on the internet. There wasn't much context, but it didn't seem to mean that grass was growing. Is this a slang term?
What does it mean? I couldn't find it in any of my dictionaries. | Thanks to @Chocolate, I was able to learn what this word means, which is roughly that something was funny. Here are a couple sources:
1. <
2. <
Why does it mean something was funny? Well, as discussed in this question, strings of `w` (such as `wwwwww`) express laughter, like the English term "LOL". At some point, someone must have decided `wwww` looked like little blades of grass, so they came up with the expression `` ("grew grass") to indirectly express the same thing.
!wwwww-mowing bear | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 70,
"question_score": 67,
"tags": "slang, internet slang"
} |
Is "豪斯多拉利" an ateji way to write "Australia"?
Several years ago I invested some time and energy digging up more ways to write "Australia" in Japanese than I ever expected would exist:
* is the usual spelling these days
* is a rare old ateji I believe
* was a shorter ateji before the spelling reform
* is the previous after the spelling reform
* and are the pre- and post- spelling reform variants used in compounds
But just now I came across one I hadn't seen before:
>
Is this latest one also valid? How does it fit in with the others? Older, younger? Derived from Chinese or invented in Japan? Obsolete, archaic, or still in use?
And is it ateji or some other phenomenon? | > Interestingly I can find plenty of places listing it as a name for Australia but none mentioning its origin. I'd assume ateji but who knows... you may want to change the wording of the main question, though. And just to add to your search, this site lists 9 different ways to write Australia.
those 9 ateji that i listed on my blog are those that had been used in Japan; publications published in Japan.
but on the other hand, those that could be understood/used by the majority of the people living in present day Japan would only be two, i guess. and its abbreviation .
most of the ateji i listed, can be found on this dictionary " " ateji gairaigo jiten, published from , kashiwa shobou: which has references for each usage, mainly from Meiji era.
as far as i know, this dictionary is the best of its kind.
there are lists on the web that include those that are used/found only in China, Hongkong, Taiwan, Korea. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, names, spelling, ateji"
} |
Why is it (usually) wrong to say 人がある but OK to say ある人？
I fear I may be venturing again into "just because" territory, but this one bugs me.
We all know that you usually use (as in not ) to refer to living things, as in . Yet it is acceptable to use in the sense of "some" when the specifics are not important, so it's acceptable to say both , for example, as well as .
Is there a reason for this, or is it just an extension of that usage of (in which case why isn't it )? | Historically I think it was OK to use with living things. This is because in Chinese (the origin of ) does get used with living things.
In the modern Japanese grammar, in is called , a word that modifies a noun. At some point in time this evolved from a verb and several other forms of words, but I think a different classification reflects the degree of the divergence the modern form now has from the original verb form.
So I think it's probably more natural to think of in and as a verb as two separate words.
Note that can be OK in some context, for example in (those who are still in the school, please head home). Similarly, as verb can sometimes be combined with as a subject in some specific forms, such as . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Should I say 失礼{しつれい}します before hanging up the phone if the other person called me?
Phone etiquette is one of those things I still struggle with at times, often fumbling because I'm not sure what expression I'm supposed to use at a given time. at the end of a phone call is one of these. Technically if the other person is calling me, they're the ones "intruding," but if the conversation ends in such a way that I'm the one who is ending the conversation, it seems like I should say it even though the other person called me. I've had some weird moments where the other person said it and I just said it in return because I'm so used to saying "bye" "bye" in English.
Does the person calling always say it, or is it wiggly based on the feel of the conversation, or am I wrong and in fact both people say it? I don't usually get to hear _both_ ends of the conversation when I hear other people on the phone. | Both parties can use at the end of a phone call, and in fact it is usual that both parties say in turn. I think that a phone call is considered to be similar to a conversation between two people who met on the street in this regard. After such a conversation, both parties leave the place, so both say . Similarly, after a phone call, both parties leave the virtual “place” where the conversation took place. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "usage, politeness"
} |
What does 本調子 mean in a musical context?
When looking at musical instruments online ([]{} and {} in particular, but I guess this goes for more instruments), their is always listed. Some flutes are , some and some even .
When looking the word up on JDIC it says either:
* normal condition
* keynote; proper key;
The first translation seems illogical ('6 normal condition'), plus I've never heard of the term 'proper key' (and although English is not my native language, google doesn't yield much either). If it's just the key of the instrument, I don't see why numbers are being used to denote it. As far as I'm aware, Japan doesn't label musical notes by number.
When looking up , the result is this enumeration of pretty much every musical quality out there. Once again, not helpful.
* tune; tone; key; pitch; time; rhythm
Any musically minded people out there? | This refers to the base pitch of the instrument. refers to the tuning of an instrument, and the number is the type of tuning. Each number represents a semitone increase above the base key of low F, with F being 1. So if you have a , you have a Bb flute (F F# G G# A Bb (A#)). The others change accordingly.
On a side note, there is a word that carries the meaning "monotonous" in the sense that we use it in English, as in a monotonous (or boring) speech.
This site has some really good explanations if you want more information. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, music"
} |
Is it actually impolite to say ご苦労様 to a superior?
Conventional tells us that is used by superiors to subordinates and used by everyone, and this is backed up all over the internet and stated on some questions here, like this.
But it seems that this isn't always such an ironclad rule. For example there is this question on here that shows that the power relationship might not necessarily as strong as people say, and this site in particular has a question along similar lines and one (very lengthy) answer saying that, on the contrary, _should_ be used toward superiors because it has a stronger nuance of thankfulness for work, citing examples from politicians and other uses that emphasize the _role_ of the person rather than their _rank_ , and that it may be changing such that it is appropriate to use it outside of the context of rank.
In modern usage would it be a faux pas to say to a superior or to someone you don't know? Do native speakers really feel that is more thankful? | Jake Adelstein wrote last year on Twitter that in Yakuza's world, is almost prohibited and everybody use or . I did not find everything but I found few tweets.
> Lesson of the day for young yakuza: To the boss, (go-kuro-sama) never "go-kuro-san" and never, never "" (o-tsukare-sama).
He also said something specific for the journalism industry.
> I was taught as a journalist at a Japanese paper that we said, "" to the boss and to those below us, but never to the boss.
At the end, he rejoins you saying is _better_ saying
> Personally, I think "/Thank you for your hard work" beats " (Thank you, you must be beat). So to everyone working today:
The guy is native level but he works as a journalist mostly on Yakuza stuff his whole career so it is a specific point of view.
In my case, I work in a IT company and everyone use and it would be **rude** to use for upper/same/lower level. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, politeness"
} |
What does ぉ character mean in のぉ?
Can somebody explain the purpose of character in the end of the following sentence?
What part of speech can be assigned to ?
Can the ending be glued up with ?
> **** | It seems to just be an emphatic, stylistic lengthening of the `` preceding it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation, sentence final particles, nouns"
} |
Meaning of せい conjugation of する?
I came upon this line of dialogue in a book I'm reading, from a character who has old-fashioned speech patterns:
…
I assume this is some form of the verb , though I'm not even sure if it's a regional dialect or some remnant of classical Japanese. I can find plenty of examples of the same usage on Google, but no actual explanation or grammar notes for it in any of my usual go-to sites and reference books.
Any ideas? | Verb has two imperative forms () with the same meaning: and . is an old-fashioned sound variation of the latter form. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations"
} |
What does 窓という窓 mean?
What does mean? I found it in this sentence in Harry Potter:
> | Repeating the same noun twice as in`NounNoun` here has the meaning of "all" (definition #5 at Daijisen):
> …
> "...all of the windows are being shined on by the evening sun and are sparkling red."
Separately, `Time NounTime Noun` can also emphasize time words, but that's a different usage (definition #4 at Daijisen), e.g.:
>
> "today of all days" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "grammar, expressions"
} |
What's the difference between くる and やってくる?
Can someone explain the nuance between them? They both mean "come", but I'm unsure of when they are interchangeable. My perception is that `` seems to put more emphasis on the actual action of coming (compared to the rest of the context, if any) than `` by itself. Compare:
> *
>
> _and_
>
> *
>
But there seem to be times when you cannot use them interchangeably. For example
> → OK
> ? → Sounds unnatural to me
Will someone please explain where they do and don't overlap? | The dictionary is unfortunately vague on this matter, but some discussion elsewhere on the web lends some clues to the nuance. These discussions say that , as you suggest, places more emphasis on the act of coming, but especially that the traveler came with some particular effort or purpose, or from especially far away.
From the second link:
>
The writer goes on to list a few examples. If this is the case I think it seems clear why you wouldn't say to your friend. It almost has kind of an kind of feel to it. It's just the same way you can't say . In fact it may be appropriate to think of as , expressing some amount of deference toward the subject, making a command feel unnatural. I can't find any instances on google of it being used as a command. It's like in English you wouldn't issue the command to someone, "Go to the trouble of coming here."
There's also the meaning wherein you can use to refer to work you've been doing for a long time, like | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 25,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, synonyms"
} |
What's the difference between 触る and 触れる?
These two seem to overlap almost completely. The only thing I can really tell is that `` seems that it can also be used in a metaphorical sense ("touch on" something; feel; perceive). I'm interested in how they are different in the sense of physically touching something. It seems like they can almost always be used interchangeably, but I hardly see `` as much as ``. Yet earlier, I was reading my Japanese Bible, and within a few lines of each other, they are both used.
> ...[]{} ****
>
> _(a few lines down the same page)_
>
> ****...
How do you choose which one to use when speaking of physical touch? Do certain circumstances or situations warrant one over the other?
**Related question** : Is the potential form of `` (= ``) ever used? Because when reading ``, I'll often reading it as `` and then have to correct myself. | You're right that can be used metaphorically, but is normally reserved for physical touch only.
generally indicates a stronger, more intentional kind of "touch" than . From the other perspective, is often used to convey a sense of gentle or light touching, or even "brushing against" something.
Note that it's possible to use the particle with the object of , but you shouldn't use with .
There's no grammatical problem with saying , and in this case it's the job of the reader to discern from context whether the writer intended or . However, I think would be far more common, just because we don't often have occasion make a statement about our ability to touch something. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances, verbs, synonyms"
} |
Why is watermelon written in hiragana, whereas melon is written in katakana?
For the two words, _watermelon_ and _melon_ :
* watermelon →
* melon →
_Watermelon_ uses hiragana, whereas _melon_ uses katakana.
Why is this set up this way? Is there a special rule that dictates the use of katakana in the original word or something? | is a Japanese word, borrowed from the Chinese. It is not known exactly when watermelons arrived in Japan, though it was most likely after the Muromachi period (1333-1573 CE). Words which are native to Japan, borrowed from China, or borrowed a long time ago tend to be written in Kanji and Hiragana. Incidentally, means _west_ and means _melon_ or _gourd_.
on the other hand is an imported word from the English _melon_. This word refers to Muskmelons which were imported in the late Meiji (1868-1912 CE) or early Taisho (1912-1926 CE) periods. Words which are not Japanese or Chinese in origin are often written in Katakana.
Normally, melons which were passed to the east of the Middle East contain the kanji and melons passed to west of the Middle East contain the word . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 21,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords, food"
} |
How wrong is my constructed poem?
I tried writing a classical Japanese poem:
And here is a rough literal translation:
The red sky,
The origin that was once blue,
Like seeing a dream,
It would be best to turn back,
If it were not dirtied.
(Unfortunately missing all the word play and ambiguity I was trying to insert into the Japanese version.)
I'm pretty unsure if I conjugated everything correctly there. I'm especially worried about , which I'm not sure if is even a valid construction. is what I was trying to do, to say "if it were not dirtied".
I'm basically just doing this to learn a little more about classical Japanese grammar, so any corrections are welcome. | Interesting poem. Let me add a few quick comments.
* : As is, is , so the sentence comes to a complete stop there; the next sentence begins with . More likely you want the attributive () .
* : Rather than , you may want to consider . It is a recollational past, so the poet would be speaking from memory. In attributive, this becomes .
* : The English translation does not match, or is at least vague. This is a conclusive form (), so the sentence comes to a complete stop. "They (the sky and origin) are like a dream." This may be your intention and it works. Other options are to make it adverbial () , but then it becomes more vague like the English.
* : This is fine, but you could consider changing it to , which softens the sense as well as adds a sense of question to oneself.
* : This is fine. You could optionally emphasis this by adding to the end. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, classical japanese, poetry"
} |
What is the origin of the word 無{な}し?
The word , of course, means , and it is defined as such in dictionaries. But why does this word exist? Are there even any situations where you can say but you _can't_ say ? Is it a remnant of something from classical Japanese? It seems similar enough in use and meaning to that it doesn't seem that it can be dismissed as its own word entirely and etymologically separate from . I checked etymology sites and dictionaries and tried googling, but I can't find any explanation for this word. | nasi and nai are the same word. Like all adjectives, nasi is the conclusive form (), while nai is the attributive form (). More specifically, the attributive ends in naki, but the medial -k- drops out in modern Japanese becoming nai. This is true of all adjectives: atusi -> atuki > atui, takasi -> takaki > takai, muzukasi -> muzukasiki > muzukasii etc. You can still see this medial -k- in the adverbial form () -ku.
Note that in modern Japanese, the original conclusive was replaced by the attributive, so it may now act as a conclusive. This is true in verbs as well. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "etymology, i adjectives"
} |
How did コンセント come to be used for an "electrical outlet"?
Saw this on a charger I bought online and was really perplexed. What foreign word does it represent? "concentric"? What does that have to do with electrical outlet and where did it come from? | It is . Sometime around the 1920s, employees at created a device which consisted of a plug and outlet. This was called "concentric plug". Outlets without the plugs are now referred to as . Needless to say, English "concentric" does not make much sense. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 21,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords, daily life"
} |
translation of sentence with multiple って/と in it
Hi, what is the meaning of above sentence, the multiple confuses me, I don't get the meaning of this sentence. Can some tell me a English translation for this one? | >
You can break it up a little bit and replace the with for clarity:
- (Someone) was told that stress was the cause.
- I heard that ~
So someone heard that someone was told that stress was the cause. . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
自分の vs 自らの when used for humans
What's the difference between and ?
Both can be used to mean "oneself", but is there a difference in their nuances / usages?
(e.g. what would be the difference between … and … ?) | I can think of two differences:
* can only be used for referring to singular, you can use for referring to a _group_ of people.
**Examples**
>
>
>
* can have implied meaning of "not relying on others" or "by one's own will".
**Example**
>
>
>
In the above, simply means by "oneself". However, has the implied meaning that you have not relied on others in anyway. For example, no one has told you to study, you are doing it by your own will.
Otherwise, the two can be used interchangeably as shown in your example. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage, nuances, meaning, synonyms"
} |
What is 死す doing in this question?
My friend recently played through a game called Persona 4, and he took plenty of screen shots. He showed me this one containing ``:
!Dialogue spoken by …
It says:
>
> …
>
I understood it as ` + `, a literary alternative to ``. I have to admit, though, it doesn't _sound_ very literary to me in this context. is a tough guy, and he uses lots of verbal forms like ``, so I'm guessing I misunderstood.
**To sum up my question, I'm wondering why it was appropriate to say`` here.** | Rather than (which I believe you are right in saying is literary), this is a slang suru-verb meaning "death from a heart pang caused by seeing something cute".
(Possible English translations: "death by d'awwing", "death from cuteness overdose/overload"?)
The comes from rough speech slurring -- →→ -- so it fits his character. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "verbs, register"
} |
方 - also read ほう when referring to a person?
The following sentence is from "A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar":
>
>
> "The answering machine is, on the one hand, very convienent for both a person who calls and a person who is called, but, on the other hand, unnatural because you can't talk directly with the other person"
Despite not being particularly familiar with the usage of / in terms of giving/receive phone-calls, the confusing part of this, for me, is the furigana given for in "" is "". Perhaps I am not understanding the sentence well enough generally speaking, but shouldn't this read ""? As in "person who receives a phonecall"? Is it read because it means something more akin to "the side which receives a call", is there really a difference between these two? | Sometimes it can be confusing as whether should be read as or . It is actually preferred to use Hiragana for often to distinguish between the two. However, keep in mind is used in polite speech when referring to someone in respect. In your example, reading it as would be awkward because of this. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning, readings"
} |
i-adjectives that end in a 〜ない which doesn't seem to be 〜無{な}い
I noticed there are many {} (i-adjectives) that end in , where the is not part of the kanji, and doesn't seem to have the meaning .
* * *
Examples:
* {} means "dangerous", while means "danger"
* {} means "few"/"scarce", while means "few"/"little"
* {} means "heartrending"/"trying", while means "earnest"/"ardent"
(For contrast, examples where it's clearly : , , .)
* * *
I wonder where exactly this is coming from. It is not a classical Japanese ending to my knowledge (like ).
I speculate that it could be an alternative shortening of the classical Japanese copula , but this is odd to me because I suspect the usual shortening of would be used if this were the case (as we see in {} (na-adjectives)).
Does anyone know the etymology of these words and/or the meaning of this ? | Thanks to snailplane's and Dono's links, it seems that the answer is fairly established:
>
>
Namely, is also a suffix that attaches onto words describing state or quality, turns them into a , and emphasizes them. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "meaning, etymology, i adjectives"
} |
What is the name of the wooden hook support on the walls of traditional Japanese rooms?
Traditional (and even not-so-traditional) Japanese rooms have wooden panels running along the walls, about 1m from the ceiling.
They are mainly used to affix hooks, to which clothes hangers, paintings etc. can be hung (they also make for a convenient way to conceal cables around the room, but I doubt that was their original purpose).
**There must be a specific (Japanese) name for it. What is it?** | I believe they're called [[]{}]( | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "words"
} |
Do demons get any special honorifics?
Do demons get any special honorifics put after their names?
I'm wanting to say to a Finnish person studying English and Japanese
> If Lordi-(honorific for demon) can manage English, I think you can too!
I don't know whether demons get their own honorific, but the fact that demons have a different counter word to humans makes me wonder whether they have their own honorific. | As far as I know, there is no particular honorific which is used for demons but not for humans. But it would be possible to add "sama" on to the name of a particularly powerful demon, in the same way as "hotoke sama" () or "kami sama" (). However, it is my firm opinion that "san" or "shi" () would not be used for a "demon". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
When writing vertically, where do small kana go?
When writing horizontally, small kana go right next to the syllable they modify as in .
Also, when using katakana, long vowels are indicated by an horizontal dash, as in .
When writing vertically I know the long vowels in katakana (such as in ) are represented by the same dash, but drawn vertically instead of horizontally. **But where do small kana go?** | When writing on a grid, they go in the upper right hand corner of the square below. Similarly, full-stops `` and commas `` also go in the upper right hand corner.
![enter image description here](
source full image
In normal handwriting, the distances become closer than on the grid, of course.
(Also, and Japanese "italicizing" (indicated by dots) go into the column on the right, see Do Japanese writers use underline for emphasis? and Why are points used where furigana would be normally?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "kana, orthography"
} |
What is the difference between こんにちは and もしもし?
I will be in Japan in a few weeks and I am trying to learn the basic to be as polite as possible.
One of the first things I did was try some basic stuff with Google Translate but I feel lost already.
When I try to translate `hello` from english to japanese I get: ``
When I try `Hello` I get: ``
Why is there a difference, is this a Google issue or there is a real difference between both? Which one should I use to say: **Hello**
Thanks! | is "Hello!" or "Good day!", a greeting for meeting someone in any sort of circumstance.
is how you answer a phone. Usually both parties say in turn, before the caller identifies himself ("Hi, it's John"). Outside phone conversations, it is also used to get someone's attention, but I feel it is quite direct, more like "Hey!". (To get someone's attention, the better alternative would be to clear your throat, say , or , or any combination of these three options.)
To summarize, use when you mean "Hello!" and only when answering the phone. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "definitions, word choice, learning"
} |
What does "ni tsuki" mean in the title "Sono otoko, kyōbō ni tsuki"?
According to Wikipedia, the Japanese title of the film "Violent Cop", "" ("Sono otoko, kyōbō ni tsuki"), literally means "That man, being violent". Is this correct? What other translations could there be for "ni tsuki"? | Is this correct? >> Yes I think it is. It means ""/"".
The particle is left out. () means /, "because~", "since~". sounds more literary than . (The is a particle.) So it's like "Because the man is violent (you got to stay away from him etc..)"
< >> 2
or
< >> 3 | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation"
} |
A question about the usage of ため and spacing
``≪≫``
There were 2 things I didn't get in this sentence (or maybe a paragraph...?):
1. What is the usage of in the two appearances of it in the text? (Marked)
I could tell that it's not the normal usage of + and it doesn't makes sense to me as well.
2. How can this `` be translated (literally)? I don't get the spacing in this part... According to the dictionary, the na-adj meaning of is "danger, peril, hazard"... What I don't get is how exactly "danger" is an adjective? There is another option of "dangerous" in the dictionary, but it wasn't marked as a `na-adj` meaning. Ignoring the adjective comment I made above, I'd translate it as "A maze area in which there is a danger of roaming monsters" or something like that - but I wanna know why if possible :-)
Thank you in advance!
The sentence above was taken from the novel "Sword Art Online 1"! | 1. can be used to indicate reason/cause. It is always best to check a Japanese dictionary when you can.
2. The sentence should be parsed as () , i.e. the sentence modifies (as relative clause) (keyword ga/no conversion). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning, adjectives"
} |
When should the polite form of 〜たり be used?
I've noticed that I don't see used very often, but it does seem to be an accepted form. I believe this form can be broken down like this: {}{}{}
My understanding is that normally the sentence-final {} is the one that is responsible for indicating the politeness of the sentence, while other verbs can be made polite depending on "how polite" you want the sentence to sound (as long as that {} is not in a relative clause, and not in the objective clauses of certain verbs).
However, makes a {} nominal, so it is not clear to me when, if ever, you should use the polite form of the {} when attaching . (On a potentially related side note, I don't think I ever see the polite form of a {} when using {} either.) | After doing more research, I can't seem to find any modern sentences which use this form. This means it is most likely the fault of the grammar guides which include it, as it seems to be constructed rather than something which is actually used.
So, I think it is safe to say, never use as a polite form for . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, politeness"
} |
Is punning with homophonic kanji common?
I recently discovered that the mascot for []{} is []{}.
Answering whether this was a deliberate pun is probably impossible, but I'd like to know, in general, is it common to replace one kanji with a homophonic kanji for the purposes of punning? | I think it's pretty common, although not necessarily punning so much as just a play-on-words. I can't remember but a couple right now. I'll edit in more later if I remember them.
> * → I got the committee's permission. Surprised, I responded "(Is it) Really (OK)?".
> * A major station I used to frequent had a nearby building called "Sun Plaza" written as , as seen here on Google street view:
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "homophonic kanji, puns"
} |
What do repeated ８s mean in internet slang?
I was watching a live video stream the other day. To my surprise, other viewers kept flooding the chat with the number eight! My screen kept filling up with messages like these:
> ``
> ``
> `8888888888888888888888`
What do these messages mean? | As you can see from these references:
* <
* <
Streams of the number eight such as `` represent **applause**. They're read ``, the sound of hands clapping together one after another in applause, as in the phrase ``.
The second reference above also explains the derived slang terms `` and ``, which might be of interest:
* `` means that something wasn't good enough to applaud, so it only got `` instead of ``;
* `` expresses the opposite, that something was even better than `` would imply. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 46,
"question_score": 34,
"tags": "internet slang"
} |
Limitations of に for emphasis?
I remember having learning that can be used for a simple emphasis of the word before it, like so:
> - I ate cake
>
> - _**I**_ ate cake (the others may or may not have, but I did)
But then I stumbled upon something about the for emphasis not being able to be used in with verbs that normally can't take it? Does this mean the following sentences are incorrect, since can't be used with ?
>
>
>
Or have I completely misunderstood? | I do not know where you learned that can be used for emphasis, but I do not know any case where is used for emphasis. is a case particle, and you cannot add to something that plays roles other than the -case. (The -case is used for many purposes such as time, location, destination, direction, and purpose).
The following sentences are not grammatical.
*
*
*
Removing from these sentences makes them grammatical.
* I ate a cake.
* I know the novel.
* No one knows the result of the match. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage, particles, particle に"
} |
火を噴く vs 火を吐く
What's the difference between {} and {}?
Both seems to mean _fire-spitting_ , like a fire-breathing dragon, but is there any difference in their nuances? | This seems like a reach even to me, but here goes.
The dictionary entry for `` that I'm seeing shows usages of `` and ``. This seems to imply that the fire is inside of the thing (dragon, etc.) and is coming out. As opposed to the fire being generated at the "exit point" or externally (like just outside the dragon's mouth). Even in your examples, "fire-spitting" vs. "fire-breathing" seems to kind of indicate this. `` also usually implies coming out of the mouth or nose. So if the dragon's fire is coming out of its arse/ears/other orifice(?), maybe `` wouldn't be applicable.
But overall they seem interchangeable. And if a dragon is shooting fire at you at _all_ , put down your Japanese book and get the hell outta there! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "usage, nuances, synonyms"
} |
Truncated adjective まっすぐ
I have a sentence in a book that goes like **** It is a kids book, so everything is in kana. I'm having trouble figuring out the bolded part. It talks about a dandelion in the context, so I assume that is (yellow), what is this () then?
Google suggests that it might be following **** and translates this () part as "straight". Can someone explain how this truncation happens?
Also, where to look up the grammar for ""? | is indeed , but it does not exactly mean straight. It can mean straight when you use it as , but that's because of the meaning of . emphasizes the word that it's connected to. If you look at the meaning of by itself, like "true," then it's a little clearer. So means that it's "really" straight. would be "really" yellow, or like a pure yellow. It connects to some other words similarly, like {}{}, {}{}, {}{}, etc.
The issue of is a separate issue, but you should be able to find it in most grammar references, as well as in some questions on this site, like here and in the other questions linked in it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
Did the Japanese have a word for surrender before WWII?
I had always thought that the Japanese didn't have a word for surrender before WWII. It seemed to be plausible given their culture. However, I can't seem to find any solid evidence of this. Is it just a myth? | is borrowed from Classical Chinese and probably has many centuries of history. After all, in the Sengoku period there were probably many, many surrenders of lords to other lords. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, culture, history, language change"
} |
Is Japanese understandable without pitch?
> **Possible Duplicate:**
> How important is one’s pitch when speaking Japanese?
I know that the system to avoid confusion between homophones (regardless of if that was its original purpose) is pitch. The primary standardised Japanese pitch I heard is the Tokyo dialect's form (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is if you can be understood without pitch, and how will it reflect your pronunciation and fluidity. There are many different dialects of Japanese, are they mutually intelligible on the front of pitch? If I don't include the standard pitch of the Tokyo dialect (or the local dialect), will I confuse people, not sound native, or will it be acceptable. If it's acceptable than will it be more like an acceptable mistake or completely fine? If it is absolutely necessary (or of any necessity at all) I suppose I'll put in the extra time needed to learn pitch. | Japanese is mostly understandable to native speakers with incorrect pitch. There are a few words like "shiro", or , which can be confused depending on context. If you are worried about pitch accent, there are dictionaries of pronunciation such as the NHK published one, "". This is intended for native speakers who want to speak like TV announcers. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pitch accent"
} |
What qualities characterise girlish Japanese handwriting?
In English, handwriting is generally seen as girl is the mini. caps are almost as large as the maxi. caps, the edges are rounded out, and if the dots are replaced with little cirles reminiscent of the japanese period (). What characteristics are common of handwritting considered 'girlish' in Japanese? | Generally in Japanese handwriting the more feminine something is the more rounded out and cute it will be. If I think of girly English writing I think of neat bubbly letters while guys tend to be sloppy and angular. This carries over to Japanese.
!enter image description here
Additional reading:
< < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "orthography, handwriting"
} |
How are し, ち, and じ pronounced differently than in English?
I know that sh, ch, and j are pronounced differently in Chinese than in English, but what about Japanese? I have read that , , are pronounced slightly differently than they would be in English (she, chea[p], gee), however I'm never told how. If they (, , ) are pronounced differently than they would be generally pronounced in English, how? | With the English sounds sh, j and ch, the friction occurs between the alveolar ridge (where the flat part of the mouth located behind the teeth sharply moves up to the palate) and the tip of the tongue. Sometimes, the tongue is a bit further back or curled, and the back part of the tip of the tongue is involved (ie. it is retroflex).
In Japanese, the tip of the tongue is not used for these sounds; instead, a more posterior and wider part of the tongue is used at the point of friction, the tip of the tongue being more or less at the intersection of the bottom teeth and the gum, but without pressing against them. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
Which personal pronouns and sentence ending particles would an old man use?
I'm somewhat informed on gendered speech in Japanese, however, I have also heard that age may play a part in which pronouns and sentence ending particles you use and can get away with. For instance, a teenage boy is more likely to get away with using slightly effeminate language than a grown man would be. What sort of pronouns (, , , est.) and sentence ending particles (, , , , , ) would a typical elderly male use (In the standard Tokyo dialect)? | This is not really an answer, but I would like to draw the attention to the distinction between speech in fictional work and speech in the real world.
In fictional work, there is a set of words (most notably personal pronouns and function words) which are considered to be typical to a certain group of people, _regardless of whether the people in the same group in the real world actually use them_. It is called a _role language_ (). As dainichi explained, first-person pronoun and copula are part of the role language for old male speakers. So are second-person pronoun []{} and the use of instead of . However, I am pretty sure that few old male people actually say any of these.
My guess is that old male speakers do not have particularly different words from other adult male speakers, but I am not very sure about this part. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "sentence final particles, first person pronouns, role language"
} |
What function did あり perform in classical Japanese 形容詞?
In classical Japanese, many uses of {} had "embedded" in them, e.g.:
* = {}
* = {}
* = {}
* = {}
while others did not:
* =
* = {}
* = {}
It seems that there is a plain form and an form for most of the conjugations:
plain
-ku -kara
-ku -kari
-si missing
-ki -karu
-kere -kare
missing -kare
My question is why certain usages of used the version and others didn't. Did the have some sort of semantic meaning?
(The original motivation for this was the question of why the past tense of is rather than or or , while the -form is .)
(P.S., the majority of my experience with classical Japanese is reading about its grammar, not actually reading old poems or stories. I suspect if I had more actual experience I'd be able to understand why is required in these places.) | I have come to the following conclusion:
**The form of arose to support .** The non- form is only used with (via the ), (via the ), and .
To make sure that this explanation is not circular, and need to be differentiated using some other property — thankfully, cannot be predicative while can.
Some examples...
>
>
> *
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
> *
>
(In the case of , it's true that it comes from , but it seems that it was reanalyzed as a , allowing for the wider distribution: .)
I think the reasoning goes like this: need to attach to a verb (whether this is a purely syntactic constraint, or some sort of semantic one, I don't know), so was inserted to help out. on the other hand have no such constraint.
And then, once the form arose, some things that could already be done gained a new form, such as and — I do not think their meaning was different from the non- form. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, etymology, i adjectives, classical japanese"
} |
Why do we use 子ども to refer to a singular child (and 子供たち for plural)?
I was just thinking about how the term seems redundant since and are both plural markers. Of course you can use just to refer to a child, but how did (and thus ) come to be the norm? Is the in unrelated etymologically?
I looked here for an answer which is what led to this confusion. I know that the kanji doesn't refer to number, but this is written:
>
Is this accurate? | From (, 2)
>
Also...
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
Verbs in application drop down lists
I am working on translating pick list items that appear in a piece of software from English to Japanese. There is a mix of verbs and nouns on the lists, ex: workplace, attack, wolf, assault, etc... For the nouns I think it's probably a direct conversion, but for the verbs should they be included in dictionary form, or some other form?
For example I was going to use for attack/assault, but would I use it just like that in a pick list/drop down list/combo box? | If you look at menus in programs such as Open Office, words such as "" for 'edit', "" for 'insert', and "" for 'configure' (or rather, configuration) all are nouns, but can be made verbs by adding the verb "" as in "" for 'save' (file, etc.).
A case where you might use a dictionary form of a verb to describe the ACTION could be for 'open' (a file): "", but this seems to be more of an exception. Often, there will be a noun form as mentioned above with the example of 'attack/assault' being "" which again can become "", but its meaning as an ACTION can be inferred from how the noun can be used in context.
As mentioned above by Ito-san, mixing verbs and nouns can be confusing in a sequence if there is no particular reason for it. Otherwise, you could describe the context of usage further... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, verbs, computing"
} |
Working with parentheses (English vs Japanese)
In English I could write, "Birds (various kinds)". In Japanese could I translate the version using parentheses as something like , or should the language/parentheses be used differently?
I'm not sure what the rules are for round vs square parentheses. | The way you have it is fine. In general, always use round parentheses, square parentheses are not used very much perhaps except only in specialized areas. However, it _is_ common in Japan to use different types of parentheses when nesting, i.e. [()]. This is also why they are referred to as (), {} and []. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "orthography, punctuation"
} |
Questions on the use of 動物 in reference to mankind/humans
I got this quote from a journal an online associate writes. I provided the translation. Some of the wording in Japanese struck me as strange, so I am wondering about whether in fact this quote is a little strange in tone or is this just a normal way of expressing these kind of sentiments?
>
>
> Not only do we drink cow's milk, but humans also eat the meat of cows; we could say that we are reliant on cows for our living.
I thought the use of to describe humans as animals was somewhat strange, and wonder if this emphasis needed to be included in the translation to be faithful to the original sentiment.
Compare:
>
>
> Humans are an animal that consumes the meat of cows
or maybe
> Mankind is just another animal eating the meat of cows
Is the aspect of man being "just another animal" something emphasized in the japanese, or am I reading too much into it? | Like you inferred, describing humans as animals is not a neutral statement here. Humans are described as animals, which, whilst drinking breast milk of cows, devour/consume cow meat.
This animalistic view of the humans is supported by the use of instead of , which carries a more primal nuance.
The fact that they **** implies that the humans are not quite conscious of their action, again emphasizing the animalistic view of humans.
is "reliant on" but also carries a sense of "being indebted to" and would probably be the way to describe karma in a native Japanese way...
The translation you give is fine, but trying to cram in all the points above, one by one, one might get something more along the lines of
> We get cow's milk from the cow's breast, but we also consume cow's meat like animals, which makes us owe a great deal to (the race of) cows.
(Now I feel like a high school student, just having finished a text interpretation exam.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, translation"
} |
Can んだった and んじゃなかった be used like the past version of んだ and んじゃない?
I know that and can be used to say "Should have done" and "Shouldn't have done". I am wondering, however, if they can be used as a past version of Take for example this conversation:
> **A friend** : You never spend time with me
>
> **You** : (The thing is, I'm busy)
Now I try with
> **A friend** : You never _spent_ time with me
>
> **You** : (I was busy, that was why)
Is this incorrect or correct?
Much appreciated
Daniel Safari | I'm going to offer a different answer.
I think it does not work the way you think.
is a statement, which works as emphasis of what is being said/thought _now_. It can not be used the same way in the past.
>
> It's just that I'm busy.
has as past tense
>
> It's just that I was busy.
whereas
> It **was** just that I was busy.
cannot be expressed in Japanese the same way. is certainly most cumbersome. In English, "It's just that" can be conjugated to "It was just that" to make an explanation about something in the past, which is not how it works in Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, usage, meaning, particle の"
} |
How can I say "counted in (specific unit)"?
Specifically, I am trying to say something like "a semester's length is counted in months" in order to imply how short it is as compared to, say, your whole life. When I tried to look this up in my online dictionary, I could not find anything. There was an entry for "count in" but it was definitely a separate meaning ("count me in!") | There is also , as in
>
which I think fits even better for your purpose. is more a specific length in time, although you choose not to specify the length. means that you are counting in months, but have no real estimate of how many months.
works for "counting in" with other counters, e.g.
>
> I waited for hours.
>
> cf.
> I waited for several hours.
>
>
> I love (Japanese) prawn crackers. I couldn't stop eating.
>
>
> Getting my visa wasn't a matter of days, but a matter of weeks.
Edit: Since you seemed to be asking something different, the way for translating "is counted in" is , as in
>
> You can count fish with the counter word . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, counters"
} |
Difference between ささぐ and ささげる
beginner Japanese language self-learner here. I hope my question isn't a bad question.
As title suggested, I would like to know about the difference between the two verbs which I understood have the same dictionary meaning, "to dedicate." However, beyond the fact that is a verb and is an verb, I really have no idea how/when to use which.
Thank you, | The meaning is exactly the same, but you'll only see used in old/formal written text or in lyrics where the number of syllables matter a lot.
For all the other uses, stick to . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
The forward slash (English vs Japanese)
In English it's common to list multiple items as item/item/item, with the / representing **or**.
What about in Japanese? Do I keep the forward slash, or maybe so it would be ?
Context: the list will be in a GUI, probably a drop down list item with no other verbiage around it. | The slash is not among the symbols traditionally used in punctuation in Japanese, and _nakaguro_ “” is the symbol for this purpose. However, the forward slash is also common nowadays, especially when user interface of application software is concerned. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "orthography, punctuation"
} |
What is the English equivalent of「ひとこと欄」?
I believe this a kind of word-game, but cannot find a reference to it... | is not the name of a game. It means “a place for a short message.” It is often found at the end of various forms. For example, an application form of a fitness center may have at the end with a sentence such as “If you have any suggestions or concerns, please write them here.”
I do not know its English equivalent, but I post this as an answer because japanese.stackexchange.com is a website for questions about Japanese, not for questions about English. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
} |
Expressing a sequence of actions using 〜たとき?
I am aware that one can explain that to things happen at the same time using _plain non past form_ \+ :
> "I fell when I got on the train (I was going through the door when it happened)"
I am not quite sure about the following nuance, though : _plain past form_ \+ means the first action was over when the second happened :
> "I fell when I got on the train (I was already inside the train when it happened)"
Would it _roughly_ mean the same thing as :
> "After I got on the train, I fell"
Eventually, would it be correct to express that I read a book before I went to sleep using :
> | Yes, is roughly the same as . However, there is a slight difference. The former implies that the action happened _right after_ the action : _I fell just after I got on a train._ does not have this implication, and it just means: _I fell after I got on a train_.
sounds strange whereas sounds perfectly normal. I am not sure why, but I suspect that if an action V takes time, it is unnatural to use V and instead we use some other constructs such as V, V, and V depending on what we mean by it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.