INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Future dates in the Japanese calendar
I was looking at the heisei wiki page and I wondered how you would refer to future dates in the japanese calendar?
For example would 'The 2020 olympics' be '[]{}[]{}'? Is there some standard?
If this was on a web page and an era change occurred would you need to update it? | will last until the Emperor's death. So, until that happens, every future year is stated as . If he were to pass away, then there would be a new name decided upon, and that year would be the final year of (up to day of his death) and the []{} of the next era (starting from the day after his death). Once the change happens, obviously any dates that go past the end of would have to be updated.
For international events, though, there is a tendency to use []{}... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "time, future"
} |
Is there an idiomatic Japanese equivalent of the construction "Let [infinitive verb]"?
In English, we have constructions like "Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York" (MLK's _I Have A Dream_ speech) and "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3, KJV and other versions).
Is there an idiomatic Japanese equivalent of this construction? I can imagine circumlocuting around it with something like , but I'm not sure if that's idiomatic (or even correct) Japanese.
The Japanese Living Bible seems to translate "Let there be light" as , but that seems to me to mean "Shine, light", which is not really the same thing. | I don't think they're idiomatic at all, but you've touched on both of them. "Let" in these cases translates to either a command, or to what basically amounts to "may". With the former, you would use the `` as you noted. In my Japanese Bible (``), that verse in Genesis simply says ``. With the latter, you're essentially describing a "wish" or some desire that is more-or-less out of your control. In this case, you use `` ("may it be (such) that..."). Refer to the following topic for more info on this usage.
* * *
xref: How does this work? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
} |
question about 午前n時
I'm learning Japanese and I just finished learning Hiragana and Katakana and now I'm moving to Kanji. In my studies I found that 8 means 8 a.m Ok, that's cool but I would like to know how to pronunciate it.
Should I just combine the sounds? I mean is , is and so 8 would be 8?
Thank you very much! | Kanji have kun and on-yomi. In this case, the correct pronunciation would be | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
Use of に with -てあげる/-てくれる with a human direct object
Quoting from page 292 of _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ (DBJG), entry for , note 2:
"Any transitive verb used in the V- or V- construction can take , if the verb does not take a human direct object."
"..., which takes a human object, cannot take ..."
The (only) example they give for the second quote is
> ( **** / ***** )
> My teacher praised me.
My issue is that since the indirect object (the one receiving the favour) and direct object (the one praised) are the same (), one would normally leave out the indirect object anyway. i.e. you wouldn't say
>
But DBJG seem to be saying that a transitive verb in form with a human direct object cannot take an indirect object under any circumstances.
So let's construct a sentence where the indirect object and direct object are two different people (me and Tanaka respectively). Is the following sentence allowed?
>
> The teacher scolded Tanaka (for my sake). | is an extremely odd sentence; no Japanese native speaker would ever say this. **If the verb of the sentence takes a human direct object, or if the verb doesn't normally take the particle ** , one can replace the marking the benefactor with in order to create a natural sentence:
---> Odd since the verb doesn't normally take the particle
This sentence can be rewritten as:
---> A correct sentence.
It's really not more difficult than this. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
} |
How does 生まれ translate in this context?
>
(If you) have no identity, (you) haven't been born
| ... Not a strict translation.
>
> ?
>
>
> I have no identity.
> Can I have such an identity? la-la-la.
>
> ???
>
>
> What kind of clothes do you like?
> What is your favorite book and food?
>
> What a featureless man I am,
> who think that everyone can be distinguishable from others by such questions.
>
>
>
> ?
>
> Comparing me and my neibourghs through the reflecting image of show windows,
> I lived till now that to think such way was very natural.
>
> I become to think that the favorite book, foods nor clothes are not
> the essaential part of my identity.
> I had never such a thought till now, why?
>
> ?
>
> How can it be happen that the identity which I have never seen
> be born and it sees the sun shine of morning.
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words, song lyrics"
} |
Is there any relationship between the verb 死{し}ぬ and the 音読み 死{し}?
I noticed that both and the of share a sound. Is this a huge coincidence between Japanese and Chinese, or is there some sort of relation? I guess the former, because I don't know any function may have after a borrowed noun, but I don't know much about etymology. | It is a tempting identification, but the suffix is inexplicable. In fact, there are only two n-stem verbs in Old Japanese – and – plus one auxiliary (the perfective ), all of which are conjecturally related. Linguistic coincidences are not unheard of: one well-known example concerns the word "dog" in English and in Mbabaram.
For what it's worth, the records the following etymological theories:
>
>
> (1)
>
> (2)
>
> (3)
>
> (4)
>
> (5)
By contrast, it is generally accepted that words like and are ancient loanwords from Chinese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "etymology, readings, history"
} |
Period + に + frequency
I'm looking at JLPT4/5 grammar list and see such grammar point. But I can't find any information about it (truthfully I don't know how to).
Though I found some examples: 1 shuukan ni ikkai - once a week 1 nen ni 3 kai - 3 times a year
Can someone explain this or point me to where I can get that information? Thanks. | Are you asking for help on the pattern, or just other explanations and materials? Because there's not much to it really. You know that `` has multiple meanings, including "in" or "within". So it's a pretty straight translation.
<Period> + + <frequency> → "Within <period>, <frequency> times." or "<frequency> times in <Period>"
> * → 3 times within 1 year
> * → Once per week
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
The use of も; spotting if it is comparison/contrast, or for emphasis
Could somebody tell me the meaning/use of both s in bold in the following sentence? It is the background explanation for the essay titled in the magazine, .
Also, I am not sure about the use of in the second sentence; again what is it referring to? I think it means "this kind of doctor" but what kind? Should I be able to infer the adjective, or is this an invitation to read on and find out?
> **** ****
The answer must surely relate to context but I should appreciate an explanation from someone who understands. | > ****
This means something like "even"; that everything else also takes a lot of time.
> ****
This means "in the world", kind of... I think this sentence is referring not only to the doctors themselves, but also the place where they work, or how they treat their patients. I guess they want to say something along the lines of: "everyone's so scary; it's hard to believe that there could be doctors who would work in such a place". However, this is just speculation. There needs to be more context (i.e., the whole article) to get a good grip on what they mean here...
* * *
_(See comment to get complete answer to question - Tim)_
* * *
**Update**
Thinking about it again, maybe it's more like this:
> Even just getting an examination at a big hospital in Japan takes so long. It can be dreadful. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle も"
} |
What does 工夫（する） mean?
I am aware of the generic English translation: In this case, "device" or "to devise" in English, but this does not really help me out. In what context would you use this word? would really be appreciated. Thank you! | It is not an intuitively obvious word but if you look at the following examples you should be able to work out how to use it as verb to devise, contrive or invent:
> —To come up with a new way
>
> This is my own invention. / I thought this up myself.
>
> I'll see if I can't come up with something. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, translation, meaning"
} |
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil"
I would like to translate this quote into Japanese for a personal project. For further understanding of the meaning, Donald Knuth wrote this phrase in 1974, see < context:
> We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil
Google translate gave me but I'm not confident on it's correctness, and it seems a bit long? | I think in this rare case, Google translate provides a spot-on translation. I would translate the whole sentence as
> We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil.
> 97%
_Translation notes:_ I just translated "say about" as . The "say" here should really be something like or, as Hyperworm suggested, , but I thought that the resulting tone would be a bit too conversational, which is not really the case in English. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Nuance due to absence of は
>
> A red muffler seems to go well with that hat.
Is there a difference in nuance between the above sentence and the following one?
> ****
I get that it's emphasised that the hat is the topic in the second sentence, but really it's hard to think about the first sentence as not necessarily being about the hat. | `` sounds pretty matter-of-fact.
`` sounds more like picking-and-choosing. Also, it kind of feels as though there is more to come—e.g., "but this green scarf does not", or "but a yellow scarf would go with this other hat".
But, I feel like I kind of overly analyzed it ;) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle は"
} |
Does the word 津波 (tsunami) have negative connotations?
Or is it just a neutral term for tidal waves?
(I'm considering naming a JavaScript library `tsunami.js` – would it be offensive?) | I would say "not necessarily"; but, it definitely doesn't have _positive_ connotations...
One might think of it as `<= 0`.
* * *
**Update**
Hmm, evidence? Well, the word "earthquake" is definitely not a positive word by itself, right? It has more neutral or negative connotations (i.e.,`<= 0`). But, I don't know how to provide evidence of that...
There is a word, (access tsunami), which is when there are a lot of site views/accesses in a short period. When used in this sense, I guess the blog owner would be happy :)
At any rate, I don't think you'll realistically be offending many people by using "tsunami" (unless your project is destructive, obviously).
By the way, what will your project be doing? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, culture"
} |
The origin of しなさい
i know what this means.. but what is the origin of ?
Does it come from (to do verb) ??
Is it short form of something? or what? | is a verb conjugation that turns the verb into a command (imperative form). There are a number of imperative forms, but this one in particular gives the nuance of "talking down" or giving advice that you feel is helpful to the listener (but keep in mind, it carries the connotation that you know better than the listener). This is generally how a parent would speak to his or her child, or a teacher would talk to students.
If you're not sure whether or not it's appropriate to use in a given situation, imagine saying it in English with the phrase "You had better". e.g:
>
> (You had better) study.
>
> []{}[]{}[]{}
> (You had better) talk quietly in the library. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
} |
What is this dash-like punctuation mark?
Here is a piece of text from by Haruki Murakami:
> ――――
How are these things before `` and `` called and what function they serve?
Is it a mark equal to `` or something informal like `~~~` and expressing a short speech pause in a middle of the sentence? In any case, what is its name? | It is called a "dash", in Japanese, according to this wikipage.
Several usages of the symbol are listed in the page. The usage here is to insert an extra explanation to the sentence (or word before the first dash). You can see that if you take off everything between the two dashes, the sentence is perfectly correct and meaningful. The portion between the two dashes is only to add an extra explanation that the statement is purely the writer's own opinion. You can treat it as a pair as bracket "()" here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "punctuation"
} |
What's the difference between 学科, 教科 and 科目
I've seen all three used in somewhat similar situations. What are the differences between them, and in which cases should i use one over another? | They all mean group of studies in the context of education (as opposed to research).
is the most fine grained of those and corresponds to what constitutes a class (e.g. "Biology", "Physics" in high school).
refer to a group of studies comprised by a few that belong together (e.g. will contain math and science etc.). However it can also be used as synonym for , or more generally refer to class of studies.
usually refers to a department in a university (which would teach multiple s) or what is taught in departments. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Are non-Japanese political party names translated, or transliterated?
Are the names of new political parties, especially in English-speaking countries, typically translated, or transliterated?
I looked at the Japanese language Wikipedia template for Australian political parties, and saw that Family First seemed to be translated (), while the Australian Sex Party and One Nation seemed to be transliterated ( and ) apart from the "".
**Background:** Australia's Liberal Democratic Party looks like it might win a seat, and I'm curious whether it'd be called "", as is claimed by the Japanese edition of Wikipedia here. | Typically they are translated. For American parties, as an example, Japanese newspapers always write for the Democrats and for the Republicans. Communist parties everywhere are . You will refer to a Labo(u)r Party as . Even the Green Party gets a designation. There are exceptions, of course. For example, the Libertarian Party is just called rather than (which is already claimed as the "liberal party").
Take a look here. It's a list of American parties only but it should give you a big enough list to get a feel for how party names are translated. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "loanwords"
} |
Confusion between nouns and adverbs in あと一部
>
> Only one part of the job remains.
Does one think of (remainder) as a noun (and object of ) and as a counter/adverb, or is the adverb and the noun here? | To my ears sounds like an adverb - it's not 'one bit of remainder', it's 'one remaining bit'. is kind of in a weird place between noun and adverb, since a lot of the time it requires a particle, but a phrase like may make this situation a bit more obvious - you can't quite do the same thing with a noun where is unless you use a particle (so , not *). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, adverbs, nouns"
} |
Use of に in 人間に
> []{}
> People are equal.
Why the use of after ? Are we treating as a "location" where is absent? | I think there are several ways to analyze this construction, so this answer isn't supposed to be in contrast to the other answers.
One way that and (and and respectively) can sometimes be translated is "have" and "not have" with the subject of "have" being marked with
>
> he has a house
>
>
> That person doesn't have kids
Similarly for the example sentence:
>
> Humans do not have hierarchy
EDIT:
This seems to be called a dative construction and is featured in several languages. Thanks to snailboat for the info. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle に"
} |
Is 圧力 countable?
Consider the following sentence (emphasis mine):
> ****
The bolded part is kind of confusing me. I get that means "to be pressured" or "to have pressure applied [to one]", but I don't understand how you can have , since seems like an uncountable noun.
Is this just an unusal way of saying ("[someone] pressured me once or twice")? | here means "pressure to do something (or not do something)". E.g.: (I was pressured to not publish my paper).
There could be multiple, distinct ways of applying such pressure, like freezing one's account AND threatening to kill him, etc. That's why he says . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, counters, nouns"
} |
What's a nice way to say "fingers crossed"?
What's a nice way to express any of the following -
* "Let's keep our fingers crossed"
* "I'll keep my fingers crossed!"
* (We / I) (are / am) keeping (our / my ) fingers crossed" | Of course not all cultures cross fingers when wishing for something. As far as I know crossed fingers don't signify anything in Japan.
The phrase "fingers crossed" would probably expressed using "to go well", e.g.
>
> ()
where the former is more formal and the second more conversational. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Verb in te-form with 中に, as in "通って中に"
I have started to read a novel for practice. I came across these sentences. I can't make sense of the part __.
> ****
I cannot find an explanation for the use of the combination of the verb in te-form and _chuu ni_. Figuring out this part would help me a lot to put together what the sentence says. | does not belong to the te-form . The right way to parse this sentence is
> []{}
>
> After [he] made sure that the sheep had passed the gate and got inside
In this case, the te-form simply joins multiple verb actions.
The comma between and may have confused you, however, when I google for the given phrase, I find it without the comma. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What's the difference between -ga and -o when they are used to designate a direct object?
During the past month I've been addicted to Japanese. I've listened to about 10 online tutorial video courses and read about as much printed lessons. I am determined to learn Japanese, but I am really a newbie so my question may be very basic, but please bear with me.
If I understand correctly, both _-ga_ and _-o_ particles designate a direct object. For example, I've heard:
> Watashi wa ongaku-ga suki desu. = I like music
>
> Watashi wa ongaku-o kiku (or kikimasu, I'm not sure) = I am listening to music
So why is it _ga_ in one case and _o_ in the other? Is it specific to the verb or the object or what?
P.S. I don't know hiragana yet, so I'd appreciate if you could keep your examples, if any, in romaji. | It depends not only on the verb, but on the form of the verb.
The general rule is that static verbs and adjectives take "ga" and "action verbs" take "o" on the direct object.
> piano-o hiku
> play the piano
>
> piano-ga hikeru
> can play the piano
Here, playing the piano is an action, thus "o" is used. Being able to play the piano is a state, thus "ga" is used.
> ringo-ga hoshii
> want an apple
>
> ringo-o hoshigaru
> act like you want an apple
Again, to want an apple is a state, so use "ga", to act like you want it is an action, so use "o". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "particles, particle は, particle を, particle が"
} |
Can 〜てなんかいない contract to 〜てなんかない?
In this answer, nkjt gives the following example of **** insertion:
→ ****
On the left-hand side, it appears that is contracted to . This is very common, of course, but as I understand it, contractions of to **only happen after ** , as in the following examples:
→
→
→
In the example with **** inserted, it seems that is contracted to , even though it follows something other than !
**Is this possible?**
If it is, I'm forced to wonder about the version, as well:
→ ****
→ ****
If they _are_ acceptable, how do you explain it? Is my "only after " rule incorrect? | is a valid contraction of in spoken Japanese. I personally hear as unnatural, but a Google search suggests that this is also technically valid, though significantly less common. (Incidentally, I find it a bit humorous that the seemingly overwhelming majority of results for "" are .)
I would say that your intuition that can only contract to after is very close, and possibly exactly right... but it's likely not the , but rather that it's being used as a kind of helper to another verb, which even after inserting , is still the case. That's just my own guess, though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "contractions"
} |
Can ぼくたち (bokutachi) be used for mixed-gender group?
*disclaimer:*I'am still learning hiragana, so forgive me for any wrong spelling
I've learnt that _normally_ only males use (boku). What about (bokutachi)? Should it _normally_ be reserved for male-only groups or can it be used by a male to refer to a mixed-gender group of "we"? Can a female use it to refer to a mixed-gender group? | is a suffix which means more or less "the group to which _< someone>_ belongs". So refers to the speaker as , but it _also_ refers to the group to which they belong, and it can be used as long as is appropriate for that _one_ person.
In other words, it's **not** a "plural" marker, so it doesn't matter whether the group is mixed-gender or not. They're not all being identified as . Only one person is.
Of course, the same thing is true if you attach to a name. If I write {}, I'm not referring to a bunch of s. I'm referring to _one person_ as , and I'm also referring to the group to which belongs.
And finally, the other similar suffixes in Japanese, such as and , function the same way. {} refers to , but also to the group to which that person belongs. So it can be used for mixed-gender groups too, as long as it's okay referring to the person in question as . And so on. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pronouns, gender"
} |
Use of と in this sentence: 電車に乗るとすぐメールを熱心に打っている
I'm confused about how is used in this sentence (). What purpose does it serve?
> **** | English speaking learners of Japanese are usually first exposed to `` as being _something like_ "and" (though it's not _technically_ "and"), as in ``. However, that's just one use, and you can see some more explanation of `` and it's implications of _consequence_ at the top of this answer.
`` means roughly something like, " **when** they get on the train...". Given the context of the longer sentence, it's saying, " **when** they get on the train, they soon start mailing with their phone..."
It might be tempting to translate your sentence as "they get on the train **and then** they soon mail," because that makes a certain sense in connecting the kind of `` in `` with the kind of `` in your sentence. Which I say because that was a mistake I was making. However, "and then" would be ``. In this case, this `` in your sentence isn't a variation on the `` used to list things. It's just "when", as in " **when** _X_ happens, then _Y_ ".
Hope that helps. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
} |
Use of に to mark the caller of 電話がかかる
Is it okay to use to mark the caller when using ? i.e. A received a call from B would be
> AB
Google seems to indicate that is a much more popular choice than . I find it a bit strange, since I thought (whenever both and are viable options) was preferred for agents and for sources, and receiving a phone call seems more like the former case. | In the sentence
>
indicates the _recipient_ of the phone call. It would be very confusing if you suddenly tried to indicate the _caller_ with as well. and are not both viable options to indicate the caller, because is already used to indicate the recipient.
If you used to indicate the caller, it would be like trying to say "I got a package from him" this way:
>
which actually means "he received a package."
You can say "A got a call from B" like this:
> AB
or more commonly
> AB
If you are the recipient of the call, you can omit the part and it will be understood:
> B
> I got a call from B | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle に, particle から"
} |
How does the の work in 「日本人の知らない日本語」?
I've read that translates to: "Japanese (language) that Japanese (people) don't know". But I don't understand how or what the does in that sentence. If I'm not mistaken could mean "Japanese language that (x) don't know" or "even unknown Japanese". But I don't get how the fits into the translation. | In your example, is a relative clause, equivalent in meaning to . This clause as a whole modifies , so it means _the Japanese that Japanese people don't know_.
* * *
In relative clauses, the subject particle can be replaced with :
> 1. ****
> 2. ****
>
>
> _The book John bought_
This is true in _double-subject constructions_ as well:
> 1. **** ****
> 2. **** ****
> 3. **** ****
> 4. **** ****
>
>
> _The reason John is tall_
But you can't replace with if there's a direct object marked with :
> 1. **** ****
> 2. * **** **** _(ungrammatical)_
>
>
> _The store where John bought the book_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 60,
"question_score": 48,
"tags": "particles, particle の, phrases, relative clauses"
} |
Which counter do you use for counting TV series episodes?
I want to say "I saw 10 episodes", but I can't find the appropriate counter.
I may use "" counter (), but it's not very classy. | I believe that the usual counter is {}, literally meaning _stories_ , so you'd say 10 for ten episodes, and 10 or 10 for the tenth episode.
Occasionally I've seen shows that used different counters for their own title cards. For example, numbered all its episodes using , so for instance the tenth episode was 10. And numbered its episodes with instead, possibly in reference to _1,001 Nights_ ().
But of course you can always use as the counter when _you_ talk about these shows, no matter how they number their own episodes. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "counters"
} |
Why does きいろ mean yellow rather than green?
I know that most of "why" questions don't make much sense as far as linguistics are concerned but I'll ask anyway.
I know that means a tree. means color. It doesn't take a genius to guess that (lit. tree color) should mean green. But it means yellow. Is there any reason for this? | There was a word, "the colour of trees", recorded in the _Vocabulário da Língua do Japão_. But actually, on its own already means "yellow".
and are most likely _not_ etymologically related. We know that had a type-2 () /ki/ in Old Japanese. If we knew that had a type-1 () /ki/, then we could definitively say that the two are etymologically unrelated. This diagnostic is the reason why we say that and are unrelated words: the former has a type-2 /mi/, while the latter has a type-1 /mi/. However, we _do_ know the modern accentuation patterns of and , and they are different:
* is accented in modern standard Japanese, is not.
* is low register unaccented (→ LH) in modern Kyoto dialect, is high register unaccented (→ HH).
Assuming these continue a historical distinction, it seems safe to conclude that and were not the same word in Old Japanese as well. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, etymology, colors"
} |
Are there any rules for choosing between おお and おう?
Am I correct assuming that both and are homophones in Japanese - both being pronounced as long o? I suspect I am, since that's what I'm indirectly reading in various tutorials. If so, are there any (non necessarily exhaustive) rules to guess the correct spelling of the words with long o? I speak several languages where there are no strict spelling rules, but still there are some hints that help guess the right spelling most of the time. Is there such a rule for vs in Japanese? | Etymology. comes from an earlier or , while can come from any of or (and potentially if it's now ). This is due to sound change - originally all of these were distinct pronunciations, but they have since been reduced to a single sound ([o:]).
Typically you can guess that [o:] in Chinese loanwords will be spelled with (since neither nor ever occurred in any Chinese loanwords), and that in native Japanese words it will be spelled with (since the combinations that led to were fairly rare compared to and , though they do occur). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 14,
"tags": "spelling"
} |
Negation with ではありません vs. じゃない
I tried to say "I'm not a high school student". But I read you can use to 'deny' something. In this case which one should I use? or ?
{}{}or {}{}? | First of all, you would use **** , not ****. It's the particle ``, the same one as `` at the beginning of your sentence.
Second, you have many options here. `` is just a contraction of ``, and `` is just the informal form of ``. So you have four choices that are all correct.
> * → most informal
> *
> *
> * → most formal
>
So it really depends on the context, who you're speaking to, and how formal you want to be. Whether or not you want to say `` instead of just `` is another issue, but you may want to look at this topic regarding that. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 25,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Interpretation of 思われる (spontaneous or passive?)
My understanding is that , in addition to being the passive form of , can also be used in the sense of "to spontaneously think; to appear".
>
> In North America a skirt is thought of as something a woman wears.
In which sense is being used here? Both seem reasonable:
Spontaneous: In North America, people spontaneously think a skirt is something a woman wears. Passive: A skirt is thought of by North Americans as something a woman wears.
I lean more towards the first one, since a passive sentence would normally mark the agent with i.e.
> | From your last comment (emphasis added):
> a verb that indicates what the **speaker/writer** feels spontaneously
This does not match the translation you give for "spontaneous:"
> In North America, **people** spontaneously think a skirt is something a woman wears.
Do you see the difference? If `` were supposed to indicate the _author's_ thoughts or feelings, a better translation would be
> It seems that in North America skirts are usually worn by women.
However, with no other context, there is nothing to indicate that this is a personal observation of the author, so the translation
> In North America a skirt is thought of as something a woman wears.
seems most appropriate to me.
Also note that it is quite common to leave out the agent in passive sentences. Just a few examples:
>
> I got bullied at school today.
>
>
> The government was overthrown.
>
>
> He was killed. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the grammatical interpretation of じゃ ありません?
I have learned in school that is the "non-past negative" conjugation of .
Example:
>
>
> "I am not Japanese."
I have noticed that contains the pronunciation of the negative form of .
From a strictly grammatical point of view, does say that something doesn't exist? If so, what is the grammatical purpose of attaching to the proceeding word? | Firstly, is a contraction of , where is the topic particle. The construct is then seen to be the negative form of with a inserted, and is a formal version of .
So perhaps the real question is, what is the purpose of ? It carries most of the semantic load: there a few other constructions meaning "to be" of the pattern + (verb of existence), e.g. , , . So you could say that means "to be", with the caveat that it is not itself a verb. Of course, by "to be" here I only mean the sense of the linking verb and _not_ the existential verb.
My own preference is to say that means something like "as". Then etc. translate as "to exist as ...", or in short, "to be ...". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
} |
Replacing a negative nominalised verb with a ない-form
>
> Do not compare yourself to other people, compare yourself to your past self.
Without any change in meaning, (though I guess it would be less formal in tone), could the writer have just used the - form of instead of nominalising it and then negating the nominalisation?
> | sounds a bit strange...
The negation is not the act of comparing, but the whole action of comparing to others.
In this sentence also gives an impression of strong advice or suggestion, as well as introducing an alternative. Perhaps , , or might have been used instead. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Meaning of ようにできる
A sentence from Kanji in Context:
>
I get that it means something like everyone has individual strengths and weaknesses, and thus the world can go smoothly. But what does mean here? Is it being used as the potential form of , i.e. the world can be made to go smoothly? | From my intuition, binds stronger to the left, and means "accomplished". So falls apart into these two.
People - every one of them - have strengths (and weaknesses) - therefore - the world - smooth-going - like such - become - therefore .
"Various people each have their strengths (and weaknesses), and this is what makes the world keep on turning."
The I put into "makes" here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
which are the technical names for these verb transforms?
what are the Japanese, and English, technical terms for these verb transforms:
...
and this: ...
and this: ...
Is there a standard term that textbooks use to call the changing of verb stems into those 3 different forms? "Verb conjugation" sounds natural, however "conjugate" does not sound correct in the context.
What do Japanese students call the changing of verbs into those 3 different forms?
thanks. | > ... → **Potential Form ()**
>
> and this: ... → **Passive form ()**
>
> and this: ... → **Causative form ()**
"Conjugation" is correct, and you can say ``. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
「たくさん」 is technically, but not practically, a na-nominal (形容動詞) , right?
Dictionaries have listed as being either a noun or Googling "" returns only 190,000 hits; none of the top 20 pages are professional websites. Rather, they are only blogs.
My impression is that, practically speaking, is used only as a noun? For some idiosyncratic reason, it's also listed as ? Can anyone shed some light as to what's going on? Is this issue related to the meaning of or just about that the word, , is exceptional?
thanks. | > My impression is that, practically speaking, is used only as a noun?
Unless you belong to the school who believes that are really nouns, I don't think it's a noun, e.g. you cannot say *. And I don't see any examples in the goo dictionary that suggest it's more of a noun than any other .
> Is this issue related to the meaning of or just about that the word, , is exceptional?
I don't see anything exceptional about it. Some use , some use . This one usually uses , like e.g. .
I'm not sure why the goo dictionary doesn't list as an adverb, although it lists examples of adverbial use. This is quite common for of quantity and classifiers to be used adverbially
>
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "na adjectives"
} |
となし in 「往{ゆ}け八紘を宇{いえ}となし」
I'm currently listening to , which is apparently a Shōwa-era patriotic song. It is written in a rather confusing mix of modern and Classical Japanese, but I think I can understand most of it except for {}{}. What is ? Is it ? That doesn't seem to make any sense... | I think it might be the of , so that the meaning is roughly
>
> make the whole world our home
Also, is most likely , which carries the meaning of , giving
>
> let us establish true peace | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words, song lyrics"
} |
Is the Ainu name for every part of the body monosyllabic?
I've heard a friend say that the Ainu word for every part of the human body is monosyllabic, and that all words in Ainu are made up of the syllables from those words. Is either claim true? | I know nothing about Ainu, but according to "A talking dictionary of Ainu" there are a number of multisyllabic words for parts of the body, including
> leg
> Kema; chikiri.
>
> toe
> Urepet.
The dictionary includes audio files for the pronunciation of each word, which I have linked to in the words above. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "ainu"
} |
What's the short way to say "me too" and "me (n)either"?
I am just learning about the particle and the textbook has examples like this:
> Yamada is a student. I am also a student.
I am wondering whether the repetition of is really necessary. Can I say something like:
>
or maybe
>
The other question is whether works with negative statements too. I.e. will the following be grammatical?
>
And the similar question of the possible contraction of this. Can I say
>
Can I make it even shorter to say "Neither am I"? | You can use the following expressions, as appropriate
>
>
>
>
>
all of which roughly mean "me, too". These all work for negative and positive statements, except for a sentence like
>
in which case I find it more natural to say
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
} |
using 美化語 in 謙譲語 verb forms does not make sense, right?
So, is used to create honorifics: etc.
But, the standard way to create the form of verbs is: [verb stem] +
That does not make logical sense to modify the action that you are performing with an honorific "", right? There is nothing about this paradox that would help with understanding in a broader contextEvery language has its idiosyncrasies. Assigning to action you perform is just something to memorize, right? I don't care about etymology. So, memorize and move on to the next topic? | Prefixing a word with `` or `` does not necessarily make it an honorific. The following is an example of humble speech ():
>
...while this is an example of honorific language ():
>
Notice that both phrases use ``.
`` does _not_ mean honorific. `` is used to make one's speech sound more refined (`` = beautification, `` = word/language). Therefore, `` is frequently used in regular polite speech. The following are examples of ``:
> ->
>
> ->
Note that not all words that are prefixed with `` or `` are examples of ``. For instance,
>
is an example of . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
Does the particle に in に作られた mark the agent or the location here?
I'm confused about in the following sentence. Kindly explain this part to me.
> Central Base **** ASDF
Some sort of translation:
1. Central base is, created by the old Aquapolice - Central airport, ASDF's land(?) base.
2. Central base is, created on the old Aquapolice - Central airport, ASDF's land(?) base. (However in this case I think that would be more suitable)
The "" is part of the original text. | The reading as to mark the agent of the passive construction is definitely syntactically possible, but a much more likely reading is the locative , i.e. your second reading.
Why is it and not ? marks a place where an action happens, marks a place where something "exists". There is definitely some overlap in usage, but in this case sounds strange to me, as if "it was built there, but then moved somewhere else". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, passive voice"
} |
Is there a set response to 『いらっしゃい！』?
So I was watching by Mikio Naruse late at night, and heard something that sounded familiar. Alas, I fell asleep and returned the movie before checking (yes there is still a rental store in my hood).
Anyway, in the movie a hostess from a rival club walks into a bar, and receives the greeting. However, I remember hearing her respond to the greeting with another set phrase that sounded familiar yet was one I haven't learned. Does anyone know if there is set response to ? I think I might have heard it in another old movie before, but not irl.
Edit; the character say , but this is not a phrase with a specific relation to . Thanks, all! | 1. If you are being greeted with an , when entering a large shop, supermarket, bank etc., you are not expected to reply. If you feel you need to somehow acknowledge, a short nod would do.
2. If you hear , when entering someone's house, or would be a standard answer. If you are entering a small shop and there are no other customer (so that the () is addressed to you personally, you say something like or . Of course, it is perfectly OK say the above phrases **before** being greeted. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "set phrases"
} |
Pronunciation of interpoint when listing items
This is a case when interpoint () is used for listing like a conjunction. I wonder how would a native speaker pronounce such an expression?
* Simply
* (pause)
* or , , i.e. inserting some context-appropriate conjunction word between items. | The is used as punctuation and is only part of written language () and does not represent anything in spoken language (). (You will find no in bedtime stories.) When reading to yourself, or to someone reading the text next to you, the would simply be ignored, with possibly a short pause between the words.
If you are reading, say, a dictionary entry out loud to someone not seeing the text, you can insert a or , as appropriate, to avoid mistaking the two words for a single one. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pronunciation, punctuation"
} |
Does a word for vending machine shorter than 自販機 exist?
My Japanese teacher told me there is no shorter way to say {}. However, I found {} in my dictionary. Does a word (including slang) for "vending machine" shorter than four morae exist? | Just without the is quite common. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, abbreviations"
} |
How would you write the name Anibal in Japanese?
So my name is written Anibal, I'm from Brazil, just so you know. I'd like to know how would you write it in japanese, I'm in doubt between A-ni-ba-ru and A-ni-ba-e-ru. Any further explanation would be much appreciated. | For this kind of question, you can start by seeing how other people spell it. I searched the Japanese Wikipedia for **Anibal**. Here were the top two results:
* Anibal Alejandro Sanchez \- ****
* Tarso Anibal Santanna Marques \- ****
How you transcribe a name usually depends on its _pronunciation_ , not its _spelling_ , so it's possible that an Anibal from a different region would have a different transcription. But you said you're from Brazil, and so is the second person I linked to above, so it seems reasonable to spell your name the same way as his. And that's true regardless of whether it's based on spelling or pronunciation--following convention in transcribing names is usually a good thing. So based on this, I think **** seems like a good spelling.
If you can't read katakana, that's **A-ni-ba-ru** , just like your first guess. That would usually be written without hyphens, so it's **Anibaru**. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, katakana, names"
} |
Dangerous driving: "queue de poisson" in Japanese?
How to call it when a vehicle that just passed you gets back in lane too early, forcing you to brake, or even causing an accident?
See this Diagram.
This can also happen when a vehicle overtakes and then decide to turn very soon afterwards, cutting your way.
In French it is called queue de poisson.
It is DIFFERENT from "fishtail". Fishtail is when a vehicle loses control due to an obstacle, "queue de poisson" usually does not involve losing control, just braking in a straight line, in most cases. Fishtail can be had alone, "queue de poisson" can't happen with less than 2 vehicles. | If it's just the phrasal verb "to cut off" in general, works pretty well as its general translation. Its noun version is . If you want to make it clear that someone cut you off dangerously close or suddenly, and collocate very well. So, for example, in the noun case, sounds very natural, and in the verb case, sounds fine. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
Does 数独{すうどく} really mean "single number"?
I've never actually played a sudoku puzzle (I know, I live in a cave!).
I just saw the word written in kanji somewhere, which rekindled my interest.
Wikipedia states:
> The puzzle was popularized in 1986 by the Japanese puzzle company Nikoli, under the name Sudoku, meaning single number.
Though to me, the compound {} implies "number addiction", especially in the context of a game. | I don't believe that sudoku exists as an actual word. Literally it does mean "single number," as it is a combination of the characters for "number" and "single." However the mathematical term for singular (versus plural) is {}.
According to the Wikipedia page for it, the name is a reduction of the phrase "," or basically "limited to one number." I don't know if there are any hidden puns about number puzzle enthusiasts being forever alone, but a subsequent publication of this type of puzzle in Japan shortened that title to , and thus it was named. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, compounds"
} |
Help with ～ようにそっとする
I'd like help with this passage.
It is from the workbook N2:
> ****
The first part seems clear to me: "It's not that I don't wanna know about the conditions before or after the game or anything" (Rough Translation).
The second part is what baffles me. In my understanding, the person is saying that he cannot help imagining it would be good (?) if he could let the players know they don't have to worry about fan service in order to focus on the game as much as possible. Is that, to some extent, correct?
If not, what would be the meaning of this structure, to be more specific, what is the meaning of:
> .
I know means roughly 'leave alone', but I've tried searching for examples of it in combinations with and couldn't find any samples.
And also, what nuance does bring? | Your example doesn't contain in it. So, I don't address this phrase. If the original passage doesn't have it, probably stachexchange wants you to start another question thread because it's totally unrelated.
Also, I think "" should read "."
So, here roughly means "in a way that," "such that," "so that" or the like. It might help you put a comma between and . For example,
> A
roughly means "to leave him alone so he doesn't have to do A." I think the rest of your interpretation is fine. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
What does り have to do with this?
So I asked some Japanese guy if he really meant something (about speaking in certain language) with and I got this as an answer:
>
I understand what means, but what's with that ? How to properly translate this sentence? | Chocolate's link will teach you the usual usage of , but it might still not be clear how it's used in this case. In this case, it's used basically to make an excuse or to beat around the bush or something like that. The literal translation might be something like
> In fact, I can't speak [the language] among other things
but the real meaning is closer to
> In fact, I kinda can't speak [the language] | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, usage, translation"
} |
Problems parsing this sentence (ような before comma)
I was reading the examples from the book and I came across this example sentence which I have absolutely no idea of how to parse it:
Is the first ( **** ) modifying , as well as the second? And what is this doing between commas?
Thanks! | It looks to me like two parallel phrases have been coordinated:
> Relative clause A = ``
> Relative clause B = ``
Both relative clauses end with , conjugated to because they're attributive modifiers. (An attributive modifier is one that comes before the word it modifies.) In other words, they're being put together like a pair of adjectives. I think you can parse it like this:
> A B
Where both A and B modify . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
What conjugation is 助けて, when used as an interjection?
According to Wiktionary, the only conjugation I can match this to is the conjunctive form, but that doesn't make any sense, given the context (as in "Help me!"). What would the equivalent conjugation of other verbs be here?
(Note: my background is perhaps equivalent to 1/2-year's worth of Japanese, gleaned through osmosis via animes and some books.) | _Conjunctive form_ is just a label. It tells you about one of the most common uses of the _-te_ form, but it's not a complete definition. Let's take a look at the relevant sense in , a Japanese dictionary:
>
Translated, this says that it **expresses a command or request** , and that it can also take the forms and . (In other words, this use of the _-te_ form sometimes has the particles or after it.)
How does this make sense? Well, I was taught that this comes from either or more politely , with the or omitted. So in this case, I think is a bit of a softer than the actual imperative form . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations, て form"
} |
What does おやすみちゃー mean?
I saw a native Japanese speaker post this on Twitter, I believe that `` means vacation or holiday, but I was unable to figure out the phrase from the context. | `` means vacation or holiday. `` is usually said to mean ``, which means "good night". I don't know what the `` part means. Can you provide more context (or the whole tweet itself)? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "phrases"
} |
How do Japanese people read the pH (measure of acidity or basicity) of a solution?
I read an article (< in case anyone is interested), and it got me thinking how a Japanese person would read this passage:
> pH 910.5
Do they pronounce the pH? And what about the numbers? Is it just something like Or is there some kind of suffix?
Thanks! | According to Wikipedia, there are three pronunciations of pH:
1. An older pronunciation from German, .
2. A newer pronunciation from English, .
3. A variant on the latter, .
It seems like these are all still in use, but the long-term trend is toward the English-derived reading. According to Wikipedia, was decided upon as a standard reading by JIS in 1957, and this was revised to by JIS in 1984, so you may wish to follow the standard and read it .
As for the numbers, we have a question about how to read a range of numbers already. In short, I think you can read the numbers like you normally would, pronouncing the `` between them as , or very formally as . I don't think you need to add a suffix. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
What does it mean when と is at the end of a noun list
I'm slightly confused at how is used at the end. | First, I think it is supposed to be **** , not .
Second, it will be easier to understand if you invert the sentence:
> ****
>
> It's similar **to** that time when I first met Yuuma. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle と"
} |
Why do road signs have 止まれ, not 止まる, 止める or 止めて?
From what I know ending verb in makes it sound rough and very casual. I checked in tangorin.com online dictionary - it's said there it is actually a noun. To me, though, it looks like a rough intransitive version of . Why ? | is the imperative form, so it's basically equivalent to "Stop!".
I'm not sure where you get "rough intransitive" from. is intransitive already and transitive.
Although the imperative is usually considered too blunt for _speech_ , the road sign is usually the best example for a standard use of the imperative.
The imperative for verbs (e.g. , , etc.) is formed by sending the final kana to the -row (e.g. , , etc.)
The imperative for verbs (e.g. , , etc.) is formed by appending to the "-stem" (e.g. , , etc.). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "verbs, て form, imperatives, daily life"
} |
How to say Populations and Civilizations when talking about history?
Dealing with historical matters for a certain urban area, one would like to say the following:
> In this city we had many populations here: Normans, Greeks and French...
So what is the right term for: "Population" and "Civilization"? Thankyou
PS I tried dictionary, but there I cannot find good exmples... probably my dictionary is not so advanced. I also tried denshi-jisho on-line... the same | I recommend www.alc.co.jp as a starting point for these kinds of questions. It contains a huge library of example sentences and you can search multiple words simultaneously in both English and Japanese.
That said, here is my translation of the sentence you gave:
>
The tone got a bit more formal than your original sentence, but you get the idea.
The key thing to point out is that when translating, you should try searching for how ideas are expressed rather than word-equivalences. If you attempt the latter, you usually end up with awkward formulations or just end up making things more complicated than you need to.
**Edit (2013/10/10)** :
Following Earthling's suggestion, the original translation,
> ――
was changed to better reflect the intent of the original sentence | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, translation, history"
} |
What's the difference between 機械 and 器械?
In which case would one be more appropriate than the other? | This can be checked in a monolingual dictionary. For example says:
> **‐**
>
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
>
>
>
>
To summarize the supplementary explanation (), is usually used for _machines_ which make use of some motive force (like an electrical motor), is usually used for _devices_ which are operated by humans directly (via a crank/handle, for example).
##
!
##
!
* * *
On the other hand, has
> ****
>
> ①
>
> ②
>
> ③
>
> ④
mentioning that and may be used for large and small machines, respectively.
This loosely ties in with the explanation in , as very large machines are often too big to be used with a simple crank and make use of some motive force, whereas small machines often don't need any motor. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Do adjectives/adjective-like verb forms in informal speech need a copula?
The class I go to uses the «Minna no Nihongo» textbook, and according to it you can say the following in informal language:
>
>
>
_(See book 1, lesson 20)_
So I gathered, the copula can be omitted in adjective-like predicates. However, when I posted on Lang-8 applying the new-found knowledge, people corrected me:
~~~~ **** or ****
Hence, the question: why is necessary here? What's the general rule? | I think the confusion arises because can both replace as the copula (), or simply mark politeness ().
The correction you received has little to do with a grammatical need for or in a sentence, but rather the two improved versions sound more natural.
Grammatically speaking,
>
is perfectly fine.
You need a copula when you have a noun predicate. needs because nominalizes the preceding phrase. alone doesn't need a copula, but may be marked with for a more polite tone.
Your original sentence could be amended to
>
> I had never been to Germany and had been longing to go...
in which case you don't need or . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, copula"
} |
Kanji identification?
What does the Kanji next to the bar at the bottom right hand side of the screen mean in this video? (The small bar, not the larger one): < \- The bar that it's next to is a curse (or fever) meter, though I had looked up both of these words previously and this kanji didn't ever seem to appear. If it helps, for context, here's a link to the character's wiki page: < | "Fire", "folding chair" and "mouth" is . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What does "もんだなって" mean?
I'm reading a manga and I found that phrase. What is it supposed to mean? Is it some kind of informal way to speak?
This is the full sentence:
| There are several things here.
* `` is colloquial for ``
* `` is the usual copula
* `` here is the variation of `` usually used to imply wondering or wishfulness. Sometimes written as `` or ``.
* `` can be thought of as contraction of ``, though it can mean other things as well.
So, without knowing the context (`` may mean several things), the whole phrase could be translated as:
"Being a guy is not too bad either, you know. That's what I think, anyway." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "parsing"
} |
What does ウリ mean
What does mean in the following conversation? Where and are two characters in the [[]{}4[]{}[]{}](
> []{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{} **** []{}[]{}
>
>
>
> []{}[]{}[]{} | It's #1 or #2 of the explanation here:
i.e. "sales point" or "big appeal".
As for why it's written in katakana, it's a stylistic choice, and I can only guess about the reason. One reason could be that this meaning of is a bit colloquial. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
On the use of katakana and チクる
The full sentence is:
>
And I'm having trouble deciphering those katakana, and are probably a way to emphasize and , but what about ? Is it replacing a kanji? | This is my first time posting here. I hope it's helpful. Here's my understanding of the sentence. I think it's right. But I'm not a native speaker or anything. Yes the katakana is just to emphasize, and is tattle/rat on. Here's a breakdown:
don't worry about it
( 'this' is not 'that'(other thing) at all. So he's saying 'this isn't what you think it is'
so
in this case it kind of means 'no matter what', or 'you'd better (not). Technically it's the same as or . If you can stretch your imagination a bit, it's like 'don't do (whatever), not even by mistake'
I'd say in this case 'don't rat on me' or 'keep your mouth shut' would be appropriate.
OK. Let's put it together, and make it sound like somewhat natural English (haha).
**"Don't worry about it. This totally isn't what you think. So you better keep your mouth shut about it!"**
Hope that makes sense. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Native speakers (basically) don't study radicals. So, how could they be useful for learning kanji?
In a recent post titled "Kanji identification?" the accepted answer stated that the "parts" for are "fire", "folding chair" and "mouth". Japanese native speakers don't understand what that means. Likewise, I don't understand.
An answer that is not understandable by native speakers seems a little weird. Japanese people memorize very, very, few radicals. What they memorize is the official name (so as to explain verbally how to write a kanji). The "meaning" is ancillary at best. Can someone elaborate to me why a radical discussion answered the question in the "Kanji identification?" thread? In this forum, I read most questions / answers to learn Japanese. | It is referring to a technique for learning kanji in which the various components of the kanji are given "names". In addition to breaking the kanji down into an easily quantifiable number of components, it helps to create a **mnemonic sentence** for the kanji out of the **mnemonic words** of each component. For example, "" means "burn", so a technique for memorizing this kanji would be to form a sentence related to "burn" out of the words "fire", "folding chair", and "mouth".
Note that some of the mnemonics come from the actual meaning of the component when it appears as a standalone kanji (such as , which literally means fire), while others are simply named the way they are because of their appearance, such as which resembles a folding chair, but the actual meaning of it is "winter". When forming a mnemonic sentence for the kanji, there is also the option of using "winter" as the mnemonic for the component. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, radicals"
} |
Which is the proper way to say "I don't X"?
I thought if you say "I don't smoke cigarettes" that would be "[Watashi wa] tabako o suimasen". But I just saw something that said it would be "tabako wa suimasen". Are they interchangable? Is there a difference? | There are actually three options.
> 1. []{LLLLLLLLL}
> tobacco-OBJ smoke-NEG-POLITE
> "I don't smoke tobacco."
>
> 2. []{LLLLLLLLL}
> tobacco-TOP smoke-NEG-POLITE
> "I don't smoke tobacco."
>
> 3. []{LLLHLLLLL}
> tobacco-CON smoke-NEG-POLITE
> "I don't smoke _tobacco_ , (but I do smoke something else)."
>
>
1 and 2, (marking with the object marker and topic marker, respectively), are semantically the same.
However, 3 (marking with the contrastive marker, which is also but has a raised pitch) has the implication that you smoke something else.
So, to answer your question, for a transitive verb, marking the object with or both always work (assuming that you aren't constructing an embedded clause), but depending on how is pronounced, it can potentially have the contrastive meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "negation"
} |
What does かの日 mean?
In my Japanese Bible, I've seen several passages that use the phrase ``. Here are a couple.
> * **** / 10 25
> * **** / 7 22
> * **** / 1 10
>
I haven't been able to find the exact phrase in any dictionary. The best I can theorize is that it is ``, which is basically the same as `` or ``. So it would be something like "On that day..."
Is this correct? If so, is it some literary term? What advantage does it have over `` or ``? If not (correct), what is it? | No, **isn't** basically the same as , but it **is** basically the same as , except that it's older and no longer used as much. In short, became .
is preserved in some modern words and phrases:
* became and stuck around (rather than becoming ). Of course, you usually see this written , with the genitive left unwritten.
* still comes up, I think as a set phrase (rather than )
But mostly it's just an old form of . So `` means ``, but it sounds older. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
What is the literal meaning of どういたしまして?
> ·
>
> you are welcome; don't mention it; not at all; my pleasure; —Usually written using kana alone.
>
> "Thank you for your help." "It's my pleasure."
>
> "Thank you." "You are welcome".
>
> ( ita.su = doth; do; send; forward; cause; exert; incur; engage)
>
> () dou (adverb): how; in what way; how about; —Usually written using kana alone.
How do the two words come together to mean, "you're welcome."?
Is it an abbreviation of an older phrase? | This one can be beautifully summarized by a simple quote from wiktionary:
> []
> +++
>
It's fairly self explanatory, but to give a breakdown in english:
* =
* = in humble language
* is the polite verb ending, but in te form, where...
* is "," the formal English name for which I don't know. It is basically a final particle used for a returning remark.
The final rough translation (of the example sentence from wiktionary) would then be something like "I didn't really do anything anyway so don't pay it any mind." However as blutorange points out, the negative notion of not having done everything comes from it being a humble _polite_ form of , so it's like asking "what did I do to be worthy of thanks?" or "Why thank me?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "etymology, phrases"
} |
Difference between こと、もの and やつ
I am trying to understand the following clearly:
1.
2.
3.
When someone is talking about us, we can use .
>
>
> No, that is not something related to me.
is used when we talk about something physical like a bag, book, etc
>
I am not sure on how to use
Could someone clarify ? | Where did you see ? Almost no one would say that in real life because is collocationally constrained. sounds fairly slangy and mannish, so it does not sound natural to combine it with . One will, however, occasionally hear or even , both meaning "mine" when both the speaker and listener know exactly what item they are talking about.
Native speakers will just use without a noun following it since , in this particular context, already means "mine" instead of "my".
= "It is not mine." More literally, "It is not my belonging."
In the sentence above, the part can be replaced with but just using would be a more natural choice for us native speakers. may be added when wanting to emphasize that the item belongs to no one but to you yourself. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
に particle and passive form.... multiple meanings?
There's a sentence in my textbook.
This is the part in particular I don't understand... I read it as... "Born by a man, or possibly a woman..." Why would it say that? Is it supposed to be read "Born AS a man or possibly a woman?"
Don't tell me that has two meanings!!! It means born by right? is supposed to be actor of the passive action right? Like ... Or am I somehow wrong. | X is syntactically ambiguous between:
1. Born as a X
* (be born as a woman)
2. Born to a X
* (be born to a wealthy family)
* (be born to a woman)
For (1), think of adverb+verb. (E.g. Run quickly) ( Born woman-ly → born as a woman)
And for (2) think of a intransitive verb acting with a indirect object (e.g. Bob lied(verb) to Mary(indirect object)) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles"
} |
a few words have an honorific 「お」or「ご」 as a necessary prefix, right?
I just came a across the word While is a word, is not. Likewise, is a word, but while _is_ a word, the reading changes to the ()This means that the inis not window-dressing . Theinis a necessary part of the word. In my opinion, is in limbo. I've never heard spoken without an honorific but alone is officially in my dictionary
Over time, orcan become a necessary part of some words, right? Is this a documented part of Japanese grammar? (reference links would be welcomed). What are a few more words that have an honorific prefix, or, as a necessary part? | In language, a process is said to be _productive_ if it can produce new words (or phrases, etc.). For example, in English, you can add _un-_ to lots of words, so we say that _un-_ affixation is a productive process. And in Japanese, affixing _go-_ and _o-_ to words is relatively productive.
But when a word can no longer be formed via a productive process in the modern language **with a predictable meaning** , we say that it's become _lexicalized_. In other words, it's become a single word, and it needs its own dictionary entry. You need a dictionary entry for _disgruntled_ because you can't figure it out from _dis-_ and _gruntled_ in the modern language. Likewise, you need a dictionary entry for , , and because they've become single lexical words.
So yes, _o-_ and _go-_ can become a necessary part of a word, and the name for this process is _lexicalization_. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "honorifics, prefixes, lexicalization"
} |
How does one read AxB as in "A by B grid" in Japanese?
Here's the definition of sudoku in Wikipedia:
3×3 9×919
How should one read 9×9 or 3×3 out loud? | I think you're asking this because in English, we distinguish _times_ from _by_ :
* 3 **×** 3=9 three _times_ three is nine
* a 3 **×** 3 block a three- _by_ -three block
But I think in Japanese, it's just in both cases:
* **×** ****
* **×** ****
You can see that both uses are listed on Wikipedia's article for `×` in the same section (titled ), and in that section it says that the symbol is usually pronounced .
This ALC example also uses to correspond to English _by_ , although this example has units:
> Also about the photo size, would you like it **four by six inches** or **three by five inches**?
>
> **46** **35**
I also found some videos online where `×` was used to express dimensions, and they pronounced it in each case. For example, this video and this video say 2×2 and 3×3 as **** and **** . (They're both Minecraft videos.)
So I think you can just say " _number_ _number_ ". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "pronunciation, mathematics"
} |
Meaning of 言いだしっぺとして
I stumbled upon the following sentence:
> 10
Context: a person is told to invite 10 persons, and seems to answer ", I will try my best to get 10 persons!"
What does the part mean?
What nuance does it bring to the sentence, compared to a simple "10"? | `` is a single word and if you check a dictionary you get: 'the one who brought it up'.
Since he is the one who originally proposed the idea of getting 10 people, it is his responsibility to carry out his proposal, is what he is saying. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, expressions"
} |
Question about ように
I'm confused in in the following sentence. Maybe it connects to or maybe means "in order to" ? I'm not sure about it here.
Some sort of translation: "Conversations in this period of time means, that _they are_ taking the opportunity to clear the gloom from exams studying, the fact that it sounds a bit unnatural maybe is my imagination."
> | I believe it is a split apart (sounds like ~ / sounds as if ~).
is modified twice, once by the clause ending in , and once again by .
> The(se things called) conversations around this period, I wonder if it is my imagination that they sound unnaturally shrill, and **like/as if** they are an attempt to eagerly snatch at the opportunity to clear up the gloom of studying for exams. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What's the difference between 働くvs 勤める
I was wondering if someone could explain the difference between vs . They seem to both be used to indicate work. As in "I work at Nasa" or something like that. But they have different pronunciations and slightly different kanji. Is there a difference in usage? When would I use one vs the other.
Thank you in advance. | is more of the 'doing labour' side of things (putting in effort), while is more of the 'being an employee' side of things (working for someone). You can even if you're unemployed or self-employed, but not if you're not getting anything done. You can even if you're not actually doing any real work, but only if someone has hired you and is paying you. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "usage"
} |
Are people named after prefectures, or are prefectures named after people?
In Japanese, some names exist in both people and prefectures or cities. For example, Fukushima Industries Corporation is not named after the prefecture of Fukushima () or the city, but after Nobuo Fukushima ( ).
Which comes first? Is it that there's the name of a city or prefecture, and people who live there get their name from it, or was the city or prefecture named after someone famous? Or both? | Neither, really. Both the prefectures and the people are named after important locations in the prefectures. A good deal of Japanese people have toponyms or toponym-esque words for family names (though this is of course not unusual, consider how many people of English descent are named 'Somethingfield'). Both the creation of prefectures and the universality of family names were things that came about in the last half of the 19th century, while many of the places referenced in those names have had their names for centuries; so both prefectural and familial names come from preexisting toponyms. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "etymology, names"
} |
に particles with no attaching verbs
> ****
What is the first particle doing? | This means "with" or "using".
AB = "With A as B" or "using A as B"
modifies = "drawn with a as its hero" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle に"
} |
rules for "personification" with 「じん」、「しゃ」、「か」？
In English, "personification" is a literary device. But, I am talking about when you take a common noun, and then add or:
--->
--->
--->
--->
--->
--->
(1) Is there a generalized rule / guidance for knowing which nouns can be personified, and which suffix to choose?
(2) When studying Japanese grammar in English, is "personification" the correct technical term? The term "personification" when applied to English writing is completely different.
note: Sometimes, I arbitrarily say or instead of without knowing if it is really a word. If the overall context is clear, most Japanese have no problem understanding what I mean. Does anyone else do this, or something similar with other suffixes? | I'm not a native speaker or close to reaching that level but this is my guess...
It seems like when root word is like a verb, use , when it is like a noun, use . For more business-related activities might be appropriate.
In classical chinese, was a 'subject nominalizer' which means it takes verbs and turns it into a subject. For example, =to cut jade, =the one who cuts jade.
It can be hard to tell what is a noun and a verb in Japanese but basically if it's a verb then it is likely to use instead of .
I've never really thought about but it seems like it usually appears when describing someone's occupation (as if you were supporting your family with it?). Note that is also listed in the dictionary. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What's the difference between 「〜を通{とお}して」 and 「〜を通{つう}じて」？
I understand both can mean "by means of, through, throughout", but I'm sure there's a difference in nuance here.
Could someone help explain this? | My grammar book (albeit an older version) says that while many times they can be used interchangeably, `` is used when describing the means that brings about some **conclusion**. Here is the full description from the book:
>
Here are some of the example sentences showing that something is **concluded** by ``.
> * ****
> * ****
> * ****
>
And although it does not explicitly say it, I agree that `` sounds more formal for the interchangeable situations. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How do you say "The 10 most spoken languages in the world" in Japanese?
Would it be:
>
or
> | Let's start with "are spoken".
We'll use that as a relative clause to modify "language":
>
> _languages that are spoken_
And we'll add "most":
>
> _languages that are spoken the most_
> = the _[most spoken] languages_
And to make the scope "in the world":
>
> _the most spoken languages in the world_
Last, we insert to say _how many_ of the most spoken languages:
>
> _the ten most spoken languages in the world_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Distinction between "not everyone" and "no-one"
I recently learnt that means "everyone" with an affirmative verb and "no-one" with a negative verb. So, the literal translation of the Japanese "No-one is here" would be "Everyone is not here". Then how would one go about saying "Not everyone is here?" | `Not everyone is here.' is translated into
Here is a partial negation.
`Everyne is not here' is translated into
(i.e. )
Hereis a total negation.
> If you are familiar with formal language representations :-),
> We can interpret the above situation as below:
>
>
> When P(x)≡[x is here],
> Not everyone is here.
> ⇔ (∀xP(x))
> ⇔
>
>
> ⇔ No one is here.
> ⇔ (∃xP(x))
> ⇔ ∀x(P(x))
> ⇔ Everyone is not here.
> ⇔
In contract to the expresson (total negation),
the expression is somewhat ambiguous.
this can be interpreted as both partial negation and total negation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, phrase requests, pronouns"
} |
need help understanding a coin
I read Chinese decently, so my friend asked me if I knew what their coin was for.
From Chinese, I could read the kanji (Gold Commodity) and (Exchange), but not the Japanese. Can someone help me read what the purpose of this coin is for? And then maybe I can make sense of the horse.
!enter image description here
Thanks! | It appears to be:
It says "Cannot be exchanged with money or goods":
: with commodities (money/goods)
: Not exchangeable
I don't have a clue why they decided to use katakana (instead of hiragana, as is generally used in Japanese). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, readings"
} |
Meaning of trailing の in a question
I've been running into this trailing particle quite often and can't seem to understand what exactly it means. Is it replacing , or does it mean something else?
For example:
> {} | "Instead of , real questions in casual speech are usually asked with the explanatory particle or nothing at all except for a rise in intonation"
< | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle の, questions, sentence final particles"
} |
what are kanji that can be flipped, but not rotated?
Plenty of kanji are symmetrical on the y-axis and x-axis. Plenty of kanji are symmetrical only on the y-axis.
What are some kanji that are only symmetrical on the x-axis? I don't know one.
What kanji change into another kanji when they are rotated and/or flipped? Here is one that I know:
-- flip --> | Here's two that have just horizontal symmetry, at least in some fonts: | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
童貞が許されるのは小学生までだよね - translation of まで
I'm interested in an exact translation of the particle used in this Internet meme:
!
In case you can't read the image, here's a transcription:
> !?
>
>
>
Intuitively, the translation should be something like this:
> Only elementary school students are allowed to be virgins
This translation is backed by the translation of a variation of this phrase found on Touhou Wiki:
> [sic]
>
> The only people allowed (to play) in easy mode are elementary school kids.
However, according to the grammar guide and goo jisho, can only mean "even", not "only". Following a dictionary example:
>
>
> Even the elderly are dancing.
I could try translating it as:
> Even elementary school students are allowed to be virgins (?)
But it does not sound right.
Could it be that by saying "" we imply ""?
> Only elementary school students **and younger children** are allowed to be virgins
So, how should be translated here and why? | means "until, up to":
> You can get away with being a virgin until elementary school. _or_
> Virginity is allowed up to elementary school.
When is translated "even" it is used in the same sense as "until/up to and including, e.g.
>
> People up to and including the elderly are dancing. = Even the elderly are dancing. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles"
} |
What is the origin of けれど, ければ, けど, etc?
In Classical Japanese (correct me if I'm wrong; all my CJ was from Wikipedia and linguistic papers), the could attach a lot of things: , , , etc. So I would be able to say rather than ?
Anyways, where does the `ker-` part come from in all these supplanted forms of the ? Is there once some helping verb ? If so, what would it mean? | They are conjugational endings from (sh)i-Adjectives:
We can derive verbs from adjectives by adding :
> -> ->
And conjugate them further:
*
* ()
* (negation)
* ...
This conjugational suffix got reanalyzed as a word on its own, yielding , which was shortened to , , and .
Even by itself was used in the meaning of by the same process.
> _ __ _= | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "etymology, classical japanese"
} |
How to answer -だね question?
So I've come to learn that something + means something along the lines of "Is it ___ _?" with an expected yes answer. I received this kind of comment as a response to a photo I posted on the internet. What are some common/friendly ways to respond to this? | I think is sort of rhetorical, and I'd only answer it if I was talking to someone in person. Even then, the answer would probably be something perfunctory like , just to feign attentiveness ;)
I could be wrong; I learned this from Tae Kim, so you can check out that reference and see if it helps. Also, the example sentences at Tangorin and Jim Breen's WWWJDIC come off as making it sound rhetorical/for flavor, in the same category as and . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particles, politeness"
} |
Oceans ー Thick or Big?
Straightforward question. The Pacific Ocean is `` and the Atlantic Ocean is ``. What was the reasoning in using a different character for the `` in each? And why `` for Pacific and `` for Atlantic? | As the characters clearly suggest, simply refers to the big Western ocean. Not much confusion there.
, however, is an adaptation of the English "Pacific" Ocean. is a word in its own right that means roughly this: "peaceful" or "tranquil," or "pacific," if you will. According to the page linked at the bottom it had previously been known as .
It seems like may be a simplified form of , although apparently this isn't listed in all character dictionaries (note that here a person claims to have found it). The word exists and is the same word as , and based purely on shape it makes sense that one would be a . So if this theory is to be believed then the in does _not_ mean thick/fat, but rather peace as in , because simplifies to , and is not to be confused with Thailand.
Lengthy discussion about it can be found here! < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "words, etymology, homophonic kanji"
} |
Can someone explain the use of こと in these types of sentences?
Ok, still a newbie to Japanese. I've run across the word more and more recently. I'm having a hard time understanding what effect it's having on the sentence. For example, although I know the meaning of all the sentences below, I can't tell you what means or what it's doing to the sentence. Can someone give me some insight into its meaning? Thanks. See examples below
**** First I took the National Road, but traffic was heavy, so we decided to take the subway.
**** It’s hard to pass trucks.
**** Around Shizuoka, we were stopped by a police car for speeding. I had to pay a huge fine.
**** Because it was raining, I decided to go by subway | Syntactically is a nominalizer in all these sentences, i.e. it turns a verb into a noun by simple concatenation (e.g. , modifies ).
Semantically,
* [verb]+ is a set phrase and means "to decide to [verb]"
* [verb]+ is also a set phrase and means "to turn out that [verb]".
[verb] just means "[verb]ing is difficult" or "it is difficult to [verb]".
* * *
Another nominalizer in Japanese is . For a difference in usage see this question. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Using the causative form (使役形) to create humble language (謙譲語)?
**""** is a line from a movie. That grammar makes sense to me. In this context, is used to create a humble mood. () makes it even more humble.
Based on that, today I said: **""** I was told that is incorrect. In fact, this is correct: **"3"** This grammar confuses me.
I feel that **""** should be sounded-out into passive voice: _"I want to be forced to live in this town."_
However, I don't know how to sound-out **"3"** into passive voice? By using in this context, I am just pretending that someone has power over me (so as to humble myself). But, when I hear , I sense that the two parties must be specified (me and someone else). But, since I am just pretending there is someone with that power, there really is no one else. | is a fairly unusual way of saying that one wants to live in a certain town because people just do not have to beg to live in a certain town in real life --- at least not in Japan anyway. Who said it to whom in the film? And in what kind of situation?
For the same reason, sounds strange. (That comma is unnecessary BTW.) It sounds as if you begged someone for some kind of rent-free arrangement or you had to receive permission from the police or court to live there because you were on probation or something. Or are you just incredibly super-humble to begin with?
3 means a different thing than the sentence immediately above in that with , the unmentioned subject of the sentence is the speaker, but with , the subject is another person who let you live there (probably for a very low or free rent and even with board). So, if it is that kind of person that you wanted to talk about, 3 is a very natural-sounding sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, honorifics"
} |
What to call the characters-based decoration found in many announce emails
Many emails received from Japanese companies contain characters-based dingbat-style ornament like this:
blablablablablablablabla
blabla
blablablabla
blablabla
bla
...
It seems to be a particular case of Shift_JIS art (which I don't know how to say in Japanese either, by the way).
What do you call this type of email decoration in Japanese? | This decorative frame can be called ().
can be text-based or not, it means any kind of dingbat-style framing in general. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "words, computing, word requests, email, typesetting"
} |
Question about particle と
I cannot grasp the meaning of in the following sentence.
> ****
Some sort of translation: "I've been living alone these 2 years, however I didn't become skilled in cooking, and Saki not only doesn't have any need in it, when she is not interest in it she does not cooking."
Thank you very much for help. | It's like
> ****
> ****
The is the case particle as a quotative marker. The reasons didn't cook are and .
* * *
By the way, the in means "these (two years)", not "here (location)", and you're missing (alone) in . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle と"
} |
"I would stop missing you the moment we meet again"
I am trying to translate the sentence in the title. Clearly,
>
seems to be wrong. Wouldn't this mean "When I see you, I would never want to see you again" or something like that?
How to say this simple sentence? My brain is shortcircuiting for some reason... | "" means "If I meet you, I will start wishing not to meet you."
In parts . The is one of your four many options for if type expressions. But this particular one has a (before/after) connection some of the others lack. This means the event following in this case happens temporally after. So it could also be translated "After I meet with you, I start to wish I didn't meet you" or something roughly like that (the tense in the clause is immaterial in Japanese).
The second half involves the following sequence:
> to meet
>
> to want to meet
>
> to not want to meet
>
> adverbialization of the constructon
in this case to become
ergo, I begin to not want to meet you.
Thus, together, whenever I meet with you, I start wishing I didn't meet you. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What does "Ｘの一つにＹがある” mean?
I have a sentence in my book like this: ”How are you?"
and found a similar example here:
The part I am confused about is the ... in particular, the part. Why are we placing a location particle next to ... shouldn't it just be | In Samuel Martin's 1975 _A Reference Grammar of Japanese_ , he calls this use of `` the "copula infinitive" (p.396). But more importantly, he glosses it in English with the word "as":
> ****
> " **As customers** we have mostly foreigners, so lots of foreign vegetables like asparagus and broccoli are out for sale."
He also gives an example that closely parallels yours, using ` ****` (" **as** one of "):
> ****
> " **As one of the Hawaiian Islands** there is the island of Maui."
> = " **Among the Hawaiian Islands** is the island of Maui."
In this example, "among" is a more natural expression in English, but "as one of" is a little closer to the literal meaning of the Japanese.
As you can see from these examples, `` isn't really marking a location; it's functioning adverbially. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
しょう vs. しょ which is more often found in common words?
Which is found more often in common words, or ?
I tend to think is found more often and is usually placed in the end of the word. On the contrary seems to be placed at the start.
Are these assumptions correct? | Simply from etymology I would expect `` to be **far** more frequent than ``. This is because `` was always `` historically, while a ridiculously large amount of sounds _merged_ to ``:
> etc | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
How many times should 「お」 and 「ご」 be used in a sentence?
In this Chiebukuro question about whether it should be **** or **** , one answerer says the following:
>
>
>
>
> ””
>
Quick translation:
> When you add or to show politeness/respect, if you just stick it on the last thing it will work on the whole sentence.
> For example we say: **** rather than **** **** **** **** ...
This got me thinking about the topic of how many times to use and in a sentence. For example, I've always wondered why it's not **** in the following common train announcement:
> ****
Similarly, on the buses where I live, it's:
> [...] ****
But, on the other hand, I've seen plenty of sentences like this before:
> **** **** **** **** (source)
So I want to ask:
Are there any prescriptive rules (from for example) that govern how many times to use in a sentence?
And how do people actually decide how many times to use in a sentence? | As you probably have already guessed, there is no hard rule about how many times you can use and prefixes in a sentence. We often avoid using too many honorifics, and it is true that there is a general tendency to use honorifics in the final verbs. However, we sometimes use honorifics also in other places.
This is different from . For example, consider . Because is a respectful form of , and is a respectful form of , is something like the respectful form of the respectful form of . Expressions like this are called , and they are usually discouraged in the modern Japanese except for certain common phrases. See pp. 30–31 of by the Agency for Cultural Affairs () for more about and what may look like but actually are not. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "politeness, honorifics, keigo"
} |
かわいい meaning care for
I am learning from which is great generally but I wonder about this example from N2 (grammar):
>
which translates to I scold my children because I care for them.
This was teaching meaning because.
Implying that in this context means care for. Is this a true translation? I thought it was something like but my teacher said it wasn't- just the cute, nice... meaning adjective. Where is this usage referenced? | Just ask the dictionary:
> (1){}{}{}{}{}
> ―{}{}{}―
Japanese to English dictionaries often tend to gloss over a lot of nuances, so it's good whenever possible to use a J-J dictionary. In English, this would read as "something for which you hold deep affection and treat as important." The examples refer to "my 'dear' son," for example, which matches the usage of your sentence. The example sentence in question would be "".
So as for whether it's a 'true' translation, which I assume you mean not to be in error, or else a literal translation, the answer is of course yes. Because the speaker cares deeply for this child he/she scolds him/her. Technically it COULD be that the speaker is just weird and especially enjoys scolding cute kids, but we have no context to suggest that the definition above is not the most likely one.
Definition 2 in that dictionary entry is the one that has the typical "cute" meaning that we tend to associate with the word | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, adjectives"
} |
授業- is it the class or class-time or more broadly?
<
list this word in one line so it doesn't seems like it should have lots of nuances.
Here some usage in my textbook.
implies a sum of knowledge passed in class time.
implies class-time.
Is really defined so broadly? What are the its limits of meaning and how to discrimate in practice? www.jisho.org lists as class-time, are there correct term for scheduled class-time and actual class-time? I know from my time as an ALT in a Japanese high-school, these are certainly not the same periods of time. | is defined in as
A translation of this would be "teaching a discipline/science at a school or the like." So perhaps it would be best defined as "instruction", "teaching". An instance of teaching/instruction would be a "lecture", "class", or "lesson".
Its uses:
* As a verb: to give a lecture, to instruct
* As a noun: teaching (at a school), a lecture, a lesson
Common phrases:
* (...) receive a lesson (in ...), attend a lecture (on ...)
* take a class (i.e. choosing it for the semester)
* attend a class, participate in a class
* once class ends, after class is over, after classes | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Figurative use of 空ける?
> 3
>
> Oh, I've been away from here for three weeks.
This Japanese sentence and its translation was provided by a native speaker, describing his absence from a website.
What would be both the literal and figurative meanings of (.) here, in relation to time and/or the subject? | As native English speakers I think we tend to relate pretty easily with the expression {} or , meaning to have free time or to make/spare time. The meaning in question is similar but not exactly the same. The and the lack of the direct object kind of obfuscates the real meaning. Indeed, it could be read as , but that would mean he essentially cleared up 3 weeks to be less busy. Instead it's referring to the website/place where he usually is: . This usage refers to being away from somewhere. Literally it means that he "emptied" the site, referring to his not being there figuratively.
On alc we see some examples of this:
>
> be away from home __ days
>
>
> stay out all night with no questions asked
>
> 10
> leave a room for __ minutes
Hopefully this is clear! It's just a literal idea of leaving a place vacant. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
Does the word 名前 have English roots?
I know it's a stretch, and I'm pretty sure it's not, but is related to name? I always thought it was weird that they were so similar in pronunciation. | It's just a coincidence and an example of a false cognate.
The etymology is covered here in Japanese.
Basically, the term "" has been around for a pretty long time with the same meaning as . It's thought that the part is an honorific that was added some time later. Early uses of the full word can be seen in use in relatively modern times. The English term for it seems to be "modern" in the historical sense, but in Japanese seems to refer roughly to the Azuchi-momoyama period through Edo, roughly 1500s to mid 1800s. Not quite sure exactly when the first recorded use was. It was widely used from the Meiji period onward. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "etymology, history"
} |
What does で mean when asked as a question?
I've come across several instances in manga where the simple question of "?" is used. What could it mean? I'm guessing it means something like "Is that so?," but I'm not sure. | It's basically a shortening of , meaning something along the lines of 'and so...?' or 'then what?' It asks for either a continuation of the thought (especially in a story or something else temporally organised) or a conclusion (as in 'what you just said is setting something up, what is it?'). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, meaning, questions"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.