INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Difference between 家内、嫁、妻、奥さん、かみさん and other words meaning wife
I have seen and heard all these words being used before all to mean wife, but what is the differences between them?
I know some, such as , can only be used for your own wife, but which are which?
Additionally, I have heard there is a similar situation with words for husband, such as and more. Could you explain those as well? | Husband can use all of these like , , , , , , . In these words, is friendly and colloquial. Other persons cannot use , , , because it's not polite. Others can say , , .
Wife says , , , . In these words, indicates the wife is not respectful of her husband. If others use , it's not polite. Others say , , , .
/ is a polite humble word. / is an item which is taken into the family clan, so it has a shade of oldie heritage. / is a legal neutral word.
The maid would say , .
is a little bit classical word, often seen in old Japanese novels. yado roku is another little bit classical word for a husband. is funny and disrespectful, is decent. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Sentence structure for complex sentences
I've been reading up on the uses of the particle , particularly when it is appended to the -te form of a verb where it takes on the meaning similar to "after [verb], [sentence 2]"
However, when building this complex sentence I realized I don't really understand how a sentence should be built. For example, these are two variations of a sentence I came up with:
> "After [I] eat breakfast, let's go walk in the park."
>
> "After [I] eat breakfast, let's go to the park for a walk."
Both of these sentences look correct, but the second sentence doesn't seem natural to me because it mentions the park before the noun "Issho". What would be more proper, and is there a pattern I can follow? | I think the 2nd is natural also. 1st is []->[], 2nd is []->[].
1st strengthens "in the park", 2nd strengthens "with me".
The pattern is "to place the word _near_ a verb, if you want to make the word strongly connected with the verb."
proposes "to eat" or "to take a lunch", not to go to a park, etc.
proposes "with me", not with other persons. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "syntax, て form, particle から"
} |
Usage of ばかり in とばかり思って
Can somebody please explain for me the meaning of in , as far as I can guess through the examples it means something like "".
> 1.
> We always thought they had it made, but from what you say, it's harder than it looks.
>
> 2.
> I thought of him as being a fairly recent newcomer.
>
> 3.
>
>
>
> Well, it's just that, everyone highly prised the food which was on this banquet. And that is why I thought that you're putting all your efforts into it, but--
Incidentally, I found one more sentence with some sort of interesting (at least for me) usage -, I understand that the meaning would be something like "the teacups was lined up **just for show** ", but what is the point of putting before in this case? | You have kind of answered your own first question but I would like to add a few words.
A means and implies that the speaker made a premature judgement about something to form an impression or opinion that is based only on fragmentary information. Later on, he realized that there was more to the story and had to re-form his opinion.
> A **** ****
is virtually synonymous to:
> A **** ****
Your example #3 is cool because it shows that the part sometimes gets omitted. Verbs such as often get omitted, which makes sentences end abruptly with the quotative particle .
To answer your last question, is a common phrase used to add emphasis to the part. The is quotative. The speaker is implying that whoever had laid out the tea set would have wanted to say "Form is important." I myself would have added a after the .
See meaning #6 in | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, particle ばかり"
} |
What's an オウンキー? Why does the term exist?
In the context of real estate, what is an ""?
I understand that it literally translates as "own key", but having a word for that seems to be like needing a word for people with only one head. Is it to distinguish from people who live in a place, but don't have a key to access where they live? | Many hits for this word are from Australia and about people who share a room/apartment. For example:
> 1
So, apparently `` means that you don't have to share the key with someone else living in the same place.
**EDIT** : in fact, the term seems to have been borrowed from English (1, 2) and not invented by Japanese, so the wasei-eigo tag is probably wrong:
> Hi, 1 female needed for living room $180/week only 2 people in the appartment. [...] All bills included, Free Internet, **Own key** , Swimming pool, Gym, Sauna and Spa!! Very Safe and Secure appartment and the area :)
> ...
> Only 3 people in the room, with **your OWN keys**. No need to share the keys, so you can get full access 24/7,
(P.S. You should always mention where you found the word and provide some sentences for context; don't assume it's something obvious...) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, wasei eigo"
} |
How to parse "あけぐち"?
I'm working out my Japanese by trying to read everything around me, including food packages.
On my milk carton written inside a large arrow pointing to the spout is "" in hiragana.
Obviously this is equivalent to English "open here", "pour here", "spout" etc, but I want to _understand_ it literally, piece by piece, to improve my grammar knowledge and ability to make my own sentences, etc.
So is this a noun phrase made up of just {} and {}?
Is the okurigana for some kind of verb ending? Does it maybe change it from a verb to a noun so that it can enter into a compound with ?
It seems not to be regarded as a word in its own right as its not in EDIC. Surprisingly Google Translate offers only "akeguchi"!
Or am I totally off the mark? What would be ways to translate it into English very literally? | Would it surprise you if I told you that you are likely to have been using Japanese words of the same structure as for years already --- []{},[]{}[]{}, []{}[]{}, etc.
The structure is "[]{} of a verb + Noun". It is as simple as that.
[]{}[]{}= The of the verb []{}, which is []{} + The noun []{} = "opening mouth"
[]{}= The of the verb []{}, which is []{} + The noun []{} = "wearing things"
For those unfamiliar with the consonant change occuring in ⇒, it is called []{} : < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "hiragana, compounds, okurigana, parsing, renyōkei"
} |
How to translate て-form + ろ
In the Japanese exclamation:
>
What function does have and how should it be translated to English? I've searched everywhere, but I can't seem to find a decent explanation. The only thing that came close was a website telling me that the -form could sometimes be replaced by a , but that's not what's happening here.. | This is a shortening of which is imperative for ( being the imperative of ) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
} |
Is there a special word in Okinawa for "cheers" / "乾杯{かんぱい}"?
Another traveller in my guesthouse in Naha thinks his local friends taught him a special local word for "cheers", that might sound like "kuri" or "kali".
But the Okinawan owner of the guesthouse doesn't know this word. He doesn't speak Okinawan fluently but he knows lots of words as both his parents were speakers and he's in his 50s.
In any case, I don't mind if it's a word from or just modern local slang used by young people. | It would be or for short.
<
< | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "ryukyuan languages"
} |
Difference between うまい and 美味しい when talking about food
What is the difference between and {} when _talking about food_? I suppose they can be used interchangeably in most cases, but when should I prefer one to the other?
~~I've seen a number of examples where is translated as "sweet". Am I correct in my assumption that one should refer to, let's say, spicy food as but never with ?~~ **Edit** : in this assumption I must be confusing vs. when kanji is used. | There is no difference in meaning between and --- "delicious", "tasty", "yummy", etc. --- but there is a difference in usage and nuance.
sounds more refined and often more feminine than . sounds more down-to-earth and intuitive, and it could carry a small amount of light vulgarity.
If you were a Japanese-speaking parent, you would probably not want to hear your little girl use . Even if your kid were a boy, you would still not want him to use it too often until he was, like, out of elementary school. I am actually speaking from my own experience here. I am male so I usually somehow got away with saying as a kid, but my sister did not. Our mother basically never used the word herself nor did she allow her daughter to use it.
After a few decades, however, more women definitely use like it was nothing. On TV shows about food, you might hear young women use almost as often as they use these days. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "usage, nuances"
} |
Meaning of font variation in the case of the character 賭
Some Kanji characters are written slightly differently in the Mincho/Gothic typefaces or handwriting. Ones that come to mind are , and these have been discussed before [1]. This font-dependent variation is consistent when the character occurs as a sub-element of another character (e.g. as in ).
Today, I encountered the character (as in , ) that looks like it's consists of the sub-elements and . Interestingly, the Mincho font on my machine puts one extra stroke on the top right of the on the right hand side.
I was puzzled because the character by itself doesn't show this variation. Thoughts?
[1] Why are there two versions of the kanji for ? | In fact, the character has the dot in the Kangxi dictionary. This variant is coded in Unicode as and is etymologically the older one.
It is worth pointing out that was only added to the Jōyō kanji list in 2010. Computer fonts usually use traditional (= Kangxi) shapes for characters not on the list; cf Asahi characters and extended shinjitai. Curiously, if you look at the official list, they explicitly say (p. 3) that this variation is permitted for :
>
See also p. 9. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
How to understand "きざみ角煮{かくに}"
In today's endeavour to augment my ability to read onigiri labels I came across this in Naha, Okinawa:
>
Google Translate does a terrible job:
> Boiled angle increments
WWWJDIC has an entry for :
> stew of cubed meat or fish (esp. pork belly or tuna)
But I'm stumped by . Google thinks it means increment and WWWJIC has "shredded tobacco; notch; nick", which doesn't help much.
I've also tried Goo, Wikipedia, Wiktionary. I wonder if there's a wiki or other resource specializing in Japanese food terminology as this is a particular interest of mine. | is a type of Japanese dish, which consists of food boiled in (broth) and soy sauce, often with (cooking rice wine) and sugar.
The name of all types of usually end with , e.g. , , etc.
is a type of with cubed meat or fish as main ingredient, similar in looks to meat stew.
is one of the types of chopping food, which usually is done by chopping the food into strips () and then into tiny cubes.
is thus "minced stew". is the form of the verb with joins to to form a new word, as in , and thousands of other words. What's different is that this construction usually uses a word, but here is . This should cause no confusion as is clearly a suffix and feels much like a word. Besides, there are no other options: []{} would sound like the filling is a type of called . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, food, renyōkei"
} |
How would I say "Courageous warriors called Samurai?"
How would I go about saying "Courageous warriors called Samurai? Would make sense? | No does not make sense, because is not a na-adjective.
If you want to use (you probably do), you have to say and when this modifies a noun (like ), you should use no-ga conversion to get
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, translation"
} |
What does 「声室」mean in this context?
I found the following sentence in a document relating to this webpage:
> **** 2012113
My initial guess is that is some kind of feedback room where costumer concerns are voiced out and catered for, but I'm not sure because I can't find an analogous meaning of anywhere.
Is "Customer Feedback Room" accurate? Or if I'm wrong, what is the room for? | As Tokyo Nagoya pointed out, the phrase was parsed incorrectly. The correct division is:
> []{}[]{} + []{}
However, regarding translation, it seems that "Customer Service" is a little off since is a more appropriate term for it, as Chocolate mentioned. Recently, I realized that the phrase may actually be a very literal translation of `` from the business concept **`Voice of the Customer`**.
> From Wiki
>
> "...a market research technique that produces a detailed set of customer wants and needs..."
Using this, I found a localized site from the same company that was used in the context of the question. The term **`Customer Voice`** was used.
So, to summarize, `` or Customer Voice is a service that serves as an outlet so that feedback— the customer's thoughts and opinions— may be heard. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Confusion about 一千億 and 一千兆
I recently created a web app called Kazu which aims to help speakers of Japanese and English learn to read numbers in both languages.
I found a web page which said that 'for numbers over `1`, "1000" is read as ``.
So, to be consistent with `{}`, I used `{}` and `{}`.
I'm also using `` where 1000 appears in other parts of the number, so `11000` comes up as ` `.
I've tried to clarify with 2 native speakers whether these are the best choice for the app, and both of them said "it depends on the person", but they also said `` sounds better than `` — except when there's a counter word like `` or ``.
Now I'm really confused. If you had to choose one "best" pronunciation for `1000` and `1000`, as in my situation, what would they be? What would you say for numbers like `11000`? Should I change my decision? | This is mostly about "Names of Digits vs. Concrete Numbers" with some exceptions.
For instance, "10,000,000", as a digit (which is an abstract concept in math), is read either or . Both are correct but more native speakers would say it for a digit at least in Tokyo and Nagoya. So we go like this:
>
As a concrete number, however, "10,000,000" can only be read . That means that whenever a counter word is added to this, the part must always remain.
> Correct:[10,000,000]{}[10,000,000]{}
>
> Incorrect:[10,000,000]{}[10,000,000]{}
Moving on, "1,1000", even as a concrete number, unfortunately has two readings. More formally, and less formally, .
> A store clerk or bank teller will say to a customer.
>
> You look inside your wallet to check how much money you have and you will say to yourself . You say the same when telling your friend how much you have.
Thus, the best way to pronounce a number depends on the context, purpose, etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "numbers"
} |
Meaning of 「臨徴す」?
I'm currently reading the novel by , and on page 230 the following sentence is spoken:
The character is referring to all shop owners of the district having pooled together money to set up a big Christmas tree in the vicinity in hopes of more customers.
For some reason, I cannot determine the meaning of . It would make sense to me if it was only , but why is a prepended in this case? | I think it's short for []{}... (I have never heard it, though...) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
Orthography at the turn of the previous century
A couple of days ago I purchased an old book published in 1908.
It uses a strange orthography I haven't encountered before. Everything that is not in kanji is written in katakana, including particles, inflections, etc.
Was this the normal way, or one of the normal ways, of writing Japanese at that time?
The book is a handbook of the Okinawan language for Japanese speakers. All the Okinawan is written in katakana while all the Japanese is written in Kanji plus katakana. So it could be that the author of the handbook made a stylistic choice because of the type of book and didn't use the normal Japanese orthography of the day.
Here's a tiny sample:
!Japanese orthography sample using katakana
My camera is terrible at macro shots so here's my attempted transcription:
> {} | Yes, it's common to write in that way.
Writing **** instead of **** and **** instead of **** are a part of the Historical Kana Orthography ().
Writing katakana instead of hiragana is considered more formal in old days.
See and
> ... The Historical Kana Orthography was used in pre-World War II official documents and schools.
>
> Before World War II, Katakana was considered more formal and used in official documents. It was taught before hiragana in schools. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "katakana, orthography, history, obsolete kana"
} |
What does やっちまえ mean?
As the title says: What does mean? | is the tough guy's colloquial way of saying and it can mean so many different things because the verb has quite a few meanings.
It can mean "Beat him up!", "Get him/her/them!", "Kill'em!", etc. It could even mean something I am not allowed to say on here.
Another possibility is when means "to give something to someone". In that case, means "Give it to (someone)! (Someone) needs it more than you do!", which is much more peaceful than the first set of possible meanings above.
So, the best thing to do is to provide some context if none of the above seem to fit. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "slang"
} |
What old Japanese texts can be used in the same fashion as the latin "Lorem Ipsum"?
"Lorem Ipsum" is used as a place holder when creating designs or formatting media that will have actual text and functionality.
**Question**
I would like to know what the Japanese equivalent is of this (if one exists) and or what ancient Japanese texts can be used in a similar fashion to produce "text that looks like actual text, but isn't understandable to the average viewer". Basically the same as Lorem Ipsum. | Like the site that helix pointed out, dummy text generators will just pick some works and generate text from that. There's not one classic text that almost every designer uses.
The work that this dummy text generator uses by default is "" ("My Individualism") by (Soseki Natsume) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "classical japanese, computing, publishing"
} |
How is となりのトトロ supposed to be perceived in Japanese?
How is the title of the well-known cartoon supposed to be perceived in Japanese?
What is the device behind the ? Is it alliteration, word-play or something else? | Mei, the main character in the movie, has a tendency to mispronounce words.
**** is a mispronunciation of the word **** or **** , meaning **"troll"** — which _may_ refer to the antagonist of the classic children's story "The Three Billy Goats Gruff".
Sources:
From Nausicaa
From EN Wiki | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, names"
} |
Why is the volitional form used in this title 「時には自分を疑おう」?
I have always struggled to understand the volitional form and translating into English.
From a videogame guide I am going through, translating, I have this title:
>
”” meaning "to doubt / mistrust". The meaning of the title is surely not "let's doubt ourselves" but probably more like "doubting yourself..."
But then why is the title not ?
For context, here's the start of the body
> | >
would mean something like "From time to time, we find that we doubt ourselves". The intended meaning here, I think, is that we _should_ doubt ourselves. Something like
>
> At times we should doubt ourselves
which comes from "let's doubt ourselves from time to time", but "let's" sounds kind of strange in English.
You've told us nothing about the video game, so I don't know whether that makes sense. Probably it doesn't make much sense for a car racing game.
For the Legend of Zelda games, this does make some sense. The start of the body copy you added says that, even when you think you've figured it out, you might try your idea and find that it doesn't work as well as you thought. So "From time to time you should doubt yourself". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "volitional form"
} |
Do Japanese's sister languages have equivalents of the particles は and を?
Okinawan definitely has a particle equivalent to the Japanese subject particle .
But I can't seem to find something like the topic particle or the object particle .
Then again I only have limited materials and they're in Japanese, which I can't really read very much of.
So I'm not sure whether this is a big difference between the languages, or there are such particles but I just can't find them.
Information on these particles in any of the other sister languages of Japanese is welcome.
(For the purposes of this question I'm only asking about these three particles that show the major grammatical roles of the nouns, I'm not asking about any of the other particles for now thanks.) | Most definitely they do! (this pdf - < \- is what I'm using as my source, it might be very helpful to you (^_^) )
Most of Ryuukyuuan uses =ja as a topic marker (though with some contextual variation in some languages).
South Ryuukyuuan outside of Yaeyama uses =u for object marking (Yaeyama uses just word order). North Ryuukyuuan uses =ba, probably a descendant of the topic/object combo marker =woba visible in Old Japanese.
Equivalents for Japanese =ga and =no are actually a lot more interesting, as most of Ryuukyuuan uses both =ga and =nu for both subject and genitive. That pdf has a better description of this than I can give here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, particle は, particle を, ryukyuan languages"
} |
What does ぶつまね (ぶつ真似?) mean?
I'm just wondering what does the word "" (or also as turned up by a google search) mean? I tried guessing from the context of some 10 example sentences but still can't come up with the meaning of the word.
My original sentence is this one:
>
The girl in question is tricked into answering "yes" to a question of whether a given calculation is correct. The answer she had been given is almost right except for a single number in it.
Thank you in advance.
Example sentences < | It is two words --- + /
"Verb + " = "pretending to 'Verb'"
means "to hit", "to punch", etc.
Thus, means "(giving) a mock punch"
If, indeed, were one word as you claim, I would have no idea what that could mean (and I am a native speaker.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Unusual usage of 勝 （勝たしてくれ？）
I was reading a comic and came across the following usage of which confused me.
>
I know what it means (Help me beat Mihashi in this game), but I'm not sure about how to parse "". "" looks like it comes from "", and I want to say that "" is the connective form of "", yet I've been completely unable to find a noun or suru-verb "" in any of my dictionaries. The other possibility I considered was "" came from a verb "", but once again I couldn't find any such verb. What's going on here? | `` is a rougher variant of `` \- the causative form of ``. So it would be something like "[Please] let me defeat Mihashi". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
} |
How else can you use 「だい」as in 大好き or 大嫌い?
I understand that you can use in the sense of "very", to emphasise and . So is "very loved" and is "very hated". Can be used for the same meaning in any other words? Can you use it to modify all adjectives?
Please reply using kana (kanji with furigana is fine.) | []{}[]{} and []{}[]{} are somewhat special in that sense. Both {} and {} can be used with other words, but usually {} goes with {}{} words and {} with {}{} words:
> []{}[]{}[]{}
> serious problem
>
> {}{}
> pressing, urgent
One exception would be {}{}{}.
Prefixing or , however, only works for specific words and I don't think there's any rule to determine which words take or for emphasis. For example, is a na-adjective, but (with either reading) doesn't work.
With i-adjectives and na-adjectives you can use other constructions for emphasis. Using adverbially works in almost all situations and with all i-adjectives and all na-adjectives (e.g. []{}, ). There are also many informal/conversational ways (using {}, , , etc.) of saying the same thing. (See this answer.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "adjectives, adverbs"
} |
Understanding 外国でも使える電話を借りて来た
I'm having difficulty translating this particular sentence into English, and even thus understanding it fully.
> **** ****
My best attempt at a translation:
> I had a problem at Narita Airport because I had to rent a mobile phone to use.
I don't know how to translate the bit and have it make sense nor am I sure about translating the either. | Let me see if I can address these one at a time:
1. > [ ** ** ]
The relative clause is modifying , so means "a cell phone that can be used even overseas".
2. > ****
means "borrowed", but since money was probably exchanged for the phone, I think "rented" is probably a better translation in this case.
3. > ****
Did you notice the negative in ? It means "had no problem", not "had a problem".
Here's my attempt at a loose translation:
> I rented a phone that works overseas at Narita Airport, so there's no problem. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, particles, verbs"
} |
Is there a way to say "crisis averted" in Japanese that retains its sarcastic meaning?
You know, as in situations that are clearly not crises.
I've looked around but can't find an answer. | The expressions that I think would retain the sarcasm are :
> []{} or
>
> []{} or
A slightly less natural (and more literally translated) phrase would be :
> []{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "set phrases"
} |
無茶 - "bad tea" = absurd; unreasonable
I have the following in a Zelda guide book I am translating. It is talking about being faced with a problem and trying various ways to solve it (you know the Zelda games). I am interested in "". There is no kanji but I believe it is . This is a videogame guide book and the target audience is teenagers I believe, from looking at what kanji is used and not used.
>
This looks to me like "bad tea" (which could mean "absurd" in a way). Is this the correct kanji, and is it common to use this kanji or is hiragana preferred?
Does anybody know the origins of this? Does "bad tea" really mean "absurd"?
if the next line helps:
> | First, wouldn't be interpreted as _bad_ tea. means "no" as in "nothingness," not bad. As such, one might be led to believe that this is something about not having any tea to give to guests or something, and that situation being where the term came from. This is not true.
The kanji are _ateji_. This means that the kanji were chosen arbitrarily based on the pronunciation of the word. This site suggests that the word itself is derived from an old Buddhist term, {}, though that appears to be ultimately speculative. Regardless, though, the word is not connected to tea. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, ateji"
} |
Using 次 as a counter
In cases such as []{} or []{}[]{}, is []{} effectively just acting the way a number followed by st/nd/rd/th would in English? | Yes, it is and and it is always preceded by both a []{} and a number.
In my own words, N[]{} is used to describe the ordinality of an unpredictable event of the same kind like a war or a boom.
We use N[]{} to describe the ordinality of a planned event of the same kind, such as an annual event. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "numbers, counters"
} |
What does 私たち imply?
I know that means "we", but in what sense? Does it simply mean the last two people talked about? Or does it always mean the speaker and the listener? So say I'm talking to Shota about Sawako, and I say
>
Is it clear that I'm talking about Sawako and me when I use from the context, or does the word necessarily imply I'm talking about Shota and me?
Please reply in kana or kanji with furigana ( is fine.) | In your example, you would be talking about just you and Sawako. That said, depending on context it's possible to use it to refer to everyone in the conversation, or all people on a given side of a conversation.
Broadening the context of the question a bit, []{} can be added to pronouns or names to indicate a group of people associated with someone. For example:
> []{}[]{}[]{}"Takeshi [and his friends] have been causing trouble recently."
We only name Takeshi in the sentence, but adding []{} to his name includes anybody who would be naturally grouped with him in the context. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage, nuances"
} |
What does さあ (saa) mean?
I have seen this term used a lot in many different ways.
_saa, wasuremashou sono mirai ga_ — in this sense, I assume it means "come". But I have also seen it used as _demo saa_ — which I would assume means "well you know" or some other expression.
Would like to get some more clarification on this word. I know it is informal to use. But the actual meaning and when it is appropriate to use it would help. | We are actually talking about two different words here.
When used in phrases such as []{} and[]{}, is an exclamation/interjection expressing the speaker's intention to invite or press the other person to perform an action. It has a meaning close to that of "okay", "now" and "c'mon".
When is used in phrases such as , and , it is just a filler meaning nothing. Grammatically, it is a particle. It is used like "um", "like", "ah", etc. in English. Strictly speaking, the dictionary word is just and is only its variant pronunciation.
For a filler, each native speaker has his "usual" one that he uses repeatedly, which means that not everyone uses or actively. Other choices include , , , , etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 46,
"question_score": 28,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
} |
Are 清酒{せいしゅ} and 日本酒{にほんしゅ} two words for the same thing?
As well as the several other kinds of Japanese alcoholic drinks I seem to have found two words which both mean the drink known in the west as "saké".
Now I know {} can be used for many kinds of alcohol in Japan. I thought the Japanese word for what us westerners call "sake" was {}.
But just now another traveller came home to the hostel with some Japanese alcohol. One had the label {}, so I looked it up, expecting it to be for a different Japanese alcohol I didn't know about before.
But the definitions on the English Wiktionary and WWWJDIC seem to be the same for both words. Is there a difference? Is one a special kind of saké? Or is one word more generic or more old fashioned etc? | There is a clear difference (no pun intended) between and . The clue is in the kanji = "clear".
Technically speaking, is one of the two main types of --- 1) and 2) []{}. The former is refined and colorless and the latter, unrefined and cloudy.
Informally, however, quite a few native speakers use and fairly interchangeably. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, words, synonyms, food"
} |
What´s the (entire) direct object in this sentence?
> stab someone in the hand.
> stab a dagger in someone's hand.
What's the direct object in the second sentence? Is it just or ? I ask because in the first sentence the hand is stabbed () and in the second sentence the hand is also stabbed but would make me think the dagger should be the one who's being stabbed(even though that would make no sense at all). So did I make a mistake thinking just is the direct object in the second sentence or is there another explanation? | In your second example, the direct object is , not .
The direct object here can take on two different semantic roles:
> [ **** **** ] _Hanako stabs Tarō's hand with a dagger._
> [ **** **** ] _Hanako stabs a dagger into Tarō's hand._
In either case, the direct object is the noun phrase marked by . Your first example is like the first sentence above, except without the instrumental .
In linguistics, this is called **locative alternation**. Certain verbs exhibit this alternation; others do not. is one of the verbs that does. See _The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics_ p.355 for an overview. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Modifying adjectives: カンペキ [に or な?] 思ったとおりの仕上がり
I have a question about in the following sentence. As far as I can guess it modifies the whole , but grammatically I cannot understand why. Well, is a noun, so wouldn't be correct here?
>
>
> "It came out perfectly just like I thought it should!" | []{}[]{} is a noun phrase. Why? Because the last word is a noun.
is the []{} and therefore, it cannot modify a noun or noun phrase. It can only modify a verb or adjective. To modify a noun, you will need to form a []{}, which will be .
is an adjectival phrase because of the last word and it is what modifies here. naturally modifies .
> In the sentence, , you could actually replace the with without changing the meaning much.
If you used , both and would modify . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
meaning of て-form + られない
!sinderarenai
I assume that is in the negative potential form, which means it would mean something like "I can't be dying" or "I can't be dead". Can anyone help me understand this better? | I'm going to venture another answer and claim that the perfective-progressive discussion is a bit of a red herring.
Usually, since is a change-of-state verb, means "is dead" (perfective aspect) and not "is dying" (progressive aspect).
But in this case, I claim that is really a fixed construction and the difference between
> and
>
is one of emphasis, not one of perfective aspect. The first one could have been used here to mean a relatively neutral "I cannot die here". The second one adds emphasis and means something like:
> Damned if I'll die here
> I'm too busy to die yet
> I'd feel like a fool dying here
or some such. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, potential form"
} |
Is it hard to write Japanese?
I see the Japanese symbols, but never asked myself how hard is to write using these symbols. It seems very inviable. How do you guys do when writing at Japanese? Is it really harder than, for example, English or Portuguese. I mean, the amount of writing required to express the same sentence. | As I've explained when teaching, each language's quirks add value to it or else they wouldn't be retained. If you embrace the differences by learning Kana quickly and then not being afraid of Kanji thereafter, it will come fairly easily with practice. If you view kanji as a monolithic set of thousands of symbols with nothing in common with each other, you're going to have a hard time.
The trick with Kanji in particular is to remember that it forms a visual system of roots, prefixes, and suffixes that, among other things, enable you to guess the meanings of words you've never seen before or "coin" new words on the fly when needed. Further, if you become acquainted with the breakdown of kanji as you learn them you'll discover patterns (visual, semantic, and phonetic) that create a useful web of knowledge for holding everything together.
In short, it's as hard as you choose to make it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "kanji, katakana, kana, hiragana, handwriting"
} |
訓読み for 歳: とせ vs. とし
There are two readings of : and . Looking at (), a reasonable hypothesis would be " is a contraction of ". I know very little about sound shifting in Japanese. Is more recent than ? Is /si/ -> /se/ (or /i/ -> /e/) a common phenomenon? | Classical Japanese is not necessarily my forte but here is what I do know.
I would say that the two readings are just as old as each other because they both appear in Classical Japanese. As far as I know, the reading depends on the positioning of in a word. Needless to say, I am only talking about []{}, not loanwords from Chinese.
When appears at the beginning of a word or it is used by itself, it is read .
> []{}= "year"
>
> []{}= "the year changes" or "the new year comes"
>
> []{}= "to get old"
When appears in another place in a word, it is read .
> The examples that @Kaji listed
>
> []{}= "(how) many years"
>
> []{}= "a candy for kids that people buy to pray for longevity"
There might be exceptions out there that I am not aware of. I ask the experts here to feel free to correct me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "etymology, readings"
} |
Use of から vs を with 出て行く?:
Why are we using and not in the following sentence?:
>
I ask because the normal particle with is (eg ) so why do we have here? My dictionary has the following sentence:
Come out of your room.
Do the verbs which normally take in some way dominate over other verbs related to the action if the other verb is intransitive? | is really only used to designate the location/point/time from which things start, whereas is a rather generic particle.
Because of this, makes the reader mentally picture a time range (), a motion (), a coverage (), etc. In contrast, just doesn't have this sense of motion/breadth/width. And so when this effect is useful, you'll intentionally choose .
In the sentence you give, I think this is why the author went for , even though would have been OK, too. Here, we are talking about someone ending a relationship and moving out. The emphasis on the movement by reinforces the split better, compared to . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, particles, particle を, particle から"
} |
Difference between 学習する and 習う?
Is there any difference between and ? | These are similar words with subtle differences.
has a bit more formal sound than , and the difference in their meanings derive from that.
For example, tends to refer to "at desk" formal studies you do at schools and institutions. Mathmatics, science, English, that sort of things. In contrast, often refers to lessons and extra-school activities such as karate, piano, cooking, and so on (see Worthy7's answer for sentences.)
The border line is blurry, though.
For example, take Worthy7's sentence "" as an example. This refers to a study in an university. But in this case is used because the form of speech is informal.
Likewise, can be used even if it doesn't involve studying at formal institutions, when a rigid sounding noun form is needed. For example, (life-long learning center) is normally just a community center that has short programs, but you don't want to call it because it lacks dignitiy. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, verbs"
} |
Meanings of ちゃんと
I always thought meant "properly" or "exactly", but I begin to think that its meaning is broader, more like "as it is supposed to be" or "as you're supposed to do" because in some sentence it seems to me that "properly" don't fit at all.
The context is A gives a bag of food to B, and B says :
>
Assuming I get the meaning of right, I don't know whether the question is about :
> But, will it be okay? Is your portion supposed to be in there too?
>
> -> Implicit meaning : Are you sure you don't want to keep your portion?
or about :
> But, will it be okay? Is your portion in there too as it is supposed to be?
>
> Implicit meaning : Are you sure you didn't forget to put your portion in there?
The context seems to lean strongly towards the first interpretation. Thank you for your time. | The more "properly" you try to translate , the funnier the result might sound. Why? Because it is not such a big word to begin with as the look and sound of the word may suggest. It is an informal, everyday kind of a word for us native speakers.
So, instead of the bookish translations "properly", "in an appropriate manner", "to be supposed to be", etc., the best I could think of would be "alright", believe it or not, in the sentence in question.
You are actually reading the sentence incorrectly even without the part. It does not mean "Is your portion supposed to be in there too?" , if it exists, is not in the bag in the first place.
My own TL:
> "You sure, tho? You keep some to yourself (somewhere) alright?"
That is how "light" this convo is, to speak on a native level; Hence, my word choice of "alright". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Rosetta Stone uses は instead of わ
Just started learning Japanese again. My college offers no class on this so I am learning on my own. I have been using Rosetta Stone on and off again for a while now.
One thing I have noticed is that Rosetta Stone uses and in basic sentences such as:
>
This sentence gives the Romaji:
> onna no hito wa ocha o nonde imasu
Now I know
* = ha
* = wo
Why would they use those in place of and ? | When being used as a **grammatical particle** ([]{}), is pronounced (wa), is pronounced (o), and (which you may not have come across yet) is pronounced (e).
I've never used Rosetta Stone but it seems quite strange that it would not mention this...
Information as to the historical reason for this difference between spelling and pronunciation can be found in the answer to this question. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 20,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, particle は, orthography, hiragana, rōmaji"
} |
Ellipsis: does this と＝として, what is the relevant verb in this extract?
The following is attributed to HP. I wonder if someone could explain the grammar around the ? (I think it might be an "abbreviation" of but it is very difficult to find an explanation of this.)
> (..[][]
>
> The MC Tamori (Kazuyoshi Morita, 68)'s act as an amusing eccentric was discovered in his home town by the Jazz pianist Yousuke Yamashita and his entourage. He broke into the entertainment world in 1976.
(Items in [] were added to expand this extract beyond its newspaper style. The translation is mine so please feel free to offer improvements.)
Revised translation based on feedback (further comment welcome):
> MC Tamori (Kazuyoshi Morita, 68)'s act was discovered in his home town by the Jazz pianist Yousuke Yamashita and his entourage where the locals who got a kick out his performances had named him "henjin" ("the eccentric"). He broke into the entertainment world in 1976. | I am going to say that in this context, ≠ . I would call it the quotative .
[]{}[]{} []{}
The verb form is in the "passive voice past progressive". The subject of this is in the original Japanese, but it would be difficult to retain that in an English translation. I myself would use "the locals" as the subject and opt for a verb phrase in the active voice like "to get a kick out of".
The phrase []{}[]{} sounds informal and conversational and it is barely acceptable as written language; Hence, the confusion. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
} |
金 pronunciation
I read that the kanji ("gold") can be pronounced both as _kon_ and as _kin_.
When should it be pronounced _kon_ and when _kin_?
Is there any rule about picking one or the other? | The readings "kin" and "kon" are on-yomi pronunciations for . The "kon" reading is the older one (go-on ) and "kin" is newer (kan-on ). They ultimately stem from Middle Chinese /ki̯əm/; notice that has the same on-yomi pronunciations.
As a general pattern, go-on pronunciations are somewhat less common (relative to kan-on) in everyday words and more usually found in words related to Buddhism. (But that is not to say Buddhist words only use go-on either.) In the case of , the kan-on pronunciation is more common (among the two on-yomi pronunciations) by far. You will simply have to memorise the exceptions. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, pronunciation, readings"
} |
過去形＋のだ versus 現在形＋のだった
I'm puzzled by the bold part of the following paragraph which occurs in my Japanese learner's version of :
>
> ****
My current understanding of this +copula construction (my textbook calls it "extended predicate") is that it explains an action or statement based on the current context. So in this context perhaps it makes the storytelling more lively by directly answering a hypothetical question that the reader will ask after reading the first sentence ("but how will they get back?"). Is that the purpose of this construction?
A related question is: why is the sentence not written as follows?
> ****
After all, the action (receiving transportation) took place in the past, and the story is read in the present. Or it the case that the extended predicate always "captures" any past tense of a preceding verb? | As noel_lapin mostly answered, this form of sentence does not assume any implicit question. I don't know the grammatical classification that describes this use, but "" has a sense of repeated occurrences that became customary, that they have always done so, not just in this particular occasion. It is a particularly common form of speech for old story telling, so much so to the point that whenever I hear it it mentally plays in my mind in and old man's voice of TV series :-)
As for your second part of question on why "" wouldn't do, "" adds a sense of emphasis, that you are absolutely positive that it had happened. It is natural if the speaker was present at the scene, but does feel a bit odd if the speaker is telling a story that happened hundreds of years ago somewhere. In addition, you lose the sense that two men always relied on to bring them back. I'm not sure if I can call this use wrong, but its meaning does change considerably. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "particle の, copula"
} |
Difference between 研究所 and 研究室
What is the difference between and ? Do both mean a research institute? | is a research institute whereas is more like a lab. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, nuances"
} |
How should one respond to "お大事に"?
I came across a situation where I went to a volunteer class wearing a mask since I have a cough. My sensei told me "", and I did not know what to reply.
In this case, should I just say ""? Or is there a more appropriate response? | The most common reply among us native speakers would be a simple .
would sound pretty strange. You could say , though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "set phrases, expressions"
} |
How did 服 come to have meanings related to both "clothing" and "submission"?
by itself means "clothing" (e.g. ), and there are also some related derivative terms like , , , , etc. On the other hand, you have words like "conquest", "overcoming", "compliance", "obedience", which I have broadly classed as being related to the idea of "submission".
How did come to have these two seemingly-unrelated meanings? Is this a purely Japanese innovation, or is it like this in Chinese too? | The Online Kanji Etymology Dictionary has some rather terse notes on how these two meanings came to be. _A Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters_ (Henshall) describes its history as:
> Once written  replaced with (; flesh) in seal script (![]( which may be where "clothes" comes from---"clothes that spread over/cling to the body". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
} |
When is 死に used to describe something is dead instead of 死んでいる or 死んだ?
- beat whip, flog a dead horse
After reading the sentence above, I was wondering when it's appropriate to use to describe when something(or someone?) is dead instead of using or . | []{}[]{} sounds archaic to me. I don't think you can use this for other animals (*, *, *...) at least in modern Japanese. I can only think of []{}[]{} (and maybe []{}[]{}?). , []{}, []{} are more common.
/ is grammatically fine and makes perfect sense. Maybe sounds better as a proverb. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage"
} |
Syntactic rule for the "⇔" character?
The character "⇔" is used in the definitions in {}{} to specify antonyms. I have questions:
(1) Is "⇔" a formal character in Japanese syntax? Or, is it sort of an ad-hoc way to specify antonyms? At least 2 online use "⇔" in the same manner, so it _looks_ like a formal part of Japanese syntax.
(2) But, my hardcopy uses the "↔" character (the filled-in version). So, if both "↔" and "⇔" are formal syntactic characters, they seem to have the same properties.
Both "↔" and "⇔" are really only used to specify antonyms merely as a convention (perhaps because of a historical reason), right?
The characters would never be used in any other context to specify antonyms, or anything else, right?
If there are any good websites that have the rules of Japanese syntax, I'd love to have them. I've never really studied syntax. | These arrows aren't part of the Japanese language, and therefore aren't part of Japanese syntax. They're written symbols, and they aren't used to correspond to any particular spoken utterance.
If you did consider `⇔` or `↔` syntactically, you could call it a **unary prefix operator** , taking a single operand which follows the operator itself:
> ⇔
Although to fit with its semantics, you might pretend it's a **binary infix operator** with the first operand obligatorily deleted, with the missing information recoverable from context:
> ~~~~ ⇔
But these analyses would only be useful in particular contexts, as in the dictionaries where you found them. As you noticed, these conventions _do_ differ from dictionary to dictionary. Most dictionaries explain how they use special symbols in a section inside the front cover or available online. For example, see the for . (However, these symbols aren't usually described in syntactic terms.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
An appropriate word for "psyllium seed husk powder" that doesn't describe it as a laxative? (Plantago psyllium L)
I'm thinking about translating a recipe in Japanese and I'm kind of astonished that there isn't a wikipedia page for psyllium seed husk powder, but there's a brief one for psyllium. I'm not sure if it's even available in certain stores in Japan but I'm just curious. Upon googling, I've seen both and used for the plant itself. ( Example: < )
But how do go about on describing it as a powder? I guess know the name of the plant but the powder is from the husks of the seed...?
This is an example of how it's sold in the US:
!enter image description here
Although it's used as a laxative "" - that's _not_ what I'm really using it for. Its other use is being a water binder for gluten-free recipes: < | For what it's worth, I know of psyllium husk powder both in English and in Japanese. I've seen it as
>
>
>
> ()
in the context of raw food diet recipes (as binding agent). Recipes often just write something like () 5g though, even if the recipe definitely calls for powder.
(You can find all sorts of transcriptions of "psyllium husk" on the internet, like **** , but these are usually free transcriptions by vendors, who themselves don't know who uses psyllium husk and for what.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, words, loanwords, food"
} |
Meaning of inversion in questions: 「何ですか、今の音は？」
I often hear questions where a phrase marked with is moved to the end of the sentence:
> 1. ****
> 2. ****
>
I heard the second sentence above in the anime . A student has just made a loud sound in the back of class, and the teacher asks this question out of irritation.
My question is, how is an inverted question like this different from a sentence with basic word order? Does it differ in terms of emphasis? | Rather than emphasis, I think such inverted questions occur only in spoken language, because the asker wants to know "What was that?" and just asks straight away. Noticing that he could be asking about any number of things, he specifies, .
Such inverted questions are so common that they're less a sign of surprise or "being startled" than properly formed questions are a sign of a calm and collected attitude.
So, ? conveys that the teacher is 100% calm and nothing can "rock his world". (That said, the difference is very subtle.)
The meaning, of course, is exactly the same, whether the question is inverted or not. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
"Line of code" in Japanese
I've been doing a bit of work with rendering in HTML, and was having a running internal monologue in Japanese about how things were progressing when I hit on a missing word: "line" as in "line of code". Trying to think of possibilities I came up with or , but neither feels right. Perhaps just the import instead? Can anyone shed some light on this?
For context, the sentence in question is
> | Always use () for the lines (in a book chapter, a programming code, etc.), _no matter_ whether the sentence is written horizontally () or vertically ().
For example, "Removing three lines from the CSS file" is as follows:
> CSS3 | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, counters, computing"
} |
Natural way of saying "Once you take away the unnecessary bits, it works"
In my earlier question "Line of code" in Japanese I was trying to figure out a word for the following sentence:
> "Once the unnecessary lines were removed, things worked properly."
In the exchange that followed, it was pointed out that while the intended meaning is discernible, it has a distinctly translated-into-Japanese feeling. What is a better way of expressing my intent per the translation above? | sounds kind of informal and depending on who you are speaking to, it could sound a little bit unadultlike. How about a []{} or ?
would sound too colloquial here. I would use []{} or []{}.
also sounds conversational. You might go with []{}
Examples:
>
>
> ← My best TL. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
is ～だ～だ another way of listing things, or does my JLPT book have a typo?
In my JLPT practise book, there is this sentence:
> {}{}{} **** {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
I'm really just wondering about the part that says `{}`. That seems like a strange place for ``. I feel like it should be ``, as in "(things like) school expenses and lodging". But is `` another way of listing things? I don't think I've encountered it before if it is. | Noun + + Noun + is a pretty common way to list 2-3 items. The at the end of the list is indispensable, too.
Nothing to do with the question but the part makes little sense. I would expect a there.
Example:
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
>
> = "In the summer, I tend to consume too much cold stuff like beer, icecream, shaved ice, etc."
This listing construction is often, but not always, preceded by the exclamation []{HL}. See #6 here: < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Nuance between でいい and でもいい
Follow up question to this one :
Sentence structure and meaning
About this sentence :
>
It seemed to me that in Tokyo Nagoya's answer, sounded a lot like :
> " Meaning-wise, however, adds much more [than ]. It expresses the speaker's agreement to the fighting rules that could possibly be disadvantageous to him. In other words, the speaker is already very confident of his victory as he speaks. "
So I did a bit of research and found these :
Is the same as ?
<
The first link says that has a sense of "something is better out there, but you settle for less" that doesn't have.
The second link says that "In casual speech, sometimes get shortened to just ."
So is just the familiar abbreviation of or are they 2 distinct (though similar) structures with different nuances? | The same as "also" in English. The word "" implies the existence of another option.
is natural. Simply, the speaker must be very confident about the fight against many opponents in front of him.
sounds weird, but it seems that the speaker implies another person stronger than him is standing by.
= Curry and rice is acceptable / enough / OK.
= Curry and rice is also acceptable (but implies the speaker has other choices in his mind.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "nuances"
} |
Meaning of それだけ in this sentence
Here is the sentence :
> ****
I've difficulties finding information about this word. From the examples I read, it seems to me that, when used after a clause ending in its meaning is similar to the ... construction :
> **** ****
>
> The more people there will be, the more advantage you will have.
Is this what means in this case? And if it is, does it have the same meaning in other constructions? | Your understanding is spot on. In that sentence,
> []{} = "just as much"
However, I would be careful about saying that []{}[]{} means exactly the same thing as in this particular context. This is because the latter phrase puts no limit on the number of people.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the story, so I have no idea about how many people it is talking about. Knowing the exact context, you are in a better position to decide whether or not can replace the existing phrase.
does not always mean this. It can mean "only that" or "that is all" in other contexts. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Potential and Causative form clarification - 倒せる / 倒せない
Hopefully this is a nice easy one, but it's something I need clarification on. So I have a sentence here, using (I think) - form. ()
>
My question is a general one - what does it mean when - form is used?
these are all the same meaning aren't they? Or not? | I don't know what you mean by "-" form.
- can appear at the end of the verb in at least two ways.
* As the potential form of a verb, which ends in -. ->
* As the causative form of a verb. ->
Here, - is the potential form of the verb , so
> "to throw over, to knock down"
> **** "to **be able to** throw over / knock down"
> **** " **not** to be able to throw over / knock down"
by which you get
> e.g. I don't throw it over (polite)
> e.g. I don't throw it over (informal)
> **** e.g. I **can't** throw it over (polite)
> **** e.g. I **can't** throw it over (informal) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, potential form, causation"
} |
What does it mean for the 'feel' of a sentence / text when it's written in all hiragana?
When a Japanese-language sentence is written out in all katakana, it's supposed to be either stilted, robot-like speech or something to simulate ALL CAPS.
How is that with hiragana? Does it make te text look like it was written by a nine-year old when all kanji are written phonetically?
Are there nuances in meaning when the same word is written in kanji or in hiragana?
Related, but not containing the answer I'm looking for: What does it mean if a sentence is in all-kana? | Extensive use of hiragana by intent will make yourself look immature, childish, unserious, drowsy, cute, innocent, or sometimes less intelligent, depending on the context.
A good but exaggerated example is found here. A very childish character in a game, who is always talking in hiragana.
> ………………………………
>
> Huuuoaaa... who are you? a produucer? eeeh, ... cuuute? an idool? yup... ookay... i do... i do, idol ... so what do i do...? to smile...? Huuoaa....
Combination of () and hiragana, which is generally prohibited, is also a good way to add extra childishness, as in "" instead of "" ( or Tokyo).
In addition, recently, extensive use of smaller hiragana, when possible, has a similar effect. It has become a popular way of chatting via their smartphones among young schoolgirls (google or for details and more extreme examples).
See the following example (the last one may be rather extreme):
(It's raining today.)
=>
=>
=> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "nuances, hiragana, kana"
} |
If 校 is the kanji for school, why do I need 学 to actually say school?
Perhaps a dumb question, but something that I was wondering and couldn't find a clear answer via search. Since is the kanji for school, why do we also need the kanji for learning to say "school" ()? As a westerner, it seems as though schools always involve learning.
Is there some difference in nuance I'm missing? Is there perhaps a historical meaning for that is more like place of training or practice, which evolved into school? | Thousands of Japanese were created in this way.
* () ≒ () (rock)
* () ≒ () (river)
* () ≒ () (picture)
* () ≒ () (oneself)
* () ≒ () (body)
Japanese Wikipedia describes) a simple reason for this. One kanji character was not long enough to be distinguishable with each other when pronounced with on-yomi. There are only a few hundred different on-yomi in use. Naturally, people needed to stack two similar characters to construct one usable in everyday speech.
>
>
> 111 **1** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "kanji, etymology, history"
} |
In the japanese The legend of Zelda (e.g. Ocarina of Time), why is navi spelled ナビィ and not just ナビ?
I started playing the Japanese version of Ocarina of time and noticed that navi is spelled as instead of just . I know that you can combine e.g. and for , but the one in seems redundant. | I'm not 100% sure if I'm right, but my guess with this is that it just makes the name seem more _unique_. The Zelda universe is full of unusual names, and this might be a shortcut in Japanese to indicate a slightly more exotic name given the limitations of the syllabic writing system. If I see instead of it makes me think that the "i" sound should be inflected in some non-standard way, even if the characters themselves don't specify exactly which way. In Okinawa, for example, is the word for {}. I can't find a pronunciation guide for it, but the fact that it's used for Okinawa-ben alone should be enough of an indication of what the effect is, I hope. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, katakana"
} |
Where does 見 come from in 見捨てる or 見殺し?
I wonder if there is a certain meaning of that isn't immediately obvious or straight-forward. and both carry this idea that, through inaction, something bad is allowed to happen. There may be more that I haven't found, but I'm assuming there is a connection etymologically. It may be simply the idea of sitting back and _watching_ these things happen, which makes sense to me, but I'd like to know if there is more then that. | might be similar to , , , . I think it means , that is, .
might be similar to , and . Maybe, the in these words more or less contains a kind of “passive” or “inactive” feeling, something like .
As for the etymology, my hypothesis is might mean “to experience” here. It seems that words meaning “to see” often develop into grammatical voice markers. e.g. “” is a “passive” marker in Chinese, “” is a “reciprocal” marker in both Chinese and Japanese ({}, {}). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
} |
Forms and conjugation of Intransitive Verbs
Can Intransitive verbs be used in Meirei form, Volitional form, form and other forms?
According to my knowledge, Intransitive verbs are just used to state facts. So these forms should not exist. If I am asking someone to do something, the expression should use the transitive form of the verb.
But in one anime (Bleach episode 114), when the hero sees his inner monster take over him, he says something which sounded like . The English translation was given as "Disappear!" But , which means "to go out; to vanish; to disappear", is an Intransitive verb. This makes me ask the question, can I use such forms with Intransitive verbs?
To summarize, which of the forms work with Intransitive form and which don't? Thanks in advance! | There are specific verbs which don't take the potential form (offhand I remember , which changes to , and , which you can circumvent by using . Naturally, can't be put in the potential form either, due to recursion.). Other than that, I don't recall any verbs that are prohibited from using specified forms. Transitivity affects particle usage, but all of the verb forms remain available. In the case of intransitives and the imperative you can think of it as an order to put things in the state dictated by the verb (e.g. = "get yourself gone/make yourself scarce"; = "rise up!"). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, transitivity"
} |
On "おてもと" and its many variants for "chopsticks"
I've always known the Japanese word for "chopsticks" to be (){}.
Today in my usual practice of reading everything around me I looked up what was written on the wrapper of the disposable chopsticks that came with my supermarket bento:
#
!Paper chopstick wrapper with written on it
I was firstly surprised to find out that it's another word for "chopsticks", and secondly on looking up WWWJDIC that it has many variants:
> ; ; ; (n) (uk) chopsticks (often written on the paper wrapper)
From this I can see that it's usually written on paper chopstick wrappers and that all the kanji forms are uncommon, but nothing else.
I'd like to know the origin or history of the term. Does it have any other current uses besides on wrappers, was it more common in the past? And why does it have so many variants? Obviously the initial is the honorific that can also be written , but what about the two possible final characters and ? | does refer to chopsticks but it is not "another word for chopsticks." That is, you won't say nor .
According to the source article that Chocolate's Wikipedia article mentions, the word came from a reference to "" (chopsticks for your personal use) in contrast to "", which refers to chopsticks for shared dishes that you use to bring food from a shared dish to your personal dish.
Good question about vs . I couldn't find any source that tells me how those two uses came about being, although I suspect this kind of writing variations aren't all that uncommon. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "etymology, synonyms, history, food, spelling"
} |
Grammatically correct but good writing?
The following sentence comes from magazine for february:
>
It is grammatically correct but I find the change from active to passive voice, ie from extensively describing journalists' activities in the active voice to connecting those activities to the topic of newspaper articles in the passive, quite jarring.
Is this just because I am not a native speaker, who would find this quite natural, or is it just not very good writing? (Given that this is a magazine for students of Japanese you would not expect bad writing in the explanatory passages by the magazine's staff.) | Having read it several times, I could only say that that is good writing. It contains no errors, ambiguity or unnaturalness; therefore, it would not cause any misunderstanding among the readers.
Mixing active voice with passive voice in a sentence is nothing new in English, is it? Consider the following sentence.
> "Tofu is made by coagulating soy milk and then pressing to remove the liquid. "
I find the structure of this English sentence similar to that of the Japanese sentence in question. Only, the passive voice verb phrase "is made" ( in the Japanese) will come at the end of the sentence in the Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, words"
} |
How to use やんの?
Here is an example from the comic GANTZ. (This should be fair use of the image at least in the US as it's for scholarly commentary.) It's easy to tell that emphasis is being added, and the speaker is marveling at what happened, but it's not clear what it expresses exactly.
!example use in sentence | +
It is attached to the -form of a verb to express one's contempt or disdain for another. It is also used to make fun of a person or his/her action.
> "The fool did/is doing (this or that)!", "Watch that a**hole do ~~!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "usage, word usage"
} |
How do I know whether 毎月 should be まいげつ or まいつき
This is my first question here and I'd like to ask something that has been bothering me for a while.
Some words written in kanji can be read using both onyomi and kunyomi of some of the kanji and the meaning of the word stays the same. An example can be "every month" - which can be read both and . If such a word is written only, how does one know how to pronounce it? For example when reading a written text aloud.
EDIT
It seems that the question is not very clear/too broad. Let me narrow it down and ask specifically about . Don't worry about any other words.
If I have a written sentence
>
How do you know to read it:
>
or
> | I'll quote part of Tokyo Nagoya's comment:
> I say it 100% of the time and hear others say it the same 99.99% of the time.
So it seems that is the common reading. Other speakers corroborate this, with one saying that is rare and another saying that isn't even an acceptable reading--although I'm not willing to make that claim myself.
(However, if you ever have occasion to read , you should read it .)
Unfortunately, there's no universal rule for deciding which reading to use for a compound when more than one reading is possible:
1. You want to pick the reading that makes the most sense in context. (In this case, both readings represent words with the same meaning.)
2. You want to pick the reading that the author intended, so if one reading is more likely (in general or in a particular context), you should favor that reading. In this case, the favored reading is .
Unfortunately, you'll have to memorize this on a case-by-case basis. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
} |
Is this transcription correct?
I saw a video clip with English subtitles and tried to transcribe the Japanese audio. Can anyone tell me if I did it correctly?
**English subtitles:**
> monster get out ; you've got no right to drink that water; get outta here;
**Attempted transcription of Japanese audio:**
> oni wa soto ; oni wa mizu **_natte mo tsukanai_** de; achi ike ;
In particular, I have problems with the bold italicized words.
The link to the video clip: setsubun festival | As you may have guessed, you got the bold part wrong. This is what it actually is:
> ****
> oni ha soto! oni ha mizu **nante nomu shikaku nain'dayo**! acchi ike! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "spoken language, transcription"
} |
どうしますか vs 何をしますか
I always interpreted as "what" and "" as more of a "How or How about?" and thus was under the impression that if one wanted to ask "What will you do?" or "What did you do?" you would say and respectively.
However, I've recently started to come across in Genki 1 which I naturally interpreted as "How will you do?" but in the sentence it seems like it would be translated more as " **What** are you going to do for your winter vacation?" Is this correct?
In the above sentence would be interchangeable with such that it's ? In the context of this sentence would they mean the same thing if interchanged? In what ways is different from . Are there any small differences in the meanings that I'm not interpreting properly?
Thanks! | This is a good example of where direct or literal translation does not work well between Japanese and another language.
We often use where English-speakers would use nothing but "what".
> or vs. "What should I do?"
>
> vs. "What happened?"
If you used instead of in the phrases above, you would sound more foreign than you might think just like I would sound very foreign if I said "How should I do?" or "How happened?".
[]{} would often be preferred over []{} because the latter sounds like a pretty personal question to Japanese-speakers. We might not want to be asked that question at least by someone we do not know well because requires specific and detailed information whereas only requires rough or vague information. "Specifics vs. Overall Approach", so to speak. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 14,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, nuances, questions"
} |
can あいだ / あいだに be used with non-past tenses
Last week I learned to use and to express things that happen at the same time (are parallel) or things that happen while other are occurring. But I noticed that all the examples on the book ( - - Lesson 8, pp. 82) as well as the exercises and their answers use past tense, like this:
> ****
>
> ****
As I understand, in this grammatical pattern is used sort of like a "while". But can this be used to express things that are happening now or will happen in the future, while others occur? For example, is this correct:
>
> (While you watch the movie I will go shopping)
>
>
> (I'm working while everyone is having fun) | >
>
Both sentences are perfectly standard. The structure (), is indeed not bound to being used with the past tense. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, tense"
} |
When an -i form (連用形{れんようけい}) of a verb seems to be a suffix rather than a prefix?
In a previous question about I learned that is a form of the verb {} "to dilute".
Now I'm trying to understand the grammatical process by which this form of can be added to nouns such as and .
I've learned that is the -i form, conjunctive, continuative, or {} form of the verb. In fact it turns out that I keep asking questions about this form from different angles, not realizing it's the same thing each time!
Now when I look up Wikipedia to learn more about this form and how it is being used in I actually find that -i forms are usually used as prefixes.
So this must be an "unusual" case since it appears to be being used like a suffix. What is this particular use of the -i form? How can I understand and use constructions of this type generally? | -i form of a verb, among other things, can be used to form nouns that are derived from this verb. For example
to discount (v) -> discount (n): {}{} -> {}
to rest/to have take a day off (v) -> rest/holiday (n): {} -> {}
to apply (v) -> application (n): {}{} -> {}{}
So I believe this is not the case of a verb form being a suffix but rather of a noun formed from a verb.
This is also similar in case of words from your previous question. For example, my dictionary shows the following example for , which suggests it being a noun:
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, syntax, renyōkei"
} |
Double negatives in Japanese
To be clear, I'm talking in this case about double negatives originating in Japanese, not ones that are being translated into it.
When I was in college, one of my professors taught the class to use []{} in place of , explaining it as a face-saving measure by at least putting up appearances of saying you're not tired. Is the resulting ending standard or valid? If so, is this practice at all common, or is was the professor passing on her own idiomatic usage? If it's relevant at all, said professor grew up in Osaka. | Somewhat confusingly, double nagatives in Japanese can mean a range of different things.
Sometimes it is used to signify that something exists at all, however little it is, as in the case of or . Other times it is used to emphasize that everyone did something or everything matches something, as in .
The former meaning has a good parallel in English , namely "a few" --- "a few good men" has an emphasis on the existence of good men, however few they are.
Similarly emphasizes the existence of tiresomeness, even if it is just a bit. Expressions like this refers to a small amount of something, and in that sense I'm in agreement with what your professor told you, that it can be used as a face-saving measure; you are only admitting that you are tired just a little.
So yes, it is a veryy common usage of the language, not just local to her area. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, negation"
} |
Cartel, syndicate, anti-competitive practice
I've heard this story from several foreigners in Japan:
> I hired Japanese Company A for a service. I didn't like Japanese Company A, so I went to Japanese Company B in the same industry and tried to hire them instead. Japanese Company B refused to do business with me because I was already a client of Japanese Company A.
1. What is the name for this practice in Japanese? Is it called ?
2. Is this legal in Japan? Is there some kind of law which prohibits this practice? What is the law called? Is it called ?
_EDIT_
To be clear, this is a question about Japanese vocabulary. If I can get an answer about the vocabulary, then I can research the law. If anyone has any links to articles on this subject, that would be very helpful. | I don't have any specialist knowledge on this but over and above telling you that
is a cartel,
is the anti-monopolies law
I can suggest how I studied a business topic recently:
There must be lots of articles on the web in English on your chosen topic so that should give you the background but I should also expect there are pamphlets put out by the government and business agencies (eg METI, MOJ, Keidanren, FSA) available on their websites. There is probably at least one comprehensive document available in English and Japanese. The English will give you the "official" Japanese translations, the Japanese version will give you the terminology/vocabulary your looking for.
There is also an EJ/JE dictionary of Legal terms:
<
And, if you want the laws themselves, the MOJ have a web site which provides translations of many: < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "culture, phrase requests, word requests"
} |
Meaning of させてもらう + 事にする in this sentence
The sentence is taken from a manga in which the character kills people at a TV station in order to threaten the world :
> ......
>
> Hello (ladies and gentlemen of the) world... for only a very short time...
>
>
>
> ???
The first thing I'm not sure about is if is the agent of and something like is implicit: **I received the favor from the television to let me disturb you**.
The second is the combination of and which to my understanding means "decide to" : is it a way of being ironic? like **I decided the TV would kindly let me (kill them and) disturb you guys.**
Thanks for your help. | > ...
The agent of is the speaker, not television. The speaker is the one who wants to be the receiver of a favor. (In this case, he wants to make himself be the receiver of a favor by force.)
There is no []{} implied anywhere in this sentence. Is that used in another place in the same context? The thing is this person's speech style is actually fairly polite, so a derogatory word like would not fit in. I wonder if it is possible that your knowledge of the story is making you see things that are not in the actual text.
means "to take the liberty of doing ~~". It is not that the speaker was asked to make an appearance on TV, is it?
> "I have decided to take the liberty of interrupting you all on TV for a few seconds." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
Meaning of 過去形の動詞 ＋「[上]{うえ}で」
Lately, I've been wondering about the meaning of a past tense verb connected to , like in the 3 examples below:
>
>
>
>
>
What's the meaning of ? | It means "after doing ". Almost like ``.
> * → After discussing it with my parents, I decided that I'll study abroad.
> * → When you buy a house, you should choose (it) after doing sufficient research.
> * → I intend to reply after careful consideration.
>
~~There is some other nuance I believe, but I'll have to look it up later.~~ The nuance to it is that the second action is performed based on the result of the first action (as @TokyoNagoya mentioned). With ``, no such relationship is required, meaning that it simply indicates temporal order. For example
> → "I'll go to the bank after I eat lunch" → Going to the bank doesn't depend on me eating lunch; simply states the order of what I'm doing.
> ?/× → It introduces a dependency for going to the bank on eating lunch. Almost like "As a result of eating lunch, I'll go to the bank." Doesn't make much sense. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
What kinds of things can be an 愛機?
gives the following definition for .:
>
Meanwhile, the gives the following definition:
>
Also, (thanks, @snailboat) has:
>
All three of these definitions appear to focus on cameras and airplanes (though they all do also have a suggesting that other related things could also be called ).
My question: is only used for these particular devices? Would it be alright for me to call some other device (like a car or a computer or a razor) an , or would that sound weird? (Basically, I'm wondering why these definitions identify specific examples of devices rather than using a generic word like .) | The short answer is "anything that can be described by a word containing {} and can justifiably be one's favourite".
As for airplanes, can be considered a type of , mostly because it's in the name. Otherwise, is now more often used for or , machines/devices.
I think that, instead of , the definitions might as well have referred to a smartphone, MP3-player, CD-player, walkman, or any other type of device, which fits into the category of being something someone uses for fun.
As for usage, , , , , etc. could all be , because they're all devices that can be used for pleasure.
A(n electric) razor is borderline and only valid, if your favourite thing in the morning is shaving while singing along with the radio.
Cars don't qualify, because there's no common word XX, which can be used to describe a car. But, **** is a word for car and you can use . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
} |
Meaning of ～かといえばそうではない
Another question from me. Reading a text, I stumbled upon the following sentence:
>
As always, stay safe and have a good day. | Could **some hypothetical thing** be true ? .... mmmmm, not necessarily.
"Putting 2 more engineers on the task should get it done quicker"
It's a rhetorical construct, similar to what politicians and C-level executives often employ:
"Do I think that it's a good thing that 200 people lost their lives? Of course I don't!"
"Do I think it could have been worse had we not stopped the blah blah blah? Yes I do." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Repetitive words (e.g. どんどん, ぺらぺら, いらいら...)
This is one area that sometimes dings me on tests. While I can generally figure out what is meant from context, I only know a handful offhand.
The question here is twofold:
* Is there a specific name for this category of words?
* Are there any references that specialize in this vocabulary? | There are actually two types of words here. One is `[]{}` which are onomotopoeia: words representing sounds. Some examples of this are `` (dog barking), `` (scratching, crunching - like popsicles), and `` (sound of something rolling).
The other type is `[]{}` which "depict non-auditory senses". Your examples fall into this category.
Note that both categories contain many other examples that are not repeated, such as `` (stare, look intently) or `` (fall and thud).
As for references, check out our resources post on meta. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "words, reduplication"
} |
How to say Out of [a set or group] in Japanese.
I'm not really sure, but after looking at some example sentences in Jisho.org, I came to the conclusion that in order to say, for example, "Out of all of the people that I know", you would say But is also correct? Also, why do we use instead of in these sentences and do we even have to put a particle after ? | First, is an obscure expression because is a counter for objects* (that said, sounds to some extent better for some reason), so I'd translate "all of the people" to or .
As for your question, yes, the sentence with is correct too and you can omit the particle after .
~~If you use instead of , that is, / would be "into all of the people that I know".~~
As for the question what if you use instead of , well, **it depends on what predicate comes after**.
* edit: not so much 'objects' as 'portion'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, particles"
} |
Which is a Better Introduction?
If I were to introduce myself, which would be better?
1.
2.
3. How would you introduce yourself? Any better recommendations instead of 1 & 2 ?!
Thanks :D | Both are fine.
For some reason my first text book taught but when I went to Japan the first thing I noticed was how rarely, if ever, I heard it. People always said , so I started to do the same.
means "please" and I would say it is used more often to make a request into a polite invitation ("please sit down"/).
Grammatically still means _please_ when you say (you are effectively dropping ) but when making introductions it is something of set phrase and as you know gets translated as "How do you do", "Pleased to meet you". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, usage, greetings"
} |
What is the basic knowledge before starting Japanese language lesson?
I am trying to learn Japanese from the start. I live in Penang, Malaysia. We have the Penang Japanese Language Society (PJLS) here but before I join, I would expect some basic course or level that I can fit into. Also, what are the hierarchy of the levels for Japanese language learning? | Much depends on your enthusiasm. You can start taking courses for the Japanese Language Proficiency Tests (JLPT), which is a standard proof of knowledge in the language. It has an hierarchy of N5 to N1, with N5 being the most basic course.
Now you can ask your PJLS how they go about with their courses or you can buy book and/or self study with help of online resources. You can even choose to ignore the tests altogether and learn from books which are not targeted for JLPT. For example, I have heard Japanese from Zero is quite a good series to learn from (haven't read it myself). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "learning"
} |
Explain how 向{む}く "to face" can take "上{うえ}" as a direct object using を?
There's a famous old song that's actually the only ever Japanese language song to reach #1 on the US pop charts: "{}{}{}".
This is both the title of the song and a frequently repeated line in it.
{} is the -te form of {}, meaning "to face".
My understanding of {} is that in Japanese it's a noun even though it's usually translated to another part of speech in English, such as "up".
It seems odd from the point of view of an English speaker that "to face", "to look toward" would be a transitive verb requiring a direct object.
Is that in fact what's happening or have I got it all wrong trying to parse this phrase due to my English speaker's intuition and my limited knowledge of Japanese?
Is what I'm seeing more of a quirk of the verb or is there something about the particle that I haven't learned yet? Or maybe it's all about the in this case? | Although it is usually the transitive verb that takes a "Noun + " in front of it, there is an important exception to this general rule.
Intransitive verbs such as []{} (to run)[]{} (to fly)[]{} (to get out), etc. can take a "Noun + " when it describes the place of an action or the direction of a movement.
> = to look upward
>
> []{} = to run in the park
>
> []{} = to fly in the sky
>
> = to leave the restaurant
Other such intransitive verbs:
[]{} (to make a turn)[]{} (to get off)[]{} (to pass), etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, verbs, particle を, transitivity, parsing"
} |
Kanji identification
What's the 2nd kanji in the image below? I know that the first one is for oni, the second is 'mushi'. Can't seem to figure out what comes before 'mushi' though !
!enter image description here | >
Composed of + .
Read []{} in this case. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What is a good idiom for 'not being invested'?
In English there are a few idioms that are variants on the phrase,
> I don't really have a horse in this race, so...
which essentially means "I'm not invested in the outcome of the current debate/issue/conflict."
It's not difficult to imagine a non-idiomatic translation like , but that is pretty direct and lacks the softer indirectness of the original idiom.
What equivalent idioms exist in Japanese to choose from for this? | []{}[]{} Fire on the opposite shore.
This is the same expression in Japanese.
Sources: Japanese person. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, idioms"
} |
Why are points used where furigana would be normally?
Sometimes in mangas there are points where you would expect normally furigana. What meaning is it supposed to have?
!enter image description here | The dots, called (or ), function like italics or underline with the Latin alphabet. They are for emphasis.
To see the effect in rōmaji:
> futatabi _kanojo jishin_ no kuchi kara kiku koto ni naru to wa
**_Update_**. To answer the question in the comments, and may be combined (although may also be omitted, as in the snippet in the question body). ONE PIECE isn't exactly a case study of minimalist typography (I'm counting at least 7 text fonts), but for completeness here is an example of _on top of_ (or rather, to the side of) :
!
**_Update 2_**. Note that may take different shapes. In Japanese both `` and `` are common. For more information see
* (Japanese Wikipedia)
* Emphasis point (English Wikipedia)
Usually a text would use one type of , but just for its curiosity value here is a snippet of a book by Miyatake Gaikotsu titled and published in 1922 with a rather eclectic use of emphasis points:
![]( | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 35,
"question_score": 30,
"tags": "orthography, punctuation, furigana, symbols"
} |
Making sense of 「出てったって待ってて」
I'm reading Murakami Haruki's and, although I've come across many sentences I haven't been able to grasp too clearly, I recently came across one that was also funny to pronounce. Can anyone help me make sense of why Murakami might have written the following sentence as he did?
>
I understand the general meaning/feeling of that sentence, but cannot seem to understand why he would have written .
From what I can gather it should be something like: but that raises a question, what's that extra doing next to the ? Normally that would imply that someone else referred it to the speaker (eg. ) but this does not seem to be the case here. | > {}{}{} **** {}{}{} **** {} **** {}{} ****
That is 100% correct and natural-sounding; It simply employs colloquial contractions. This sentence is written very informally as you could tell just from the use of multiple 's.
( means the same thing as = " **even if** ".) This is **not** the quotative , which has been discussed here many times.
>
= "Even if I left here, there would be no one waiting for me..." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "meaning, て form"
} |
Translation of 魔法みたいあなたしか見えない全てが初めての私
Last week I've stumbled upon a japanese song and have been struggling with the translation ever since. Here are the culprit lines:
> []{}
>
> []{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
So far I've come up with the following:
> Take me
> [to] The unknown world
> Never let go of my hand
> Like magic, I can't see anything but you ... everything is?? ... the new me??
To a newbie like me this []{}[]{}[]{} doesn't make a lot of sense in the given context (and []{}[]{} by itself... "the first me"? "first time for me"? "the new me"?..). How should I interpret the last line of the song? | First, I checked the lyrics on two different websites to find that, on both, there was a space after the , which would mean that we need to treat it as an independent phrase.
> "It's like magic."
Lyrics: <
is the Japanese equivalent of an English relative clause --- "A me who ~~~~~". Everything that comes before modifies .
> "A me who cannot see anything but you and to whom everything is new." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Meaning of 「神様、仏様、X様」
I was recently watching a few videos about , and I came across an introduction (if it can be called that?) that I've never heard before.
Whenever she introduces herself, she finishes with, (example)
I did some research, and found a blog post which mentions it's usage as a chant at Japanese baseball games, but I had trouble finding any other information.
So my question is, when you say it yourself, does it have the same meaning as when it is used as a chant? I can translate it literally, but what does it really mean in both cases? Are there some implications to it, or can I use this construction myself when I feel like being a little facetious? | > []{}[]{}(one's **_own_** name) + []{}
Trust me, that is NOT something "normal" people would ever say in their entire lives.
is not a normal person; She is a top idol. It looks like her agency selected that phrase in question as the catch phrase for her to use in self-introductions.
The use of the phrase in baseball is the normal use of it. It does not have to be baseball but when you need to depend on one person's great performance for a win or success, you equate that person to the ranks of gods. Again, the point remains that you do not put your **_own_** name in that phrase. It should be the "title" that people refer to you as for your exceptional past achievements unless, of course, you are . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, meaning"
} |
What does the sentence ending particle や mean?
Out of all sentence ending particles, I cannot really pinpoint what means. I don't meet it often (or maybe I don't have enough experience or exposure) and in situations which don't really explain themselves. Also, is it a real particle anyway?
Some examples I recently found (from books):
>
>
>
I hope those examples make sense without the context. I know that those kind of particles are hard to explain but any explanation is welcome. | We are actually discussing TWO different kinds of here, which is probably why you seem more confused than you should be.
In **** , the is a colloquial (and almost exclusively masculine) sentence-ending particle for 1) imperative, 2) invitation and 3) request. You are saying "(Please) make yourself at home."
Note that it attaches directly to the imperative form of a verb ( in this case).
In {} **** , the is a dialectal (and gender-neutral) sentence-ender mostly for Kansai. It expresses affirmation and it is the equivalent of in Standard Japanese. "That is because it really is not an iron." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "particles, sentence final particles"
} |
Questions about `〜はる` 敬語
One thing I've never fully gotten a grasp on is the `` form of "``", and I have some questions about it.
1. Is it official `` recognized by the ``, or is it just more of a regionally accepted politeness?
* What regions even use this form commonly?
2. What is its politeness level, and how does it compare/fit it with ``?
* I was once stopped in Osaka by the police (because my bicycle was _clearly_ stolen </sarcasm>) and they used it toward me - ``
3. Which `` is this, and how did it evolve to this usage of politeness?
Apologies if this is too many questions for one topic. | 1. It's Kansai dialect. I don't think it's official recognized by .
2. It's .
> ≒ ,
> []{} ≒ []{},
> ≒ ,
>
I think ~~ sounds less polite/formal than the standard .
3. I think it comes from (--> --> ?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "verbs, etymology, politeness, keigo"
} |
Can an average Japanese person read 草書 style calligraphy?
Apart from learning Japanese language, I've also started learning Japanese calligraphy (). I have a question about style (cursive style in English?) calligraphy.
Most style kanji seem unintelligible to me as they look very different to more readable normal or styles. Can an average Japanese person read style? If yes, do they learn it (in school or elsewhere)?
As a sample, I'll include one of my attempts - sorry for not best quality and teacher's markings. Can that be understood by an average Japanese person?
!enter image description here
Note: my question is not about what is written above. It's a question about readability of style in general. | An average Japanese person -- however that should be defined -- can indeed read an amount of -style calligraphy, but it may not be a large amount because it is usually not taught in school.
An average person as myself just picks it up from his exposure to handwritten Japanese around him like in his house, school and even on the street. He learns the characters one by one and do so almost randomly. How much each person gets to learn depends on his curiosity and, importantly, his overall kanji knowledge. Those who do not pay attention to the stroke order are the ones that struggle the most with .
If I can read that calligraphy of yours, that would mean almost any Japanese could, too, because I am so miserably average. It says , right?
In the near future, though, there might appear a new generation of kids in Japan who could not read any because the amount of handwritten things around us has been decreasing greatly in this computer age. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "kanji, calligraphy"
} |
Why should I use つかれました and not つかれたです
I said to a Japanese person last night, meaning to say "I'm tired":
>
She corrected me to:
>
I'm curious as to why this is. I thought was grammatically correct. Does it sound strange or unusual? And why would using the past tense "I felt tired" be preferable to the present tense "I feel tired"?
Please reply in kana or kanji with furigana only. | Usually, is a polite copula, similar to but more polite:
> That is an apple
> That is an apple (polite)
But can also be a politeness marker added to adjectives:
> is red
> is red (polite)
When it's a politeness marker, doesn't inflect for tense:
> is red (polite)
> was red (polite)
The adjective before it already inflects for tense.
This is a relatively recent innovation in the Japanese language and not too long ago was considered unacceptable. Some people still try to reword things to avoid it, but it's probably caught on because it filled a useful gap in the language: making adjectives polite, like with nouns or with verbs, but without going as far as .
However, verbs already have a way to make them polite:
> (past)
> (past, polite)
So there's no motivation to start saying *, and there's no reason for people to start treating it as an acceptable part of the Japanese language. As a result, it's ungrammatical. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, usage, verbs"
} |
Difference between なり (meaning 'either.. or...') and か (meaning 'or')
I came across the construction (meaning either... or...) on JGram and I saw this example:
>
> juice.. cola.. have whatever you like
That made me wonder what the difference is in this case if is used instead:
>
Is it maybe a difference of register? Or does it have a different meaning? | The first sentence []{} is perfectly natural. It is asking you to choose whatever you want to drink and "juice" and "cola" are only two examples of what is available. Point is you have other choices as well.
The second sentence is different. By using , the speaker is giving the addressee two choices only --- "juice" and "cola". For this reason, the sentence is NOT very natural with the word choice of . To use , one needs to have at least three choices. Thus, the needs to be replaced by []{}. means "the one you prefer among the two".
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, register"
} |
Does this “が” mean “but”? What is the difference between 習うと思う and 習おうと思う?
I'm not sure my translation for this brief conversation is correct, particularly the last sentence, so would like it double checked please.
> :
> :
> : **** **** ****
>
> Karen: Neil you're a music student aren't you?
> Neil: That’s right but why do you ask?
> Karen: Well I've been thinking of learning the violin so do you know any good teachers?
A couple of things:
1. The in the last sentence is confusing me as I can't see how a 'but' would really fit in.
2. What would be the difference between and ?
3. I was initially flummoxed by the but I think it’s a request form question now. | Your translation is correct. However, this `` isn't the "but" one. It's the "softener" one. I can't think of a way to translate it (if there even is one), but it's often used to make one's own desires/actions seem less direct and a little more humble.
Ex.
> * ... → There's something I'd like to ask you...
>
* * *
The difference between `` and `` is the former would be used to indicate "I think <someone else> will learn" vs. "I'm thinking **_I'd like to_** learn". `` is a very common form for expressing a desired, yet uncertain intention. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles, verbs"
} |
What does の頃【ころ】 mean in this sentence?
I don't know what means in this sentence. I know means 'about' or 'around' but I still don't understand its use here.
Chip Butty
My best translation:
I've just come back from london and I didn't know what a Chip Butty was. | `` means "around", "about", or "(at) the time". So it translates to:
> At the time I'd just come ~~back~~ to London, ...
Note that it's `come to London`, not `come back from London`.
Other common usages include
> * → When I was a child
> * → When I was in high school
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, particles"
} |
Usage of passive form
I've got a question about this part - . I cannot understand why it's used passive form verb and ****. If I'm understanding correctly, the ones who "make you realize something are those sounds" So, is it a mistake here, some sort of "author's stylistic" or I'm just misunderstanding something?
>
>
> "The world's whisper, which is always erased by the sounds of cars and streets. Those sounds makes you realize, that you are in the center of the world, that is why..." | > ()()
>
is the subject for . The subject for () and is /(I/we/you). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Meaning of また今度、使ってくれよな
I'd like to ask if I'm correct in reading the following phrase as "(Please) use it again sometime!":
> | Specifically you're asking them to use it the next time, but it should suit your purposes fine. If you explicitly want to leave it as a general "sometime", you can change to with no adverse effect. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
What is the difference between 一旦～ and ～が最後?
I was looking up and saw a comment that it was similar to . However there was no further explanation, so now I'm wondering what the difference is?
One of the examples of I was looking at:
>
> He is such karaoke fan that if only he gets his hands on the mike he wouldn’t drop it all night. | There is no significant difference in meaning between []{} and []{}. You can use either of the two or even both together to say:
> "Once someone does A, he will always (or never) do B." or
>
> "Once A happens, there certainly will come situation B."
>
> In other words, it expresses an automatic and/or uncontrollable result.
I will use your sentence in my explanation.
> []{} **** []{}[]{}
> ↑ Either **** or **** is OK.
>
> = "He is such a big karaoke maniac that once he grabs hold of a mike, he will never let go of it."
To say the exact same thing, you can use or use both and . The sentence will only sound more emphatic if you use both.
> ****
> ↑ Only **** can be used.
>
> ****
> ↑ Either or can be used.
can be replaced with []{} in these constructions. (But would sound better to more native speakers.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
What is the difference between 嫌{きら}う and 嫌{いや}がる?
What is the difference between {} and {}? Are they interchangeable? | This is a good example of a pair of words that would seem interchangeable if "translated" as both are often just translated to "to hate".
and are only "casually" interchangeable but not strictly so. The key word is , not the big kanji .
For instance, you can hate your husband without anyone knowing it, including your husband. To keep it a secret, all you have to do is to be a good actress and not show your true feelings. This is .
If your hatred toward your hubby ever starts showing in your words or attitude, we are getting into the realm of . There is "evidence" now. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What does this person mean by "doryo" in this context?
Two Japanese-fluent characters in an English novel I'm reading are talking about a specific heart problem one character concealed from medical exams. That character is requesting the second character keep this secret, lest they be kicked off the mission.
The second character drops briefly into Japanese:
> "Watakushi no doryo wa, wakarimasu," Nicole said kindly, changing into Japanese to show sympathy for her colleague's anguish.
Both characters are fluent, and I believe the writer was as well.
One of the problems here is whether "doryo" should be written or - this would help with translation. However, none of the translation services I've tried actually seem to translate this in any way which makes sense. The closest I've gotten from Google has been "magnanimity" - but I don't think this makes contextual sense.
What is the meaning of this statement, and how should "doryo" be written in hiragana? | It is likely `[]{}` which means "colleague"/"coworker". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, rōmaji"
} |
How to say copyrighted material in Japanese?
How do I say copyrighted material in Japanese?
Is a good translation?
I want to say that uploading copyrighted material is prohibited. | Yes, that would be the most natural phrase in Japanese. The whole sentence should look like:
> []{}[]{}[]{} or
>
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation"
} |
トライしてみて. Usage?
I just came across this in a magazine ''.
I know it's saying 'try', but does it actually make grammatical sense? Would I be able to use that in a formal situation, or is it just to sound cute. | I think the piece of the puzzle which you are missing is that means "to try". is the most common pattern for loans to turn into Japanese verbs (with some exceptions, like etc.). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
is "こっかい" a heteronym?
I recently boasted to a native speaker that I can pronounce Japanese with a high degree of precision, while he has trouble with pronouncing the "L" sound in English. Later in the discussion he stopped me and insisted that I was mistaking a Japanese pronunciation. He said:
'{}’ is pronounced differently than '{}’
(1) I don't believe him. Is there really more than one way to pronounce "”, or any other word? Every word can be written in kana, and kana pronunciation is not ambiguous?
(2) Is it even possible for Japanese to have the concept of a heteronyms? A heteronym must be written the same way and pronounced differently. But, almost every Japanese word can be written two different ways: kana and kanji. Without a unique way to write a word, heteronyms don't make sense?
Is this a valid assertion: " _The Japanese language does not support the concept of 'heteronyms'._ "?
maybe this page needs to be updated and improved? <
thank you. | It's a matter of pitch accent. In a manner _somewhat_ similar to Chinese, Japanese actually has 2 tones that establish its inflectional patterns. They aren't widely taught to foreigners because the patterns vary amongst regions (e.g. Osaka and Tokyo are near-opposite), but one purpose that they do serve is to distinguish between homophones.
According to the 1980 edition of the published by , the proper inflectional patterns are as follows:
* HLLL
* LHHH
So in the case of you would start on a higher pitch and it would fall after the first; in the case of it starts low and then rises. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "pronunciation, pitch accent"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.