INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Is there difference between 大事／大した
When would one be used? I don't understand the difference between them. | is a matter, so means a "serious matter".
places less emphasis on the "matter" and more on being "big", so can simply mean "very" or "much".
As an example
> - a matter of national security
and
> - she will definitely become a (very big) singer
As per their negative counterparts, I find that in a colloquial sentence the following would seem a bit more formal:
> (it's not a big issue)
whereas this sounds more natural:
> (no biggie) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
} |
Confusion with それだけ in these lyrics
Could anyone please help me translate this? I have only gotten a hang of basic sentences but this one I just cannot seem to understand.
>
> Utagai wa iranai. Sore dake ga shinjitsu.
I am mainly confused about what function has in this sentence. | In this example literally means "that alone" or "only that". So in the first part the person is stating that they don't want/care about suspicions, after which they go on to say that that's all that matters. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, usage"
} |
～としたら - when exactly used and what's the difference from other "if" structures
I'm a bit confused about and its exact usage. What is the difference between this and other structures expressing "if" (, -form, etc.)?
For example, let's take a sentence from one of my textbooks. If I used , does it have the same meaning?
>
>
>
Another example: do those two sentences express the same?
>
>
> | It is mostly about the degree of likelyhood implied regarding the content of the subordinate clause.
would generally express a lower degree of likelihood in the eyes of the speaker than or would. The difference, however, is often fairly subtle in actual usage for many speakers.
You could always lower the degree of likelyhood in question by adding to any one of the aforementioned expressions.
Thus, your first pair of sentences have nearly the same meaning. As I have explained, the speaker of the first sentence would be feeling that what he has heard is less likely to be true than the speaker of the second sentence would be feeling.
The same can be said about your second pair of sentences. You would say the first sentence in a place where one would be less likely to encounter a lion than you would say the second. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Clarification needed - みたい (みたいな)
as in _like_ (someone)
If I want to say "I like people _like_ that woman", is it enough to simply say: Or do I have to specify the "that" part by putting it like this:
Also, is it allowed to use instead of here if it ended with a verb? ( is an adjective if I remember right) | I would say is probably better if you're want to talk about _that_ woman. Otherwise it may not be clear who/what exactly you're talking about. with may depend on the context though. Also, notice that I replaced with . is more casual expression (than ) and more everyday expression seems more suitable and in line with the level of speech.
You cannot use in this sentence. is the subject of the sentence, not an object. is an adjective, not a transitive verb. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
How to choose the right kanji from several choices?
I do know that there are many questions like that all over the web and some on japanese.stackexchange as well. Nevertheless, as far as I can remember I could not find any that explained how to choose the right kanji when there are multiple choices (I mean: "fly" vs. "leap"; (the generic one) vs. "distinguish" vs. "understand", and countless others like , , etc.).
The only place where I have found some explanation is in the MS IME for Japanese. But it is not very convenient because I am not always on Windows and when I do handwriting I do not have that aid.
So I am asking whether you know a book, a paper or whatever else that will describe the differences between those words. | Here is a publication put out by the , which is a part of in the Japanese government.
<
At a glance it has a lot of good stuff but as @snailboat mentions it is limited to the kanji and readings shown on the , so you won't find things like and . For joyo kanji, though, this should be the government standard.
The term for this is {} (Different kanji, same reading) so you can search other places based on that and get plenty of help. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, kanji choice"
} |
ふるさと (home town, birthplace) uses which kanji - 古里 or 故郷?
I've noticed that there are 2 ways (at least, maybe more) of writing (home town, birthplace):
*
*
Am I correct? Are they interchangeable? Is one used more often than another? | I am going to say that this is more a matter of personal preference than anything.
I hate to disappoint the (many) kanji-lovers on here but in kana would be the most-often used way to write the word. may be used just as often but it is read instead at least half the time.
looks pretty corny and you will not see it as often as you will the two above these days. If you are from a big or even a mid-size city like I am, this word would look and feel "off" in referring to your hometown.
The latest "official" term containing the word in question is []{}. This new system allows you to make a donation to any prefecture, city, town, village, etc. of your choice and do so tax-deductibly.
<
In case anyone is mistaken, I want to add that , however it is written, is NOT the word native speakers usually use in sentences like "Where is your hometown?" or "My hometown is ~~~." We use []{} and []{} for that. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, kanji, spelling"
} |
What does "ma i te na" mean in japanese?
may be I mistaken in romaji
here what I mean
< |
Maitta naa
It's generally an exclamation of negative emotion/giving up. Take a look at the example sentences here to get a better idea. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "slang"
} |
How to say "I will just let future me deal with it" in Japanese?
I will just let future me deal with it
It's a part of my sakubun I'm currently writing and I just don't know how to say this sentence in Japanese? I'm thinking maybe:
>
but not so sure. | What is it that you want to let a future you deal with? I ask mostly because []{} is a fairly big word and it may be too big a word to go with whatever you are talking about if it is not very serious.
As always, the most natural phrases will not look anything like the English original.
> []{}[]{}[]{}or or
>
> or []{}
Using would be far more natural than using in the sentences above.
If you want your Japanese to "look" more like your English for some reason, you could say:
> []{}[]{}[]{}or []{} ←Important
Finally, you could use what Kaji suggested above and say:
> []{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What does it mean to write wasei-eigo and gairaigo in Romaji?
Wasei-eigo and most Gairaigo (especially in a text or sentence as opposed to being by itself) is usually written in Katakana (, , ,,). However, there are times that have seen some in their original Romaji form (image, juice, smart, pants, avec) even in a Japanese sentence, ex. pants; juice; smart; avec; etc.
Is this common or incorrect? What does it mean if you do this as opposed to using Katakana? | I haven't seen a lot of those cases in daily life. I feel like people use English in sentences when they want to add some "fanciness" (for some reason people seem to think it's cool to use English). Like you said in the comments, the only places I can think of where English words are used in Japanese sentences are titles in magazines and TV ads.
Although it's definitely not formal, I wouldn't say it's incorrect. It doesn't have any special meaning to it as far as I know, other than that intention of making the sentence a bit more "fancier." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "katakana, orthography, rōmaji, wasei eigo, copywriting"
} |
Is answering with simple ない grammatically correct, when saying I physically don't possess some object
In Japan I often felt or is not the best choice, when asked, if I don't carry something with me. Like at the airport security lady asked me, if I there were any forbidden objects in my luggage. I can't recall the question, but it ended in I felt lost for a second and she tried to help me out with a correct answer and said in a confirming tone , and I used her tip and said
I used that couple of times in other situations. Is this okay to say it like that or should I produce a better lengthier sentence, like ? | Yes. Grammatically you can say . This forms a complete sentence, which means "(it is / that kind of stuff is) not (t)here".
However, this works only for physical existence or possession. In most cases, even when a question ends in ?, a simple is not a grammatically correct answer. Like when asked , the answer could be but not a simple . This is because shows negation, not non-existence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
} |
What is でれでれ (spoony)?
Could someone explain what this word means? It seems to describe a man who will do anything a woman he likes wants him to do but it is not that obvious from the E&J defintions and picture below, which I have borrowed from the book "Onomatopoeia."
The best clue from the definition is the word but the meanings of that do not seem to fit (slovenly?, womanizing?, weak?). The key English word, "spoony" seems to exist only in Japanese dictionaries.
>
> Describes a loose attitude or appearance. Often used to describe a man's spoony attitude toward a woman.
!dspoony? | is also the root of the in , which is used to refer to someone (typically a female) who is rather moody—she's swooning over someone one moment, and knocking him over the horizon the next. Likewise, I've seen as a request for someone (again, typically female in my observation) to stop fawning all over someone.
As to the English word "spoony", that's a running joke resulting from the English translation of Final Fantasy IV. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
Is this seat being chased, or is the person in it being chased from it?
In my JLPT textbook, I have this sentence:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}
I think this sentence means, "He betrayed the trust of the people. As a result, it was the case that he was chased out of his seat of power." "Seat of power" may be overly literal, it's probably more like his seat in the Diet or something, but that's not the part I'm concerned with.
It's the `{}{}{}` part. From the overall context of the sentence, I'm guessing the guy was chased **from** the seat. But, from the grammar, because of the `` particle that points directly to the chair, it feels like it _should_ mean the seat itself had been chased.
Am I right that it means the guy was chased from the chair? If so, why does `{}{}` not mean the chair got chased? If I'm wrong about the meaning, then what does it mean? | If the chair was chased, the phrase would be `{}{}{}` passively or `{}{}{}` actively.
Back to the question, this `` particle means `from`. I guess you have no problem with `{}{}` (move away from Tokyo). Another grammatically correct phrase is `{}{}{}` (move away from the seat).
Actually, you can say `{}{}` for being chased away from Tokyo. Analogously, you can say `{}{}{}`. For me, the best way to understand the phrase in question is, seeing `{}` as a substitute for `{}` or `{}` (leave). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Meaning of ~つもりではいる in that sentence
I don't understand the meaning of ~ in this sentence :
> ****
>
> And, although I'm planning on going easy on you, you will also lose if you happen to get killed.
I'm familiar with the ~+ construction and I remember reading somewhere that could sometimes replace (not sure about that).
So is it + (and what difference is there between and )?
Or is it ( forme of ) + and in that case, what does mean in that context?
Or something else entirely? | Yes, it's a combination of with the contrastive inserted. No, it's not .
When you use instead of , the emphasis is on the _current_ state (or with , a _past_ state). In your translation, that's reflected with the English present progressive "planning on".
In this particular example, the particle is added to show contrast with the following clause. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage, meaning"
} |
This mother doesn't know her own child?
I have the following sentence in my JLPT practise book:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}
My faltering translation is something like, "How did my mother feel at the time, she couldn't have known it was me."
I'm unclear on the implications. It seems to be that the mother's feelings are unclear _because_ of not knowing who the speaker is, but who the speaker is and how the mother would express it don't seem logically related to me. For example, if she shouted because she was angry, it wouldn't matter who she thought she was shouting at for an outside observer to determine she was angry.
How does knowing who the speaker is and her feelings at the time connect? I feel because I don't have a logical interpretation of the implications, my translations doesn't feel correct.
What would be a more accurate translation than mine? | It seems you're not interpreting the sentence quite correctly.
It should be "As a child I had no way of knowing how my mother felt at that time."
> []{}[]{}[]{}
Would be "how my mother felt at the time."
> []{}[]{}[]{}
I think this is where you might be getting thrown off. `` is what you need to focus on. is the "child version" of the speaker, from that point in time. is saying that the preceding is not comprehensible _to_ him/her. I assume is the target grammar point so you should know that it's saying, basically, "had no way of knowing." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, nuances, jlpt"
} |
What do you use for a general-purpose counter when there are more that 10?
I've seen multiple language books, videos, etc. refer to this great, wonderful, magnificent general-purpose counter known as . The problem? I've also seen multiple source say that doesn't work with numbers greater than 10. Which means I can't personally take this very seriously, and unfortunately, language manuals tend to just skip over any explanation of what you're supposed to do with numbers greater than 10.
Maybe they just mean that you have to change over from the counting system to the counting system, but if that's so, there's no way to tell from the way that language manuals tend to word this. So what do you do for general-purpose counting after 10 (or before 1)? | For general purposes, if you don't know a more specific one to apply, the common practice is to use . In limited cases I've heard it advised to use just the number without a counter as well, but I generally try to avoid this if possible. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "numbers, counters"
} |
Meaning of と and 少しでも in this sentence
I don't get what and mean in this sentence (from a manga) :
>
I remember reading that the conditional couldn't be use with the volitional form so I guess it relates to , but I have no idea what AB would mean...
My guess as to a translation (eluding ):
> Many people started to make useless efforts to hide in remote places that looked like they couldn't easily become targets.
Thanks for your time. | I think is + meaning "even if a little". In this sentence, it would apply to how the hiding place would make it hard to become a target. Translating quite literally:
>
>
> remote places which seemed like making it harder to become targets, even if by a little
As for , I'm not completely sure but it may mean "attempt to do". See the answer to this question Volitional + + Verb. In this case the translation for the second part could be:
>
>
> were starting a futile attempt to hide
I would traslated the whole sentence as:
>
>
> Many people were starting a futile attempt to hide in remote places which seemed like making it harder to become targets, even if by a little. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, particles"
} |
Kanji stroke type (not stroke order)
My former teacher made us really pay attention to kana stroke order _and_ stroke types (and ). Yet when it came to kanji she only made us study the stroke order. I've noticed that other people also disregard kanji stroke type.
Why is that? Is it because of the sheer amount of information? (It's easy to remember a few kana stroke types while the same does not hold true to kanji.) What do natives have to say about this? | I think that in elementary school stroke type (at least ) is definitely regarded an important part of learning kanji.
For instance, the kanji is a first-year character and the hook on the last stroke is an important part. I think that most elementary schools would take marks off (i.e. not but ) for omitting the hook in a test.
(The hook is even part of fonts, which often don't detail or .)
When written in pen or pencil, and are much harder to identify and produce and are often neglected.
In any case, stroke type is definitely taught in elementary school. I don't know why your teacher chose not to teach you stroke type. One reason may be that she assumes you'll be sensitive enough to stroke type once she showed you how important it was (for kana).
If you feel you need more practice, I can highly recommend practice books (like this one) for school children for developing nice handwriting. (Many foreigners I've seen try to imitate a font...) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "kanji, kana, stroke order, stroke type"
} |
Choosing the right form of "to dry"
I've come across two different words for "to dry" in my readings: and . I've seen both used to refer to things drying out (e.g. from the 2nd poem in the or in the case of the latter). I've also seen the related , but that seems to be limited to topics related to thirst (e.g. ).
Can anyone provide some insight into when each is appropriate? | As user5185's answer says, is usually used for things that are left out in the sun to dry, such as laundry or foods, as in or . is more of a general term that doesn't necessarily involve desiccation, and usually involves taking action to do the drying, e.g. drying one's hair, drying laundry in a drying machine, wiping tears from someone's face, etc. is along the same lines. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Meaning of ~するとみる and よくばる in this sentence
I don't get what and means in this sentence :
>
As for the context : the speaker is waiting for someone to get out of a room. He just said :
> 1
Rikaichan tells me that means "to covet, to lust for" but that doesn't help much...
And I wasn't able to find any information on .
Thanks for your time. | can mean "to judge or expect through observation" (good dictionaries have that definition). So, that's "I expect he gets greedy and far exceeds the time limit". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Wanting Someone To Do Something (てほしい Structure)
I have the following sentence to translate.
So far I have the following.
It was said ... doesn't want ... to go but
he wants to become a newspaper reporter so
he decided to go even if he doesn't pass the international exchange student exam
I am having trouble with that first segment. I think the `` structure is used to say you want someone to do something for you. So I don't get who is not wanting who to go. If the subject just didn't want to go, I would expect ``. | You are correct in your understanding that is used when saying what you want others to do. is the passive, so the subject, literally, "was told 'I don't want you to go'". is what they were told by someone else.
The main point of this passage is that the subject intends to go despite being told by someone that they don't want them to go.
As as sidenote regarding translation, it might just be me being sleepy here but I don't think a literal translation of the grammar results in very natural English. Some solutions might be to get rid of the passive ("They told me they don't want me to go but...") or change the "want" ("I was told not to go/...I shouldn't go but..."). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, て form"
} |
"どうしようもない" or "どうしよう__の__もない", or neither?
This is my understanding:
" **** " is a complete sentence. (There is nothing that can be done.)
"noun + **** " is the sentence structure.
therefore: "" = "noun"
"" is a sentence ending with a verb (ie. not a noun).
Is "" a noun? Is it the same part of speech as ""? <\--- _question #1_
If "" = [part of speech] = "", then "" is not grammatically correct. A verb cannot be the subject.
So, there are 3 ways to change a verb to noun:
(#1) ""
(#2) ""
(#3) "particle"
"noun+" needs a noun as the subject.
"" surely is the subject in "", but "" is a verb.
so, using method #3, we use a particle to change "" into a noun. The particle is "".
Therefore, is the phrase " **** " grammatically correct? |
They are fixed expressions.
* * *
Etymologically, →→
forms a noun
1
( It's attached to the continuatives/infinitives to form compound nouns.)
( methods, manners. ways to say, ways to do )
is sometimes used in some idiomatic negative constructions, e.g.
You can't simply say //// etc.
It can't be analyzed as a normal noun + . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle の"
} |
Need small clarification regarding this use of 遊び
I was translating some lines earlier and I ran into a snag after the speaker said this:
My main problem comes from the part and I'd like to confirm that I'm reading this right.
What I'm seeing is that the speaker's saying that that he understood, from a mentor's words (that he overheard a few seconds ago), that they are fighting despite not liking it?
Addendum: Or it also mean that they're not fighting as a game/for the hell of it? Because the whole point of this scene is that the speaker has realized that everyone around him has a reason to why they're fighting in the first place.
Is this interpretation correct?
Thanks for the help. | Your latter interpretation is correct. "" basically means "". Without context, it is hard to infer whether they like the fight or not, though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, usage"
} |
On the two words, several pronunciations, and many spellings for "sake cup"
When I was in Okinawa drinking sake I asked my host what the Japanese word for the sake cup was and was told:
> {}
Then today I went to the Nezu Museum in Tokyo which currently has a collection of sake utensils on display. Every single cup there bore the label:
> in the rubi and either or for the kanji.
So I was originally going to ask what the difference is between and but on looking up the latter for the right kanji to use in this question I was bombarded with these variants:
> (P); ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (iK) (P); ; ()
So it seems that the exhibit was using neither the preferred/popular kanji nor the preferred/popular pronunciation!
What am I to make of all this? Which word should I use for sake cup? Why would the museum go with an uncommon variant? Are there nuances? | I think normally refers to something that looks like this: !
and can also be used as a general term for sake cup, including :!enter image description here
I think is probably an archaic way of spelling it in hiragana(or katakana?). Nowadays we normally spell it as . As for and ... both look okay to me, though I think I learned it as at school... some people say is a (informal variant?) for but I'm not sure. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, pronunciation, spelling, kanji choice"
} |
Opposite of 歯止め?
According to WWWJDIC, is used as follows:
> ; (exp,v1) to curb; to halt; to apply brakes; to put an end to
The English translations have a pretty good correspondence with the imagery, especially if you consider .
Consider the opposite action:
> To get things moving; to get it in drive; to weigh anchor; to find purchase; to stop spinning wheels; to find traction; to [actually] get started; to get underway
What would be a Japanese expression that corresponds? , , , and all come to mind, but they're still not quite right. The physical lurch when a vehicle or mechanism starts delivering power is the key to all of these English expressions; I would like to get as close as possible while staying within natural expressions. | It would probably be , which means to spur, encourage, accelerate etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, translation, expressions, idioms, metaphor"
} |
To be polite, say "おいくらですか" and not "いくらですか"?
"” seems like a common phrase taught to all students of Japanese? But, instead of saying "", I always used to go honorific and say "".
Is adding {} to "" wrong? Could it _ever_ be wrong? After all, you cannot ask yourself questions. Why is the honorific "" not really taught? "" sounds aggressive and "in your face"? | I normally say "" and I don't think this sounds impolite. I think my mother uses "" or "", and sometimes "". I think sounds politer and a bit feminine, and sounds feminine and elegant.
"Why is the honorific "" not really taught?" Maybe it's because / is more used by older people and textbook publishers think that students of Japanese are generally young?? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
How do you use 教わる【おそわる】?
I understand that is the intransitive of (to teach), however I'm not sure how to use it properly outside of possibly in an adjectival context (e.g. ). In practice, what is the difference between and any of the myriad verbs for "to learn" (, , etc.)? | I think the difference is that can be done by yourself, whereas can't be done just by yourself: you need someone (or something) else to teach you. Note that is "to be taught."
When you say
>
you implicitly mean that you were taught by a teacher. On the other hand, you aren't implying that you were taught by someone in
>
In the latter example, the class could have been a self-studying session where you teach yourself (you don't use when you teach yourself). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "nuances, transitivity"
} |
What is the difference between どのぐらい and どれぐらい?
I just heard a sentence this morning - "how much money do you have?"
>
I have always been taught "how much" is so hearing has caught me off-guard.
As I recall we use with an object, and when there is not one. So...
>
>
>
Is my understanding correct? | , , , and are used interchangeably.
> /
> /
> /
> /
>
> /()
> /()
> /()
> /()
All sound fine to me. , etc. modify a (=/) and **** , **** etc. modifiy a (=). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "usage, particle くらい"
} |
Can't understand the 指すもの for それ
What is in ? I think that the author says something like this - "...and I'm trying to not force her to do it() too." Also is it correct to think that is saying the sister of author, who doesn't want to cook?
> ****
Some sort of translation of the whole sentence:
> "It couldn't be helped that she's saying "it's a bother" and as a result our meal is simplified, and I'm trying to not force her to do it() too." | In the effort of making it sound more natural in written English, I would translate it as
> I guess saying "it's too much trouble" and thus we have a simplified meal can't really be helped, and I'm trying to avoid forcing her to do it anyway.
I believe you are right, that in this sentence indeed refers to . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
非ぼく, 非かえるくん - how to translate 非 in this context?
I'm reading a short story by Haruki Murakami. I found a passage where is attached to two nouns, I guess to give them the meaning of opposition.
> ****
>
> ****
I know I'm reading a literary work so words can be made up but is it a normal practice to attach to words this way? How to translate that best into English? Is "anti-" appropriate?
> I am a genuine Frog but at the same time I'm the symbol of the anti-Frog world.
>
> There's anti-me inside of me. | Yes! I think your interpretation is fine, and given the context I think "anti" makes sense. There are several prefixes for negation, but adding one in unconventional ways is fine so long as it fits the general pattern of use. That said, however, it's not necessarily the most "normal" way. For example, saying something like and is kind of goofy, but it's clear that's what the writer is going for. In general the use of a prefix in itself shouldn't be too problematic; it's just the context that dictates how good it sounds. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Use of こそ. What words is it replacing here?
OK , so I am a huge fan of Kill la Kill, and I looked up how to say "Fear is Freedom, Control is Release, Contradiction is Truth". The whole line in Japanese is:
>
Now, this Japanese is pretty simple, and I totally get the meaning (obviously, since there's a translation, but I mean that I understand how the language here works). However, I'm not sure what is doing here. I know that it emphasizes the previous word, but is that enough to form a statement? Can someone explain what it's doing here, and the proper use of it?
Also, secondarily, I'm wondering why is required here. I was pretty sure that it was used to mean "both", so why is it needed here, where she is not addressing _both_ pigs in human clothing, so much as a whole crowd of them? | is appended to a word to emphasise it. It can replace particles or - you can form a sentence using the pattern AB. It has similar meaning of equivalence asABbut gives the statement more emphasis:
> (emphatic)
>
> (normal statement)
(Note: this is not the only pattern of usage.)
* * *
One of the meanings of is "(derogatory) second or third person plural (implies speaker is of higher status than those referred to)" (source WWWJDIC). in this case is plural - "pigs", giving it derogatory meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "translation"
} |
How do I parse やめときます?
I came across the phrase in alc.co.jp, which is apparently translated to things like "I'll pass" or "I'd better not."
It didn't appear as a stand-alone word in the dictionaries I checked, so I'm wondering if it's a contracted form of two other words.
Just for the sake of making a guess...I'll guess that it's (imperative form of ) and . | would be the -form of {} with the auxiliary verb , which has a number of meanings but in this case probably indicates that the speaker will go ahead and stop doing something in anticipation of a certain result, or that they are admitting that a situation is a certain way and will leave it as it is.
> {}{}
It would literally mean that the speaker will stop doing something, or give up on doing something in order to leave things as they are. As you've mentioned, both interpretations could idiomatically be translated as “I had better not (do it/anything),” or “I will pass (on doing it/anything).” | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
All the uses of わけ?
Ok, I've come across a few expressions involving the word such as , to indicate that something differs from a notion the listener may have; , to indicate that there is no sense in something, and just ending the sentence with to indicate a conclusion. I was wondering how many more of these expressions there are, and what they are. | In addition to what you've got listed there's also:
* , indicating that you don't know why something is happening
* , which is a formal way of apologizing (literally translated, it means "there is no excuse [for what happened]") | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, usage, expressions"
} |
How do I correctly display furigana?
I've started to program for android recently and one of my side projects is to make a simple app for learning basic japanese vocabulary and I've been wondering what's the correct way to display furigana between these two.
1.!enter image description here
2.!enter image description here
Is one more standard than the other, or are both just as fine? | If this is a programming question, it belongs on Stack Overflow. I'm going to assume it's a linguistic question for now, however, based on the graphics.
Of the two examples, option 1 is preferred. The primary reason for this is that while most Japanese words written in kanji have readings that correspond to specific characters, there are several words for which this is not the case due to _gikun_. For example:
*
*
*
*
The short of it is that breaking them apart for each character can suggest an association where it doesn't exist, and using one style consistently is generally preferable. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "furigana"
} |
How to call this framing problem in Japanese?
How to call a picture where due to a camera handling error or inopportune subject move, the subject is not at the intended place (for instance center of the picture), but instead at the edge of the picture, or even out of the picture.
For instance, I take a picture of someone but the camera slips in my hand and the resulting picture has the head of the person cut off.
In French it is called "erreur de cadrage".
If there is no such word, how to call the action of rotating the camera to place the subject at the intended place in the picture?
I would say "" but I guess it does not sound natural.
!enter image description here | ?
In normal conversation you'd say ()or(). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word requests"
} |
What is a euphemism for "slurred speech"?
"Slurred speech" is not just a past participle modifying a noun. It is actually a casual way to say the medical condition "dysarthria". I was just wondering if there was a Japanese euphemism analogous to "slurred speech". | `[]{}` means "to stutter", although I don't know if that completely overlaps with "slurred speech", or if it necessarily implies anything like a stroke, concussion, etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Why is this [二番目]{に・ばん・め} counter used for a person?
Here is a small passage from my Japanese Bible, where a king is summoning his servants.
> ......[]{}... ... ** __** ...
Why is it referring to the second servant as `` instead of the more intuitive (at least to me) ``? Is this derogatory somehow, or is it essentially relating `[]{}` to a ``, and `` are simply counted with ``?
Are there other acceptable times to count people this way? | I think just means "second" as "second in order" which is not really a counter of people but a way of expressing order, including order of people. The king first calls a servant and then calls the second (in order servant).
Quickly looking in the internet, I found some other examples of applying to people:
> **** (link)
>
> **** (link)
>
> **** (link) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "counters"
} |
What is the difference between と, たら and 時【とき】?
First, I came across this sentence using in a way I've never encountered before.
>
My translation: When/As Pinocchio tells lies his nose becomes longer.
After a little research and based on the context of the sentence I figured this use of must mean 'when' or 'as' as opposed to the 'and' meaning but then I started wondering what the difference is between this 'when' and the 'when' and the 'when' in terms of usage. | They could all be translated to 'when' in English but:
AB in this case indicates that A first happens, then immediately after B happens. This is the case in your example!
can have more uncertainty in it, i.e. it can be used to express sentences where you'd use 'if' in English.
I think of as 'the time when' or 'everytime when'.
Just offering my two cents here. I am still learning too!:) I'm not good enough to provide the lengthy grammatical replies you usually get on this site, so sorry if it's a bit short. Anyway, at this level I find shorter answers more helpful. Hope you agree:) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles, time"
} |
Translation of することになっている
I have the following sentence to translate for class.
So far I have the following.
Morita-san
after graduating from Virginia State University
became getting a full time job at a Japanese movie company.
That `` seems strange to me. I would expect `` which is a structure we recently learned.
Can anyone explain and maybe give a better English translation? | means "it has been decided/it has been arranged". The focus is on the fact that the decision is not made by the person being the topic of the sentence but by someone else (e.g. employer, parents).
For example:
>
> It has been decided that I will study abroad.
You passage can be thus translated as:
>
> It has been decided that Morita-san will get employment at a Japanese movie company after graduation from Virginia State University.
* * *
Note that there is a similar structure which conveys the meaning that the decision is made by yourself. For example:
>
> I have decided to study abroad. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
Which verb for "get off" / "leave" the Shuto Expressway?
I'm not sure which way to say something like exit/leave/depart/get off/escape is most appropriate when the thing I want to get off is the system of expressways in Tokyo called the Shuto .
I'm not sure that any of these would be right:
*
*
*
* | You can use . User @Chocolate is also fond of
>
>
You can use these in the same way to express your idea of getting off of one form of expressway onto another.
> (or whatever)
Just to address your original guesses:
is to depart, as in the place of origin.
is to get out of a car/vehicle.
is to leave something in the same way that you might leave food uneaten.
is when something finishes. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation, verbs"
} |
"I went for a run" - how to say this in Japanese?
I'm an amateur runner and I'm struggling a bit with Japanese vocabulary on the topic of running. The phrase that gives me special trouble is "go for a run". I'm not sure how to convey the meaning of running as training in Japanese. Let's say I want to say
> I go for a run every morning.
So far I tried:
>
Well, in English jogging is a slow run, not really training. Is it the same in Japanese?
>
Is suitable here? Isn't it just describing the action of running, not conveying the idea of training?
>
Someone told me is more suitable to describe training. Is that true?
What would be the best phrase to describe "going for a run"? | I've heard the straight-up katakana used in this way before. The following example sentence from seems to support that as well:
>
Here are the definitions for and , per :
> ****
>
>
> ****
> -
Based on the definitions as written, it would appear that the same distinctions between the two words are maintained in Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation"
} |
What's the appropriate 挨拶 for e-mails to a friend and for e-mails to customer service?
Most of the time when I'm composing e-mail in Japanese it's either:
* A friendly, informal e-mail to a friend
* A request for tech support or similar customer service
When composing these e-mails I tend to want to use and , as I was taught for regular letters in class, but they feel far too formal or stilted. I've occasionally used as an opening, but due to the nature of e-mail that feels like it may or may not be appropriate depending on the time it is received.
What is the typical practice for phrasing openings and closings in these e-mails?
Note: Saw this when prepping, but it doesn't cover what I was looking for. | I think anything will do for informal emails, but definitely not or as these are only used in snail mails. Something like or would be fine.
In a business setting it's much more complicated (I would even say bizarre), and you should check with your colleagues as the format varies between companies or even projects (and some people take offence when the emails don't conform to them). Here are some general resources on the subject (link, link, link) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "usage, email"
} |
How 聞いてた differs from 聞いた in this context?
I think / is often used in the following context.
> ABla Bla Bla
> A ****
> B **** ****
Another context
> A said something to B before he left, but B didn't hear it.
> B: AC **** A
> C: ****
I think / might refer to a particular period or time, but I wonder if is possible in the same context.
Will and ever be used here? | sounds like "Are you listening?" is closer to "Did you hear about that?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, て form, tense"
} |
What does "死ぬ事は不正直である。" mean?
I would translate it to "Death is dishonest." and Google translate seems to concur. However, Jisho.org where I got this example from, says it means "Death is preferable to dishonor." | I think Jisho.org is incorrect on that one. would not mean "dishonor".
I'd translate rather as `Dying is dishonest`, or `To die is to be dishonest`, but it'd be a weird sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What is the correct Japanese translation for "pull down to refresh" in an app context?
I am currently studying Japanese, and one of my approaches for studying is by translating applications (since I also make apps for a living).
How do I correctly translate "pull down to refresh"? Which of the following is the most correct one?
1.
2.
3.
Or do you have a better translation? | Facebook app (for Android) has it as:
> {}{}...
!enter image description here | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice, translation"
} |
「かみなりもん」 vs. 「らいもん」
So I was watching something last year that involved a visit to . Along the way there were conversations over what was the preferred way to read the name for the temple—either using the kun readings () or on readings ().
The next bit struck me as a bit odd, though, when they got on the topic of the temple's . I'd always assumed that it was straightforward: . As it turns out though, it appears that the proper name for it is a mixed kun-on reading of instead. Is there any particular reason for this?
Picture of the gate in question, for reference:
 poetry of Edo period but it's not clear how it came to be used.
It's also interesting that the official name of the gate is full on-reading {}{}{}{} and it comes from the two statues of Shinto gods {} and {} which stand inside the gate. The official name is written at the back of the lantern. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "readings, names"
} |
Help identifying low-res kanji (and perhaps words) on a low-res album cover
Listening to an ancient rip of Escaflowne soundtrack, I wanted to add artist information to one file. I managed to identify some things from context and matching guesses to dictionary entries, but not all, and the scan is low-quality. So then I got curious and wanted to find the actual kanji and their meanings.
!Exerpt from "Escaflowne OST 2" leaflet with song details
The song in question is nr 17: "If You".
* : ACEILUX is, I guess, lyricist.
* is composer, but I can't identify the second word: [something].
* is Yoko Kanno. That was the easy part, with two and some anime knowledge.
* The last could mean singer, from context, but I didn't find the actual kanji using jisho.org, and the name is just illegible (to me).
So basically, I'd love it if someone who actually knows kanji could identify them for me, and maybe give a romanized version of the last name. | {} on its own refers to the act of writing lyrics and not the person. It is being used to credit the lyricist but does not technically have that meaning. Compare it to saying "Lyrics: John Doe" in English.
Next you have {}{}, which is composition and arrangement.
Last is {}, and the singer is {}{}, or Mai Yamane. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, kanji, names, writing identification"
} |
Meaning of お願い出します
Recently I've been listening to some Japanese radio stations online. I heard somebody say
>
a couple of times. I'm now hearing it sometimes in other places.
Can somebody tell me what it means? I can get search engine results with pages that use it but rikaichan doesn't translate it as a phrase, just the two components. Could somebody explain it to me please? | Looks like you're hearing it incorrectly. The phrase you want is {}{}. is the humble form of , so it's really just a more polite way to say . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Meaning of 資料共 in the context of web conferencing
The literal translation for "" seems to be "total" (Google Translate) or "Documents" (Rikaichan).
How would you parse it and interpret it in the context of web conferencing? It's supposed to be the equivalent of "web conference". | Ok, after a while I improved a little and could understand how to translate it.
It means "Document sharing". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": -2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Usage of 「なり」 with nouns
What is means in the following sentence, as far as I can guess it's close to the second one here.
> …
Some sort of translation:
> "At the very least, the possibility of us being challenged is low. In ths time period we have to think about **fight preparations and the way to win**." | > as far as I can guess it's close to the second one here.
>
>> …――
Maybe you're right.
in this case describes that there's an available way you can choose directly, but it seems that you are still able to choose another way.
* could be "You may ask him (or another person.)"
* could be "Call me (or use another way to communicate with me)."
> (Your translation) we have to think about fight preparations and the way to win.
This doesn't mean "and". If I translated this phrase, it would be...
> we have to think about the way to win **such as** fight preparation.
Because denotes a specific example as I explained above.
* * *
FYI, if this phrase contained two like this:
> **** …
This should be translated as
> we have to think about fight preparations **or** the way to win (or other things we need). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
-ei/-you alternation in some kanji: what's going on?
There's a reasonable number of kanji that have _on_ -readings like , (possibly modulo voicing), etc. For example:
* : vs.
* : vs.
* : vs.
* : vs.
* : vs.
Is there some historical reason for this, or is it just a coincidence that all these kanji have -ei and -you readings? (My guess is that it has something to do with sound changes in Chinese resulting in borrowings at different times coming with different _on_ -readings; am I right?) | All of the examples you cite rhyme (modulo tone) in Mandarin: píng, bīng, míng, jīng, lìng. In fact the first four even rhyme exactly in Middle Chinese (bjæŋ, pjæŋ, mjæŋ, and kjæŋ, respectively; all level tone), and the last one is very close (leŋ + falling tone). In go-on, these rimes are reflected as -yau (or perhaps -yaũ), which become -yō in modern Japanese, and the corresponding kan-on has -ei.
Incidentally, the reason why has a voiced initial in go-on is because it has a voiced (= ) initial in Middle Chinese as well. This is reflected in Mandarin as the rising tone. As a general rule, Middle Chinese voiced initials become unvoiced in kan-on (and indeed, in most modern varieties of Chinese). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "readings"
} |
しかも and なお both mean "furthermore; in addition; nevertheless" but here they are used together
I was looking up - "furthermore; nevertheless" from this sentence:
> Nevertheless keep just within range of the enemy
but I am confused by this usage I saw on alc.co.jp
> worse still
Rikaichan tells me that has a very similar meaning to yet here they are used together when I feel that just would suffice.
Could somebody explain this please? | This becomes clearer if you consider the whole sentence. Let's say we have two facts:
>
We can change this to
>
To indicate "in addition to that", or "on top of that".
Separate from this, let's say we wanted to eat lots of donuts. Given the facts we might say:
>
This can be made more natural by changing it to:
>
So there are two different meanings here. One is that something happened on top of another thing, and that there is a bad situation, which became worse. Combining these, we can say:
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage"
} |
How to say "Is it worth a visit?"
What's a natural way of saying "Is it worth a visit?" in Japanese? Something like ? | I'd say something like , , | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, expressions"
} |
Difference between かおり and におい
In a TV show I am watching (, perhaps many of you have heard of it) the gentleman is about to drink some coffee but pauses to savour the aroma. He says
>
Which I translate as "good aroma". Am I right in saying that is simply "smell"?
So perhaps
> a smell is coming from the kitchen
and
> an aroma is coming from the kitchen
(this may not be correct Japanese, please correct me)
So in example #2 it is implied there is a nice smell like food is cooking ("aroma") but in example #1 something could be burning or rotting. | Yes, `` is just "a smell". It is in fact neutral, but without `` in front of it, I usually perceive it as a bad one (as I also do with "smell" in English). Like if you say, "What a smell!" in English, I think most people would take this to mean a bad smell rather than a good one.
Also, to say "smells" or "producing a smell", the form is **** .
> * → A smell is coming from the kitchen.
> * → An aroma/good smell is coming from the kitchen.
>
Note that you will often hear `` even though it's kind of redundant. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, usage, nuances"
} |
〜たい form vs. 〜てほしい
When first learning Japanese grammar, one is usually taught that to express a desire to do something one should use the form of the verb:
>
On some occasions, however, I've also seen this sentiment expressed as , like so:
>
Is there any particular nuance or usage difference between the two forms?
Bonus question: Are the nuances the same in the case of and (other than the fact that these forms are used to indicate what it appears other people want to do)? | `` is used when you want someone else to do something. I've never heard it used in reference to one's own desires (and in fact, may be ungrammatical).
Related:
* Wanting Someone To Do Something ( Structure)
* When to use instead of
* Aren't and the same thing? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, verbs, auxiliaries"
} |
Does なりやした mean なりました?
I received this message:. Doing a quick Google search for , I found a few phrases like and
Is it a kind of slang for ? | It's used by characters in movies etc. depicting typically edo-period. It's allegedly how lower-ranking (lower social status) people talked to higher ranking people in those times. I don't know if this is actually the case, but that's the stereotype.
When used in today's setting, the speaker is joking. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar, slang"
} |
How do I translate the names of types of school, without reference to the US school system?
Whenever I see Japanese school years translated to English, either in vocab lists or in manga/anime translations, it's always with reference to the US school system (i.e. n'th grade). As I'm not American, that makes no more sense to me than the original Japanese. How old are the children in a , a , a (and any other kinds of school I've missed), and how are the years named/numbered in each?
In short, if a schoolchild tells me they're in such-and-such a year of such-and-such school, what does that mean? (Or conversely, if I want to describe my school year in Japanese, which type of school do I say?)
Any other information that would help to describe the differences, such as which years have big exams, would be a useful part of the answer. | {} is from about ages 6-12, {} 13-15, and {} is about 16-18 years of age. As far as examinations the important ones are usually in the last years of their respective schools for entry into a school of their choosing ({}). The school year is usually trimestered with examinations at the end of each ({}).
Edit: Additionally, the school year begins in the spring, not the fall like a lot of western countries. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, culture"
} |
How to say "Indicates something that is not easy for one to do."
I'm trying to write my grammar explanation notes in Japanese. I'm trying to write an explanation like "Indicates something that is not easy for one to do." I've come up with
>
but I'm not sure if and passive voice is the right way to do this. | Simply:
>
Indicate something is hard to do. (Positive)
>
Indicate something is not easily done. (Negative)
Japanese tends to drop a lot of pronouns, so it's ok to drop them most of the time if the subject has been established through context or you are making a generalization.
In this case the active voice makes a lot more sense than the passive voice.
is okay to use, but the negative of it seems very strange, use if you're trying to convey the opposite meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Isn't ずらっと並んでいる redundant?
I have this sentence in a practise JLPT question:
> {}{}
According to the dictionary I referenced, `` means to "be in a line", and `{}` means "to line up", so wouldn't that make the sentence above redundant? Something like, "The soccer players lined up in a line"?
What does this sentence convey that is different from `{}{}`? What is the nuance I'm missing?
If `` or `{}` mean something other than the dictionary defition linked above, then what is that meaning? | `` indicates the speaker is impressed at how abundant and neat the line is. So it has to be an impressive number of things, and the line has to be neat.
For example, this is definitely :
!neat impressive line
Whereas this is border line because it's not that impressive number of players:
!just a team
This is but clearly not as there are only two people:
!only two
This can be said to be , but clearly not because the line is not neat: !in a bunch
**EDIT** :
means there is some parallelism and can be used quite liberally. For example in horse racing, one might shout when more than two horses overlap in the course (e.g. see this).
You can't use when it's a completely unorganized cluster, but if there is even a vaguely recognizable structure of lines (which can be multiple columns), it can be used. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, meaning"
} |
What's the difference between そうかな and そうなんだ?
I've always thought that they both mean something like "I see" or "Is that so?" and I was told that they have different meaning. Is that so? | There is a difference between the two and it is the kind of difference that could easily be lost in translation.
You say when you basically have no doubt about what you have just heard from the other person. You have learned something new and you are chiming in with him.
is different in that you have an amount of doubt about what you have just heard. You may have a different opinion regarding the matter.
This is why using a translation like "Is that so?" in understanding the two Japanese phrases in question might not help greatly because it could be used in both situations, could it not? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation, usage"
} |
Why is there an unmatched parenthesis in this title?
This Asahi Shinbun article has an unmatched right parenthesis in its title:
Surely, Japanese syntactic rules disallow unmatched parenthesis, right?
Asahi Shinbun just made a mistake (in a title no less), correct? | It's not a mistake, it's just a stylistic choice. They do it all the time:
> ―
>
>
>
>
>
>
I only spent about 30 seconds looking through headlines to find these examples--I'm not picking out anything rare. You've probably noticed that each one "tags" the article with the name of a prefecture:
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your example "tags" the article as being relevant to . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
受ける Usage (Translation)
I have the following to translate for class.
So far I have the following.
As for the kanji quiz
it is okay if you don't memorize all of the kanji that you have learned but
after reading the sample sentences
if you ???
it seems like you can get a good score.
I have only seen `` translations as recieve/catch/take/have etc. Nothing seems to really make sense for this sentence.
Can anyone think of a good translation? | It makes perfect sense.
is like a small "test". "To take a test" = []{}. is by far the most natural and often-used verb for this.
means:
> "It seems like we/you could make a good score if we/you took (the quiz) after reading the example sentences" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, usage"
} |
Prefix お for names - how is it used?
I recently watched a Japanese drama titled . The title comes from the first name of the main character - the character's name is {}{} who is a young {} of a traditional restaurant.
My question is: is it common for the honorific prefix (I guess it is used like that) to be added to names? How is it used? Other people in the drama often address this character as . Is it normal to add both and ? | It was a common practice during the Edo and Meiji periods and on through Taishou and early Shouwa periods.
Women's names back then tended to be short (mostly two-syllable long and sometimes just one as OP's example) and surprisingly simple compared to their present-day counterparts. Baby girls were often named literally after simple plant, flower and animal names, such as (pine)(crysanthemum)(plum)(tiger)(turtle)(dragon), etc. They were by and large written in kana as well because people selected these names for their sounds, not for their meanings.
These names just sounded "better", "cuter" and/or "more rhythmical" if the honorific was added. This was for expressing affection, not necessarily respect.
was also added depending on who was addressing (or referring to) whom. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "names, honorifics, prefixes"
} |
How to Make a Large 々 With the Keyboard
I have only seen the sub character `` used before. Now I am encountering the full size character, but cannot figure out how to enter it into a keyboard.
Also, I know `` is a repetition marker. Is there any specific use that the larger version serves?
**Example**
!enter image description here | I think there is no other way to answer your question than:
There is only one character; any differences you are seeing are variation in typefaces/handwriting.
Fonts can vary quite a bit in their proportions, and is technically a symbol and not a kanji (as far as I'm aware), so that's further reason why typeface designers might treat it differently (from each other and from kanji) and give it special sizing.
Four fonts, different sizing:
! in four typefaces | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "symbols"
} |
Inequality symbols in Japanese writing
In English, when we wish to write a non-strict mathematical inequality, we will write something like this:
> x ≤ 3 or y ≥ 5
In Japanese writing, however, I have also seen the symbol ≦ used to mean "less than or equal to". Which of ≤ and ≦ is more common in Japanese usage? I would be interested to know about any differences that exist across various media/genres of writing, e.g. news reports vs. scholarly papers vs. textbooks. | ≦ is used everywhere in Japan, unless it's a paper written in English. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "mathematics, symbols"
} |
On the two equivalents on maps of "you are here" (現在地{げんざいち} and 現在位置{げんざいいち})
I've noticed on my travels around Japan that on maps there are two ways of indicating the viewers position in the manner of the English "You are here":
* {} is common on maps in Japan, and seems to be directly from Chinese as I saw it on maps in China and/or Taiwan (possibly with variant characters).
* {} is common here in Sapporo and I think elsewhere in Hokkaido, though I first saw it on the ferry from Okinawa to Kagoshima.
Now are these both words? Or are they phrases? Or is it a case of one of each? How do I parse them? Are there any subtle differences between them?
I just got reprimanded for adding the longer variant to the English Wiktionary for being "not a word and obviously sum-of-parts". What makes the first good and the second bad? Is the first the only one that has entries in dictionaries?
At the very least would the second be considered to at least be a set phrase? | "Chi" is a pretty common morpheme but seldom used as a word, except in certain fossilized phrases. "Ichi" is unambiguously an independent word. So they are different in that respect. I would call it a qualitative difference; others may disagree.
Whether that difference is sufficient to allow one as a Wiktionary entry but reject the other depends on Wiktionary policy, I guess. FWIW the Kojien has "genzaichi" but not "genzaiichi", so Wikipedia is not in bad company. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, set phrases, synonyms, phrases, parsing"
} |
The use of passive voice to describe the Emperor's activities
The Imperial Palace gardens were opened to the public recently to celebrate the Emperor's 80th birthday. Can someone confirm the use of the passive voice in the following sentence on the subject in context of using the passive form to show respect and addressing the Emperorsee note below).
>
Or, in other words, is the passive voice used here to show respect to the Emperor and aren't people supposed to use more elevated language to refer to his activities, or at least which I think is more honorific than the passive?
Note: example of normal use of 20celebrate one's twentieth birthday | First, here is purely honorific, not passive voice. The two forms just happen to be written the same way and only the context will tell you which one it is being used for.
So, why is a seemingly rather simple honorific form like being used when it is talking about the Emperor?
As I implied in my comment above, the reason is that this sentence's main topic (and also its grammatical subject) is []{} = "this special opening (of the Palace facilities)", not []{} = "the Emperor".
Had this been a sentence announcing that the Emperor had his 80th birthday (let us say, yesterday), using "the Emperor" as its grammatical subject, it would have used a more elevated honorific verb form and have read something like this:
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
Note: Deep down, I am hesitant in calling the original writing a "sentence" because it ends in a noun -- instead of a verb but I called it a sentence for the sake of smooth conversation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, politeness"
} |
What are the origins of the names of tanuki and kitsune noodle dishes?
Two of Japan's native wild animals are the fox and raccoon dog.
Interestingly there are also noodle dishes apparently named after each. (Not containing the meat of those animals!)
The terms seem to be mostly for udon but occur with other kinds of noodles in Japan such as ramen and soba too.
Do we know how these two noodle dishes came to each be named after a Japanese animal? Could it be that one animal lives in a part of the country where one style of noodle dish was first popular while the other animal lives in a different part of the country with a different popular noodle dish?
Or is it based on something else? | (foxes) are regarded sacred animals in Shintoism, being servants of the god of harvests ([]{}).
(The sign on the (Shinto archway) says .)
According to legend, a fox's favourite food is (deep-fried tofu slices). Stripes of are what makes . (By the way, can also be sliced up and filled with (sushi rice) and sesame to make .)
I'm not aware of any similar explanation for , whose characteristic ingredient is (which you might also come across as , although there is a difference between the two). My guess would be that the name was coined by analogy. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "etymology, history, food, animals"
} |
How would one emulate capitalized letters in Japanese?
Capitalized letters look like I'M SHOUTING AT YOU.
How would you reproduce this effect in Japanese?
I don't think any of the obvious choices,
* using instead of or ,
* using punctuation, e.g. brackets etc.
* using bold face
quite make the mark.
Does that mean I CAN'T SHOUT AT YOU IN JAPANESE ??!!?! | Exclamation marks are one way (as in English), and often a before an exclamation mark can give the effect of increased volume. They can even be repeated or put into katakana for more emphasis.
vs vs
Japanese writing also seems to have less rigor in its literature-writing rules than English, so you can probably get away with repeating letters (), using multiple exclamation points, etc., without being frowned upon too much by literati. At least that's true for light novels and games.
There are also emphasis dots as istrasci mentioned. I think these are probably enough tools to create a powerful effect if desired. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "katakana, orthography"
} |
Sentence ending in かも・・・ what is the meaning?
I am translating a guidebook for a Legend of Zelda game, for study purposes. I'm finding a variety of new phrases and words, but this one has me stumped.
This is in the introduction to a section (Adventure Hints):
> At the time when you’re worried in the middle of the adventure [you will] wish to remember [these hints & advice].
>
> ???????????????????????
It must mean something like "the resolution to this might be beginning below" but that is just my guess. Could somebody help me out with an explanation please? | is short for , which loosely translates as "probably". In this case, "It **might well be** the beginning of a solution," would be a good translation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, sentence final particles"
} |
How do I determine the indirect object of a command?
I'm working my way through the core 2000, and came across this:
> []{}6[]{}[]{}
I immediately thought, "Please wake up at 6am tomorrow." But the translation in the deck instead says, "Please wake **me** up tomorrow at six o'clock."
How would I know who the indirect object (the person being woken up) is? Shouldn't "wake me up" be preceded by []{} or similar? | For one, you are confusing transitive () and intransitive () verbs. Your "immediate thought" would be
> Please wake up at 6am tomorrow.
> 6 ****
Secondly, you should keep in mind that the direct object (here, of the transitive verb ) may be omitted, whence
> 6
> Please wake [someone] up at 6am tomorrow.
where [someone] = me is implied. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, imperatives"
} |
ブラウザ or ブラウザー? Words borrowed from English which end with -er
I noticed that some (most? all?) words that were borrowed from English and end with -er in English can have either short or long vowel at the end:
* browser - can be or
* driver - can be or
* computer - can be or
Is one option preferred over another? There doesn't seem to be much consistency so is just a matter of personal choice? Dictionaries usually list both options so that doesn't offer much help. | Japanese (National Language Council) recommends longer (with ) forms since 1991. So foreign words in textbooks for elementary school students usually have trailing "".
<
> 3 ‐er, ‐or, ‐ar
Japanese version of Microsoft Windows switched from " " to " " as of Windows 7, according to this recommendation.
→ MS <
However, as the article above explains, another standard from Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS JIS Z 8301) has long said that "" should be omitted if the word is long enough, while convention always takes precedence.
<
> a) 3
>
> b) 2
So your choice depends on the situation. Technologists and scientists tend to prefer shorter versions, while news media for general populations usually prefer longer ones.
(Here's NHK's policy: <
But anyway, in general, most Japanese don't care at all in their daily lives. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "pronunciation, loanwords, spelling"
} |
Plain form as imperative
Is the plain form ever used to give a command? What does "sugu ni tatsu" mean?
!sugu ni tatsu | Yes, can be used as a command like in this manga. Translation: "Then stand up right away!"
It sounds like a parent or a school teacher ordering their kids to do something right away. It's weaker/friendlier than but stronger than .
Such use of is not usually heard in military organizations, so I feel the person on the right is being rather friendly rather than dignified as a supervisor.
Negative form is also possible. Example: () | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "imperatives"
} |
Can 複合動詞{ふくごうどうし} ever not have [送]{おく}り[仮名]{がな} placed between the 2 kanji？
Can {} ever not have []{}[]{} placed between the 2 kanji in the compound verb | Yes, it's possible if the {} of the first verb does not have okurigana. For example:
* `{}` → `-` → `{}`
* `{}` → `-` → `{}`
* `{}` → `-` → `{}`
And so on.
Even in cases when the compound verb does have middle okurigana, it may be omitted for brevity, e.g. especially in newspapers. With nouns created from such verbs even the ending okurigana may be dropped if the word is common enough:
* `{}{}` → `{}` → `{}`.
* `{}{}` → `{}` → `{}`
(I think `` is actually the prevalent form these days) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "okurigana, compound verbs"
} |
How is「第3位を四捨五入」deconstructed to mean "round up to 2 decimal places"?
>
I initially translated this sentence to:
> If a fraction with less than 2 decimal places is generated, round off to 3 decimal places.
So: 2.1 ≈ 2.100
It felt somewhat _off_ , so I sought for some sample translations for.
> * JP:
>
> * EN: ...is rounded off to two decimal places...
>
>
So: 2.1 ≈ 2.10
## What?!
Why is it translated this way? Does make the decimal places less than the mentioned number or something else entirely? How do speakers reconcile this? | You're taking the third place (3) and you're either throwing it away if it's four or below () or you add one to the next place if it's five or above ().
As a result, the third place is gone, and you're only left with two decimal places. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, numbers, mathematics"
} |
Pronunciation of 七々々 in this name?
In an anime, is pronounced as . I'm wondering why is prounounced as , since is , and there are two repeat signs.
Is this some sort of special case where is prounounced as just and hence with the two repeat signs becomes ? Or am I missing something?
Thanks. | Many kanji dictionaries list name readings separate from and readings. When I look up in , I see the following readings listed under names:
>
>
> ****
>
So yes, I think in this case each one is read , although _most_ of the time outside of names it is not read as simply , and it may not always be read that way inside a name, either. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
S1 と S2 conditional S2 being in past tense
In this sentence, a fox called has run all the way home to escape an angry fisherman who he stole an eel from.
Why is the conditional used here? I could understand had it been because that one is like sequential, but isn't is it? I thought that if you had a conditional with a past tense S2 (Sentence two) then it was meant to indicate a surprising result. What is doing in this sentence?
Thankyou | **(then what happened?) **
puts a little more emphasis on what happens next. It makes your narration sound vivid. It can also imply some kind of relation between two consecutive actions. e.g. **causality or immediacy.**
seems very common in stories and novels. is also a conjunction.
* * *
## Reference
I found an explanation in 's
>
>
> (One of the basic usages of is to narrate events in the past objectively. It's frequently used in descriptions in novels.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ( can be used to describe sequential actions of the same agent while cannot.)
wrote a series of papers on .
1978(1)5
197936
1979(Ⅲ)6
1982(Ⅳ)9
1983(Ⅴ)10 | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, conditionals"
} |
is 指関節{しかんせつ} a "normal" japanese word or a rare technical one?
I was doing my vocab training and added a few body parts.
Then I noticed that the word I had found in the English Wiktionary for "knuckle" seems to be untypable with my Windows Japanese IME.
This made me wonder if it's yet another case of learners "using too much kanji", etc. Is this a rare or unusual word, a word usually written in kana, or just a mistake in Wiktionary or of my own making? | I think in daily conversation it would be []{}. will sound technical.
EDIT: I think both and can be used, but I'm not 100% sure. As for []{}, this isn't technical and can be used in daily language but I think it's a bit more uncommon and sounds a tiny bit archaic. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
} |
How do native speakers "read" single-kanji signs when those kanji are not also standalone words?
In my time in Japan I've noticed a few kanji that can be used on their own commonly in various kinds of signs, yet I don't think they are also words in their own right:
*
*
*
*
*
Since all kanji have multiple readings, I keep wondering how native speakers read these, or talk about them.
In fact for I'm also interested in what they read it semantically. Is it "dangerous", or "watch out" or "caution" - or does it not really matter until you try to put it into words? | Of course the signs are primarily meant to be seen & understood, rather than read.
I think the signs, if they had to be read (as in "It says X here"), would be read as literally as possible
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The only odd one out is , but and are practically interchangeable in most situations. (Depending on the train operator, you'll hear ... or ..., when being warned about an incoming train.) The word is sometimes written as []{} at railway crossings. So, allows you to choose according to context. (Of course, the main difference being that is more easily understood by small children and a tad less formal than .) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "kanji, pronunciation, readings, abbreviations"
} |
遣{つか}う vs. 費{つい}やす
Recently I wanted to learn the equivalents to the common money-related verbs of English such as _buy_ , _pay_ , _sell_ , and _spend_.
I found two words for "spend" and would like to know what the difference is between them, whether one is better for "to spend money", whether one is common and the other rare, etc:
* {}
* {} | In brief, is used to say something was used badly (wasted/squandered). Unless that is what I want to communicate, I refrain from using it.
I see that my dictionary (gives two meanings: one to spend and one to squander - see examples below - but for the sake of clarity I suspect most people follow my practice (but am open to comment).
Examples:
> Spend
>
> 30
> I spend 30 minutes every day trying to improve my aural comprehension in English.
> 3
> It took him three years' hard work to finish the book.
>
>
> Waste/squander
>
> waste time doing unimportant things
> waste [squander] one's money on jewelry | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, verbs, synonyms"
} |
How can transitive and passive be combined in 茎を編んで作られる?
In the following sentence, taken from an article about tatami the transitive and passive verbs (seem to be combined into one phrase to express what I have said translation but it does not seem to fit any logical grammatical sequence:
>
>
> Tatami-omote is the surface of the tatami mat, in other words the part that comes into contact with people's feet. It is made from rushes woven together.
I assume the Japanese (if not my translation) is correct but can somebody explain the logic of what is being described grammatically?
My best guess is that the passive verb is somehow acting on the transitive ( in the same way that acts on transitive verbs in expressions such as (note) but it is my first time to see this and I don't recall it in any text book.
Note: was chosen deliberately in this example to be consistent with my subject sentence. | I think is an adjunct that tells us _how_ the main clause verb happens. That is, it's similar to the English:
> _tatami-omote_ is made [by weaving rush stalks]
Note that the English has one passive ( _is made_ ) and one non-finite verb ( _weaving_ ). It corresponds fairly well to the Japanese, in which is passive and is non-finite. There's no need for the other verb to be passive, just like in English _weaving_ doesn't need to be passive. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, passive voice, transitivity"
} |
このままで: translation
Translating songs to improve my Japanese, I have quite often come across the expression:
The phrase should mean "in this condition", kono = this, mama = condition, state (shinjitai or kyūjitai ), de = in (postposition). In certain contexts, as in from Stereopony's (namida no mukō), it is possible to directly use that translation, i.e. "This way it's fine". In other contexts, however, as for example in the refrain of (here's song and lyrics, where as far as I know "iteta" should be "naiteta"), the given translation doesn't quite fit, as translating the refrain's last few phrases as "Don't go, this way" makes the expression disconnected from the neighbouring "ikanaide". So I am not sure what it means there and how to translate it. I interpreted it as something like "stay with me". What do you recommend? | The in modifies the adverbially, meaning "It's okay to be just the way you are / just the way we are / It's okay to let it just the way it is", whereas the in means or (≒ Please stay where you are. / Please stay just as you are / Let us be just the way we are), / being left unsaid/implied.
is written in Hiragana in modern Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "expressions"
} |
Question about ようにと
Could somebody please explain me the grammar in . Is there something omitted between and ?
As far as I can guess the author is saying something like - "For now I'll try to not think about anything, and continue reading the letter."
> | How about parsing it as:
>
or
> ()
So I think your translation is correct. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How are the noun 方【へ】 and the particle へ related?
I looked up the etymology of on gogen-allguide, and found the following:
>
This basically says that we take the verb , conjugate it, add the , conjugate again, and finish by adding the _noun_ . This was a bit surprising to me, since I've never seen the noun myself, and was expecting the particle to show up there instead.
This is obviously suggestive of some sort of relationship between the noun and the particle . So - what _is_ the etymological relationship between the noun and the particle ? | Put simply, the particle is derived from the noun {}.
Bjarke Frellesvig provides a brief explanation in his book _A History of the Japanese Language_ (page 132).
> … The noun _pye_ "side, direction" was being grammaticalized as an _allative_ case particle _pye_ , but in the Old Japanese period had not yet acquired that status.
As for pronunciation, sound changes would have likely proceeded something like *pye > *pe > *ɸe > *we > e. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology, particle へ"
} |
Translation Help with Passive Sentence
I have the following sentence to translate.
I am having trouble translating the second half.
Japan is about the same size as the state of California and
as for it being bigger than most European countries, it is not (being) known very well.
Can anyone offer any hints about what the author is trying to say? | Here are two suggestions. I think both are ok and other variations are possible. It would be interesting to hear people's comments.
> It is not very well known that Japan is about the same size as the state of California and much bigger than most European countries.
>
> The fact that Japan is about the same size as the state of California and much bigger than almost every country in Europe is not very known.
The "fact that" aligns the sentence to "”, "almost every" is close to "".
I am taking it that both facts are not well known. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, passive voice"
} |
Translation Help with 思うと and よかった思います
>
So far I have the following.
> The thing called the Japanese language seems difficult but when I was in college I was forced by my mother to write kanji so now if/when I think I study a lot in advance and think was well.
I am having an issue with `` and ``. I don't know what that `` is doing with `` if it doesn't mean if/when. And I thought `` had to be proceeded with a ``. Is this not the case and maybe it just means "I think it was good"? | thinking back now, when I think back
When you see phrases like , , , etc., the following sentence is the content or result of the verb.
I think the between and is necessary. There might be an error in your quote.
is a kind of interjection. It is not just “good”, but “fortunate”. You are glad you have already studied it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Is しゃぶしゃぶ typically written in hiragana rather than katakana?
Is typically written in hiragana rather than katakana? If so, why is it written in hiragana?
Wikipedia says that it is onomatopoeia:
> The term is an onomatopoeia, derived from the sound emitted when the ingredients are stirred in the cooking pot.
And I thought that onomatopoeia was typically done in katakana (though the latter citation gives some exceptions). | It's always written in hiragana. I can't tell you why though. Allegedly it was named because of the sound it makes when you take the beef slice through the hot water twice with your chopsticks.
The word is never used for other purposes than to refer to the cuisine, at least in contemporary Japan. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "orthography, katakana, hiragana, spelling, onomatopoeia"
} |
How to correct myself or somebody else when speaking
For example, if I were in a situation where I said something and it was misunderstood (maybe because of bad Japanese), what would be the best way to attempt to correct myself?
In English one could say, "Sorry, I meant ..."
e.g., Saying, (This is the present my brother got) when you meant, **** (This is the present I got from my brother), and you want to tell them this correction _after_ the other party has replied.
What would be the equivalent phrase to use when correcting somebody else?
In English it could be, "Did you mean ... ?" or, "I think you mean ..."
e.g., Someone says to you, and you want to correct them to say, (presuming they didn't know they made this mistake) | For the second sort of grammar correction, I go with:
> correct or what I imagine to be correct thing
For the first type:
> what I meant to say
If what I said wound up being rude:
> correct thing | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "phrase requests"
} |
Looking Up Whether 御 Is Read お or ご
Is there a good way to look up whether a `` prefix is `` or `` for a word? I know there is the Chinese origin versus Japanese origin thing (mentioned here). But is there a way to look up for a certain word in particular? For example, `` and ``. The dictionaries etc that I've looked at never seem to have it. | I don't know of any dictionary or reference book, but since is most often written as or , as appropriate, you could check the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ, , < as the proper way of "doing Google counting".
For and the numbers are
> 217 results
> 0 results
> 8 results, all of which are in fact , i.e. unrelated to
> 835 results
I guess you already know, but for the record, this confirms that it should be {} and {}.
Just to show that this also works with words which don't follow the rule " for native Japanese words, for Sino-Japanese words":
> 393 results
> 0 results
> 30 results
> 0 results
Another, quick and dirty way would be to check whether your IME already recognizes one or the other as a unit. (My IME knows and , but suggests or and parses the latter ones as and . Similarly for and .) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "pronunciation, readings, honorifics, onyomi"
} |
What does 字以外に mean?
I don't usually ask questions like this, but I'm having a hard time figuring this out:
>
The "ji igai ni" is throwing me off, is it asking whether you like other things about Japan? Or what else you like about Japan? | Without further context, it would appear to mean "is there anything about Japan that you like, other than the characters ?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, words"
} |
Talking about system scalability in Japanese
I work at a big IT company in Japan. I'm currently working on a scalability project, that is a project to increase the capacity of a web application.
1) How do express "scalability" in Japanese to a non-IT person? If I say "" then pretty much no one except computer science people (an English speakers) know what I am talking about.
2) Related to that, how do I say something like "By the end of the year the traffic to our website will increase 500%". like what words should I use for "internet traffic" or "number of visitors" or "number of transactions". | For general purposes, if something is "scalable", we mean it can be expanded or extended usefully. Expansion or extension in this sense is ( _kakuchō_ ) in Japanese. So to say it's extend _ible_ , we would say it is ( _kakuchō kanō_ ). The quality of being extendible / scalable would be ( _kakuchō kanōsei_ ), or possibly just ( _kakuchōsei_ ). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, computing, jargon"
} |
What are ある and わけ in 「どこにでもあるわけではありません」?
Here is the sentence for context.
> ****
My translation - Independent cinemas are different from multiplex ones as they have cheaper tickets but _not everywhere has one._
Its the last bit of my translation that I'm not sure about, I can't seem to figure out what this is. I know is 'to have' whilst is a negative state but what is this ? | Your translation is close, but a little off. The pattern `{}` means "Does not (necessarily) mean that ". The `` here is for existence, not for possession. So it would translate as
> * → Independent theatres differ from big multiplexes; the tickets are cheap(er), but they are not (necessarily) found everywhere/all over.
>
I believe @Yakobu's translation is incorrect. To make a claim that "there is no way they are everywhere" seems too strong. `{}` means the may not be everywhere, although they _could_ be and the speaker just doesn't know it. The point is that there is room for doubt. Here are some examples I've found.
> * → "This doesn't mean (that) it is wrong" → It's inferred that it _could_ be wrong.
> * → "However, that's not to say that you are right (not mistaken)" → It's inferred that you _could_ be right (not mistaken).
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation, verbs, conjugations"
} |
What does 「ＶほうもＶほうだ」 mean?
I've noticed a grammar pattern recently: **** {} **** {}. From what I can tell, it always repeats the same verb twice, and it seems like is often written in kana:
> **** ****
And if it's a verb, usually only repeats:
> **** ****
But I can't find it in any of my reference materials—the dictionaries on my EX-WORD, the Makino et al. grammar dictionaries, or in Martin. I can find lots of examples online, but my poor brain just can't make sense of them:
> **** ****
> **** ****
> **** ****
>
>
> _(from a blog post found on Google)_
I guess is , but I'm not sure how to interpret it or why it repeats. What does **** {} **V** {} mean? | "AA" basically means "Those who do A are also to blame", implying there are other people who are also to blame.
>
= The person who asked that question is also to blame (although the person who was asked is not good, either.)
>
= I don't like those who make such things, and those who sell them. And even those who buy them.
Other examples:
*
* | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
In concrete terms, what does 惣菜 mean?
I understand the dictionary definition of :
>
Basically, "a thing you frequently eat as an accompaniment to rice; a [non-staple] side dish".
Practically speaking, though, I don't quite get what kinds of things one would call a . I have a sense for what kinds of things are , but not what things are , so some clarification about what sorts of things are considered / would help. | Compare the results of Google image search: vs. .
and refer to almost the same category of foods, but / typically means prepared food sold in stores. Supermarkets always have (sozai section). Foods that do not spoil rapidly, like breads or snacks, are not considered .
Dishes prepared at home are usually called , not (at least in spoken language).
* : Good
* : Good
* : Sounds odd in daily conversation. Maybe OK in formal texts.
* : Good | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, food"
} |
Does my translation of "I want to bring your art to life." make sense?
> .
is supposed to mean
> I want to bring your art to life.
I'm just wondering if I'm in the ballpark or not. | The translation is right and exact.
But I wonder why the word []{} is used in this sentence.
[]{} is a expert word used in the printing industry and means []{} (copy) or []{} (draft) in easier words.
So, what I want to say is, I and most Japanese speakers won't use the combined word []{}. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, english to japanese"
} |
センスで嗅覚も研ぎ澄ます - "sense of sense of smell?" Why use センス?
In the Zelda video game guidebook I am translating there is a part of the game where you transform into a wolf and have to rely on your senses. The title of this section of the guidebook is
> Sharpen your senses!
However in the body copy I see this line:
> Again, you should sharpen your sense of smell
However is "sense of smell". So why is this not simply
>
Why does it use the word "" | >
>
The is like "by". You can rewrite the sentence as:
> ****
So I think it literally says...
>
> Sharpen your (=probably "intuition" as in @dainichi's comment)!
>
> And, remember that your sense of smell will also be sharpened by your (sharpened) /intuition. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, words, video games"
} |
Correct particle usage: を or は?
I want to say, "Are you sure you want to remove Alex?" Do I use `` or ``?
| 1: It's better to use `` I think.
Reason: If you say ``, people will think there are other things/persons that supposed to be removed sometime. In other words, `` is just not natural.
2: `` is correct to use in this circumstance.
Reason: `` is widely used especially in games and competitions. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, particles, particle は, particle を"
} |
Should I use スタート for "start a new game" or something else?
I want to say, "Are you sure you want to start a new game?" (I'm developing a game for Japanese users, and this question is asked when it finishes.) I'm not sure whether `` is the correct word to use in this context or whether there exists a Japanese word that should be used instead.
> **** | would certainly be understood in the context you've got.
Expanding a bit, if it's just an option on a starting splash screen (e.g. "1P Start", "2P Start"), you probably don't even really need to put it in Katakana.
If you're doing a game with a saved game feature, however, more often what I tend to see is the pair (from the beginning) and (continue from where you left off). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, loanwords"
} |
Structure and meaning of もう少しなんとかならんかったもんかね
The sentence is from a manga in which the character, after saying this :
>
>
> What a shock that my cells were used for an ugly monster like you.
Says this :
> ...
The translations I have are along the line of "It could have become something better." "I wish a better job had been done."
I know that can mean "a bit more" or "a bit longer", can it mean "a bit better" too?
From what I know is used to strongly state the opposite of what precedes it like :
>
>
> How the hell would I know? ; No idea! ; I don't care!
Assuming I'm right, I don't get how can be translated as "could become"...
EDIT :
Or is it along the line of :
> There is no way ( that somehow () it did not become () a bit better (). | Your first translation, "It could have become something better." is very good translation.
Literally, reading just one phrase ``, it means "did not become".
> ()[]{}
> (It didn't become more cheaper.)
In other cases - connected with `()` for example - the meaning of `` will change.
> ()[]{}
> (This could have become more cheaper. / I wish it could be more cheaper.)
Meanwhile, as you say, `` can have a meaning "a bit better" in this case. But, it's not enough to mean "a bit better" with just this phrase.
It can be understood that `` means "a bit better" because a word `` is connected after that.
> []{} -> (it)| (a bit)| (better)| (couldn't be)| | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, meaning, colloquial language, manga, parsing"
} |
What's the meaning of にあたって/にあたり? How can I translate it?
What's the meaning of /? How can I translate it?
For example, how can I translate it in these sentences:
> 1. ****
>
> 2. ****
>
> | > (≒)
> (≒)
>
I think you can use and interchangeably in most cases. I think both can mean "on the occasion of; at this time of; upon doing~~". ( sounds more formal than to me.)
> ****
> (The explanation that I received when I was going to study abroad was very useful.)
> **** *
> (Before we enter into a debate, I'm going to give you some advice.)
*The means "to give (someone) advice/warning". --> See goo#3
By the way, / can follow a noun, as well as a verb:
>
>
>
I think they can also be replaced with /:
> ()()
> ()/ ()
>
(As an aside, I think ~~()/ is preferred in a formal speech.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
} |
Verb + うる form. What is this?
Can't really understand this form:
I've seen already this form with and translated it like this:
> - conceivable (possible)
However how do you translate with other verbs? is this some kind of potential?
> 1. | Yes, (or ) can be thought of as a potential form. It's an auxiliary that expresses "can", and it attaches to the continuative form () of a verb. That's the same form of the verb you use before the polite auxiliary , so we get forms like these:
→
→
→
In kanji, this verb is written , but in this auxiliary usage it's often written in kana.
As an independent verb {} is now uncommon--{} became {} in modern Japanese. But as an auxiliary expressing potentiality, both and are common, though may sound a little older/more literary than .
Most conjugated forms besides itself begin with , not . So although you'll see both and commonly enough, you'll only see and , never * or *. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar, translation, verbs, potential form, compound verbs"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.