INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Volitional + が ; ~おう + が
The sentence is :
> || ... (|| = Column break.)
>
> It doesn't matter how many people want to come...
I'm not sure whether the first is the subject particle (and if it can even be used right after a volitional form) or the clause ending particle...
The way I understand it the structure is "[How many people want to come] is not something that matters." Am I right?
Bonus point : I'm not sure whether the volitional form should be translated as "want to come" or "will come" (though, from what I know, most of the time is used instead of ~ to speak of the future). | The first is not a subject particle. In combination with ... and/or , it means "no matter", or "regardless of". Here is an excerpt from :
> (4){},……―――,
The first example can be translated to: "No matter how it becomes, I do not give a damn."
And the second one: "No matter you go or not, (I do not care). It's up to you."
More examples can be found here
Therefore the sentence you gave can be literally translated to "No matter how many people come, it does not matter." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, etymology, syntax, volitional form"
} |
What are some different ways to use これから?
I know the basic usage of it, e.g. (thing the speaker wants to do), but there are some contexts where the usage doesn't seem to make any sense, like when someone just says it by itself.
Anyone have any ideas? | `` doesn't have the meaning "wants to do". It simply means "from now on" in most cases.
Example:
-> I'm gonna start it from now on.
[]{} -> From now on, this is the moment of truth.
Reading Roy's comment, you can't understand what `!` means.
Of cource, `!` is not an exception in the rule I mentioned above, but I assume that the person who said `!` is in fighting scene.
Especially in fighting moment, some special sentences / shouts are often used.
Like:
[]{} -> Bring it on! / Come on fight!
! -> I can fight more (even if you think I can't)! / I'm not defeated!
! -> (Similar to `!` but more provocatively a bit.)
And they can be connected like:
!! -> I'm not defeated! Come on fight! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
手ぇ & つないで meaning and translation help
I've been reading and I'm on a chapter where Fuuka has a crush on a guy. She says this:
>
I assume the small e is just for emphasis/extension and it doesn't seem to serve a grammatical function (though I'd like to know that for sure), but that's not what poses a problem for me. I have no idea what means. I can't find a definition for it, nor can I for , , or , all of which it is possible inflections of. Can somebody define this for me? | Yeah I love ! too. The scene is Fuuka was broken-hearted, right?
The verb ``, means "connect", "link", or "join".
In some cases especially in informal scene, post-positional particles like `` and `` are omitted.
Example:
[]{}[]{} -> (I'm gonna go shopping.)
-> (Fuuka, your legs are thick!)
->
(Literally: Who asked you to say that well put thing!)
(Free: That's well put!)
As a result, `[]{}[]{}` can be translated like:
[]{}[]{} = -> He was walking hand in hand (with a girl). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, compensatory lengthening"
} |
When is "事" used instead of こと for past experiences?
In the "" construction about past experiences, when is "" used, and when is "" used?
The textbook used in class uses "":
>
If it wanted to use "" instead of "", it could have, as that kanji was taught in the same lesson. (Lesson 5 of "Japanese for Busy People II", revised 3rd edition)
However, Wiktionary says that the kanji form can be used, and "" gets some hits in the Tanaka corpus on jisho.org
When is "" used, and when is "" used? | I believe those two ( and ) are the same construction in terms of meaning and they only differ by the way is spelled.
used as a grammatical construction, like the one in the question, is more often spelled using hiragana in modern Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, kanji, hiragana"
} |
What does にと do?
I have a sentence that I'm having some trouble with. It's from a game called Tales of Graces -- basically, at one point you go to a garden and grab one of these rare flowers from there. The sentence is the description that is displayed when you view the flower in your inventory.
>
Something like "A flower that proves you went to the garden out on the hill", right? I get the gist of the sentence, but I'm not clear on what function has after . Is it a combination of the particles and ? Does this combination carry any significant nuance? | # Answer
It's translated like:
A flower I took to use it as an evidence that I went to the flower garden on the hill (at the back of something like a house).
# Reference
If a person uses `(One's thinking) N`, s/he wants to use N along his/her thinking.
Like:
[]{}[]{}[]{} -> A candy I bought to make it a souvenir for him.
[]{}[]{}[]{} -> A rope I took to play rope-skipping.
Please take a look at ``.
The point is that some verbs are hid after ``. Let's add ``, `[]{}`, and `` to make it easier to understand.
[]{}[]{}[]{} = []{}[]{}[]{}
[]{}[]{}[]{} = []{}[]{}[]{}
[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{} = []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
You can see that the hero (or else?) thought that he wanted to use `` as ``. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 15,
"tags": "particles"
} |
「の」followed by 「...なき」
In the lyrics of a song by Utada Hikaru I came across two lines (starting from 0:40) saying:
>
>
>
My questions:
1. How to explain the in the second line?
2. I guess the at the end is sort of an exclamation, then how can the right before it be not modifying any noun phrase as in ? Why wasornot opted for here? | In classical Japanese, the and are always preceded by the . E.g.,
>
(Side note: The classical meaning of is slightly different from the modern one. It is more like .)
So, parsing those lyrics:
>
That final is actually a GA-NO converted , which is allowed because the clause is in its . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "classical japanese"
} |
てはいけない or ては行けない?
When using a "te wa ikenai" construction, do you have to write "ikenai" without kanji, or can you use ?
For example:
>
vs:
>
My understanding was that the idiom was that such and such "cannot go" (almost like if you tell somebody in English that something "won't fly"), but are you resigned to not using kanji? | The general rule is to write words with auxiliary function in kana, so it's usually written
>
Searching the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ, , < has 902 results from books, newspapers, blogs, etc., whereas has only 4 results from internet sources (3 from Yahoo! , 1 from Yahoo! ).
Other examples of words with auxiliary function would be (as in ) or (as in ).
only accounts for 0.4% of results, but for 41.9% and for 5.2%. I think that this reflects how literal the expression is still felt to be.
In any case, in your case it's quite clear that should be written without kanji. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, て form, imperatives"
} |
Is it correct to write その方がいい, or do you have to write そのほうがいい?
I know can be used for constructions with verbs' ta forms, but can it also be use with things like nouns, adjectives, etc.? My understanding previously was that it was all the same word, but should you write "hou" differently, depending on whether you're using it for a verb or for something else?
>
>
>
>
> | Again, looking at the results from BCCWJ
5576
747
1733
4839
is "correct", at least descriptively speaking, although the results also suggest that if you're going to write in , you might as well write with as well.
As for the difference between with the use of nouns and verbs, we can check for nouns
523
73
551
203
for verbs
3754
502
1181
3121
and for negated verbs (and negated i-adjectives)
722
86
607
188
This looks like is slightly more often written in when accompanying a noun ( and account for 51 results), and sightly more often written in , when accompanying a verb.
(And lastly, has 53, 45 results.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
Is "義理" the proper term in this case?
I have trained for 25 years with a local (European) Aikido master, but now I have to move, albeit temporarily, to another town, and I would like to give a gift to my teacher to represent the "debt" I have with him for all he taught me.
I also practice Shodo, so my idea was to make a scroll with the Kanji "" and give it to him before leaving.
I just want to add that I will keep practicing at another dojo in the place I move to, and that I may very well come back to my hometown in a year or so, just so that you get a complete picture.
My question: is "" appropriate here? If this is not the case what would you suggest?
* * *
I opted for "" in the end - thanks to everyone who answered or commented this. | I think that "social obligation" is a neutral term when used to describe a fact, e.g. "father-in-law", but whenever it is intended to convey some sort of emotion, always has a negative (e.g. burdensome) connotation. (For example, , the chocolate every woman is obliged to give to their male coworkers/boss for Valentine's day).
Either your European teacher doesn't understand enough Japanese to be irritated by that, or he does understand Japanese well enough to know that _you_ don't understand enough Japanese. In either case, the intention of giving a gift _will_ be understood.
Still, if I were to choose, I'd choose some concept/word/short phrase that I found particularly interesting/moving/profound and that has some connection with you personally, with Aikido, or with your teacher (or all three).
(Imagine for a second Aikido didn't have anything to do with Japanese. Would you give a beautifully written version of "debt" to your teacher?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, kanji, calligraphy"
} |
"Automatic Doors Don't Open For Him"
I remember hearing this idiom which meant someone was so lowly, they were not even considered a person. I don't know the source, but remember it was referred to as a 'common Japanese idiom'.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it or its origin online. Is this not really an idiom? What is its source? | This humor appeared in the TV drama "Legal High" (), first season, in the first episode. The guy in question is named Sugiura ().
It doesn't really mean that the guy is lowly, it just means that he's a person who doesn't make his presence felt at all, so even the automatic door doesn't recognize him. The exact explanation in Japanese would be .
It is not really an idiom. I have not heard of it often, besides the TV drama episode.
(*)BTW, it's a nice TV series and I'd recommend watching it, it's available by VOD. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "idioms, phrase requests"
} |
Describe past events with "clause+と+clause", single vs multiple occurences
A sentence (highlighted below) from Asahi Shimbun:
``
Without any adverbs (e.g. ), how can it be decided whether the sentence is talking about a single occurrence or multiple ones? Is there a default value or does it simply depends on the context? | The first sentence says pretty much that her father's expressions of love were rough.
Followed by an example (your highlighted text)
I think if you notice the () it pretty much suggests that "whenever she popped her face into the office"
This is because "to" is used for things like the transitions of seasons. Things that happen with regularity. If there was less context and it was just like "hairu to" (and when I entered~) then it could be a one-off instance. Most written cases using "to" will talk about events that repeat in whack-a-mole-ian fashion.
Gambatte kudasai! ^_^ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle と, ambiguity"
} |
「の」in「お嫁さんにしたいの好き」
A line (highlighted) from an anime named :
``
I guessis said to contrast withabove. However, the structure of + sounds kind of uncommon to me. In most cases I would expect a orinstead of ahere.
So the question is:
How productive is the usage of the here? How weird areetc. | I interpret it as that being the "kind" of fondness this person has. It might make more sense if you put quotes around it or add .
>
>
is being used as a phrase to describe what kind of it is but not in a way that follows the normal rules of grammar, or to put it more precisely, not in a way that follows how you might expect the phrase "" to be used. That is to say, it's not "I like you as a friend" but rather "I like you like 'I want you to be my wife.'" Similarly, is not being used in its normal sense of but rather as a representation of the word itself. So for example, in English you can say "cats are cute," but you can also say "'cats' is a cute word" and still be correct even though you're saying "cats is."
Basically these words and phrases are being nominalized and used as you would expect a noun be used. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle の"
} |
"bigger number + から + smaller number" and the omission of 「まで」
A sentence from an article on Bitcoin in Asahi Shimbun:
>
I guess it can be translated into:
The value of those (bitcoins) circulating all over the world ranges between 0.7 and 1.0 trillion Japanese yen.
It appears very uncommon to me to put the bigger number before when setting a range. Is this case simply a minor exception? Or am I missing some important point?
Bonus question:
The corresponding item in seems to be:
> (3){}……――
It implies that, when manifesting a range, can be, or even must be, omitted in some cases. But in what cases? | I don't think that is unusual at all. Which number you put first depends on the context. If you are talking about the value of a devaluating currency, you could well put the maximum first and then the minimum last.
That would be like saying that in English you'd never say something like "this variable can take any value from 2 to 1". If a higher value is more desirable, it is likely to be said this way around. I'd certainly not blink or think twice if I heard it said like this.
As for the lack of "", it is replaced "", so that's fine. In this case the bounds are not hard and fast values, so using "" would actually sound weird and something that indicates some uncertainty is more appropriate. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "particle から"
} |
Meaning of となら and とやら in these sentences
I've encountered those two words in a manga I'm currently reading. Here are the sentences :
> ****
I don't know if is a specific particle or if it is +() (and in that case is related to or ?)
> ****
I suspect is related to the particle and has a meaning close to ... but I have seen somewhere that it is equivalent to one of the uses of the quotation marks in english. Like : You pissed on the rug again! - No I didn't my love, it was the dog! - Right, "the dog"... | ##
>
In simple terms, this is ("with") + ("if"). Basically,
> **If** it's **with** you, then there's no doubt I'm gonna win.
##
>
This one I was less familiar with. From the Daijirin entry for :
> ****
>
>
>
>
> ...
> ②
>
"Used to make something vaguer, without stating something definitively."
So in your sample sentence,
> I'm'a let myself get caught in your trap. Go ahead and become "complete" **or whatever you call it**. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Meaning of まんまと in this sentence
Here is the sentence :
>
Does means that the speaker fell into the trap easily or voluntarily? Or is the idea that he is willing to fall into the trap only contained in ?
Thanks for your time.
EDIT : The speaker says that after being convinced by the hearer (which he just beat) to let him evolve in order to make the fight interesting. Taking the risk of becoming weaker than his opponent in the process. | A native reader may have more definitive understanding but my suggestion is to imagine
(1) the statement with and w/o the adverb and
(2) how the speaker would have said it and what words he might have emphasised: eg "I let you catch me" vs "I let you catch me _easily_ ", or perhaps "I neatly (conveniently?) let you catch me".
I think can be used with by itself so it adds to the irony of the speaker's statement, reminding us how we was in control all along. Without the adverb it becomes very factual, with the adverb we get a better insight into the speaker's intention, and given the situation, he is likely to use one to express his feeling.
* * *
Just for reference I also looked at the following sample sentences from the " to confirm my understanding of
>
> I was neatly taken in.
>
>
> I won't let you get away so easily.
>
>
> In that way he succeeded in enticing the monkey to approach. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
When can どうも be used as 'hello'?
I noticed this on few occasions. Unfortunately, I can't remember exact situations.
I want to clarify if in a role of 'hello' is a shortened version of some longer phrase or just a phrase on its own. When is it okay to use it? Does it have any hidden nuance? | In case you don't want to or can't read the article Yang linked to, it begins by quoting two senses listed in the []{} which I will reproduce here in Japanese and translation:
> ④
>
> ⑤
And my translation:
> (4) Used as a greeting that include feelings of gratitude and apology. Frequently, both the contents [for which one is grateful or apologizing] are omitted and the word is repeated as "dōmo dōmo" (following usage examples omitted). (5) Used as a greeting ambiguously or lightly. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "nuances"
} |
How to begin a reply to a question?
During Q&A in English, "well" and "uhm" are two ways to begin a reply.
If you known the answer, you begin the reply with "Well... ". This creates a pause such that the speaker can arrange his thoughts and construct the clearest answer with good sentence structures. If you aren't sure of the answer, but want to guess anyway, you begin with "uhm...".
In Japanese, my opinion is that it's natural to begin a response to a question about which you are unsure of with "... blah blah.".
But, how do you begin to reply to a question about which you are confident? While I do know the answer, I want a pause so that I can arrange my thoughts. If I lead with "", it could look like I am taking a guess. | is ubiquitous for this purpose. To buy yourself more time you can say .
is another option and carries the nuance of "that's a good/valid question". An English equivalent might be "Right...".
You can combine the two as
> [response]
> [response] | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "words"
} |
Perceiving Initial r in names likes 隆介（りゅうすけ） and 綾（りょう）
I've chosen the name a bit at random, but for reason I don't understand I have trouble hearing the initial r-sound on several of my male Japanese students' names. Two examples chosen someone at random: and
They say and but I hear and
I'm a native English speaker of American English but also had experience hearing German as a child in Germany. Is there some linguistic issue going on here or do I just need to get my ears checked?
I saw this question: [Utterance initial [ɾ]]( which explains some of the mouth position for the sound. But, it doesn't answer what I'm asking. | For the , you are curling the tip of your tongue touching the alveolar ridge (between 5 and 4 in the picture). There is a large gaping whole in the middle of your mouth and the slightest build-up of pressure will "break the seal", which means that the airflow is very small, whence the initial `r` is hardly audible.
If you're pronouncing in the middle of a word, you can use the existing airflow through the mouth to slam your tongue onto the alveolar ridge to produce a more audible `r`.
(Please excuse the informal explanation, but I'm lacking vocabulary to make this a more concise explanation.)
!alveolar ridge | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
What word is a good replacement for から used as "because" in informal speech?
What word should I use in informal speech for connecting cause and effect just like does in polite form? | Use . It's not only used in "polite" speech (it doesn't actually matter what you mean by that), but also in "informal" speech.
If reminds you too much of K/J-Pop, you can sometimes replace this by / e.g.
> X => X
but you'll likely end up sounding _more_ polite than when using . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What's the difference between 降{ふ}る and 落{お}ちる?
Things I've seen go with {} are rain, snow and leaves, e.g.
I'm thinking is used for small and light things. So, perhaps 'feathers' could be used like so , but apples would be {}
Appreciate your responses. Thanks! | See for its meaning explanation. It basically says that something, such as rain or snow, comes falling down over a wide area. The substance falling must be small, but plentiful.
Please note that the explanation given on the website cited includes the word . Hence, is the more specific verb that must fulfill more conditions in order to be used correctly. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words"
} |
Interrogative for only two choices?
This is a quick one. I read in the dictionary that is only supposed to be used when there are three or more choices. What word should I use if I have only two choices? | (very seldomly written as ), or the colloquial . Both can also mean "where (to)" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, questions"
} |
Why does 背く sound like そむふ in this sentence?
The clip and subtitles:
< ****
So why is being pronounced like that? I don't hear a at all and hear a instead.
Also, maybe the following is related(if not, I'll remove it and put it in its own question):
<
I'm hearing f instead of of
<
Similarly I'm hearing f(And no , but I guess that's a question for another day.)
Edit: Revised to clarify that I'm not hearing a full mora but just an 'f' sound in f. I would describe it as a single syllable "okf", but the last time I tried to describe Japanese in terms of syllables(yak'sok'), I was chastised and felt great shame.. | When a speaker pronounce ``, speakers breathe out the air because of the vowel `u`.
It is _not impossible_ to hear that a speaker pronunce `` as `()` or just `` in some situations.
But it's certain that `` is written `ku` in Romaji and it doesn't have multiple moras. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation, phonetics"
} |
A little question about polite Japanese
I can't understand why is it used polite form in -, I would translate it like this - "Come! Don't think you can run away!". And as far as I can guess is telling it to an enemy?
Casting some spell
| Simply because and knows each other, and is showing some respect for her enemy, , I guess?
**EDIT:**
(forget my previous answer.)
So , and are friends, and they're trying to disturb and run away from someone not specified here?
Under this context, by "", is not requesting anything. This does not mean "Come, please," nor "Come on."
Japanese (or more politely, ) can mean "please come," but it usually means "Welcome" or "Glad to see you" or even "Hello (in stores, etc.)". is showing her appreciation for 's joining the battle. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
「思う」 in 「その人を私のように 思う」：think v.s. feel
It seems that can both
be "to think/consider" (actively) as in
and "to feel" (passively) as in
.
When reading an article in Asahi Shimbun, I bumped into a 3-line poem in which sounded quite ambiguous to me:
>
>
>
>
>
"I considered the person as myself""I felt the person was just like me"? "I thought of the person in my way"? With no context other than the rest two lines, does it really sound ambiguous? | "I felt the person was just like me" is the correct interpretation.
The author of the poem (passively) felt sympathy for the person waiting in a station skipped by express trains. Hence the explanation .
Note: Actually I think the meaning of this poem as a whole is very ambiguous and difficult to interpret, and 's explanation is one of the possibilities. I found an article that disagrees with the 's explanation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, ambiguity"
} |
Where does the phrase Ichikabachika (一か八か) come from?
According to the Japanese dictionary, it means "sink or swim", "do or die", or "high stakes", but I can't figure out the etymology.
The literal meaning appears to be "one or eight". So does it literally mean "the odds are 1 to 8"? | Shogakukan's _Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary_ states:
>
> A term from card gambling
The entry also gives {}{} as a synonym. This version may be more obviously related to dice gambling, but as mentioned in the discussion at < the and (or ) here may not directly indicate the numbers, and might instead be slang or jargon for odds or evens. Shogakukan's definition of "choosing one of two choices" seems to back this up, and the additional definition of "leaving one's luck to fate and bravely doing something" and additional synonym of {}{} suggests a kind of "all or nothing" implication.
So ultimately, this doesn't have to do with "one to eight odds", and instead indicates a 50-50 all-or-nothing gamble. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "numbers, phrases"
} |
Why does the grammar structure for "I think [statement]" work the way it does?
In my Japanese class, I've been taught that the structure for "to think" is "", but no explanation was given for why this is the way it is.
For instance:
>
Obviously the first part of the sentence reads, "In Japan, food is expensive" - but the last part doesn't seem to make sense in-context. Maybe it's because I haven't seen grammar structures with multiple verbs before.
>
This sentence has effectively the same structure as above, but the ending of the sentence just... doesn't sound right. It doesn't make logical sense given the grammar rules that I know so far.
How should I break this sentence down so I can hear this intuitively? Is the form "" part of a larger type of grammar that I am not yet aware of?
Additionally, I've never seen the particle used this way before. What does it mean here? | I'm not sure what's confusing you but...
Japanese often omits the subject when it's obvious from the context, so your first sentence can be read as:
> ()
> (I think that food is expensive in Japan.)
The is the case particle as a quotative marker.
Likewise, your second sentence can be read as:
> ()
> (I think that Sakeo-san doesn't drink alcohol.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
} |
Noun+Adjective - What are the rules/usages?
I usually self-study, however I see a tutor once a week who is a native from Tokyo. In my previous lesson with her, she used the following:
>
Where `` translates to "late at night", and the overall translation is something like "Since it's already late, we should head back home."
When I asked her if there are rules governing this construct, she was not able to give me a definitive answer, but instead was only able to give me one further example:
> = Early in the morning
I am wondering, are these two examples just set expressions, or are there rules that govern what **`noun+adj`** combinations are possible? Is it strictly used with **`[unit of time (Noun)]+[qualitative (Adj)]`** , or is there a wider range of usage? | There actually **is** a rule governing the "Noun + Adjective" structures.
The noun must signify either a **spatial or temporal** unit such as []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{} []{} []{}, etc.
The adjective must signify a **degree or quantity** regarding the preceding noun. These include []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}, etc.
Thus, it is completely natural and correct to combine these nouns and adjectives in the "noun + adjective" order without using particles.
Lastly, since adjectives do conjugate in Japanese, these expressions are also often used as adverbial expressions modifying verb phrases.
Examples of **_adjectival_** usages: , etc.
Examples of **_adverbial_** usages: , etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "time"
} |
Are all 3 sentences the same?
1
2
Is sentence 2 the same as sentence 3
3 | I think the 2nd sentence is not grammatical, it lacks the particle of the 3rd sentence. However, in speech people might use the 2nd one over the 3rd one.
The first sentence has a different meaning than the 2nd/3rd one.
1) I read six pages of (this) book
2/3) I read the sixth page of the book. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the ど in やけど?
Given that means "burn", it seems likely that the part is . What about the , though?
(The kanji for - i.e. - don't help, because those characters are obviously , and would ordinarily be read .) | Shogakukan's _Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary_ backs up senshin's answer, listing the following for the term's etymology:
>
> Meaning {}{} ("burnt place"). Also read as _yaketo_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, etymology"
} |
実在する "to exist" or "to be real"?
I'm trying to understand the quote "One Piece **is real** " and have found the following corresponding expression in Japanese:
>
However, this looks more like it means "One Piece **does exist** ".
Is the English translation just off and this is the actual meaning, or are there other ways of saying "One Piece is real" in Japanese, which don't mean "One Piece does exist"? | Isn't this "" from this anime/manga? It's not related to dresses or swimsuits.
* < (at around 2:03)
* <
In this manga, is a name of "ultimate treasure" searched by pirates, and very little is known about it. Characters in the manga even do not know whether is a touchable object; it may be a name of some magical power, or a city, and it may be just a baseless rumor.
So in this context, "" means "One Piece does exist in reality. It's not a mere legend or rumor." The fansub movie above translates this as "One Piece does exist," which I think is perfectly correct, but I find nothing wrong if you translate this as "One Piece is real."
Besides that context, of course, "(something) is real" cannot always be translated as "". If you want to say something like "This one-piece dress is a real one manufactured in Italy in 1850," use **** , not . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, anime"
} |
How to classify the non-standard reading of "お土産{みやげ}"?
Is {} an {}{} {} or something else?
For to be , thereading must be part of the {}{} readings or a {} reading for thekanji. This is not the case.
For to be , the meaning of the characters andwhen placed side-by-side must approximate the meaning of "souvenir". And this is not the case.
So, is the reading of classified as "non-standard", but not in the sense of or? Maybe there is a 3rd classification for words with non-standard readings? Is this 3rd classification maybe "{}" (I've found very little info about so far). | I think you might be getting deceived by the English word "souvenir" in thinking + has no meaning connection to . The English word tends to mean something you buy for yourself to remember your travel. The Japanese word is for things you buy to give to others that reflect the cuisine of where you travelled.
means either to birth a child or to produce goods or the goods necessary for life.
And means earth, dirt, and some other things but particularly relevant is that it means ("geographic area" but much more colloquially used than the heady-sounding English equvalent). [Thanks snailboat for the improvement!]
Seems like a to me. Moreover, the Japanese Wikipedia specifically lists it as one stating:
> **** **** / | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "kanji, readings"
} |
Usage of よって in this sentence
I am currently doing some exercises for my Japanese class, but they are all in hiragana, which is sometimes irritating, but in this sentence I fail to see the meaning and thus unable to pick the suitable answer, 3:
Available answers are :
1) 2) 3) 4)
I thought ~ was used in a sense similar to "According to..." but I really don't see how this fits within the sentence.
Is this another usage of the above form ?
A different verb ? I really think it is more of a suite of actions, "Do something at the post office and come back". I really wish I had a kanji there to help me out... As a bonus, why do textbooks often contain no kanjis and only hiragana ? This seems more confusing that anything else to me.
Thanks ! | I think this comes from the verb {} which means "to visit, to drop by" in this case. Your sentence thus means:
>
> I'll drop by the post office and come back.
* * *
is used as "according to" (see or Which one is "according to"?).
can mean "by way/method", "depending on", "because of" (see What´s the difference between , and ?).
Neither of them can be applied to "post office" in this sentence though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, て form"
} |
Use of です or あります in the sentence それは椅子
Title says it all. When saying would I use or ? I've been using , but from what I've read, it's used to describe an object, and to declare it's existence. So I'm thinking would be the correct verb to use. | = That is a chair. (as in "that thing is a chair") = There is a chair. (as in "a chair exists" somewhere) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Is 「たくなった」 a typo or a grammatical structure that is different than I think it is?
I have this sentence in my JLPT exercise book:
> {}{}{}{}
The translation offered is:
> He wanted to get away from the difficulties of being a celebrity.
What is throwing me is the `{}` part. It seems to me that the past tense form of "wanted to get away" should be `{}`, and the past tense form of "did not want to get away" should be `{}`. I feel the English translation probably represents the intended meaning, because it would be weird to not want to get away from difficulties, but on the other hand my own translation of the original Japanese is something along the lines that he did not want to escape.
So what is `{}`? Am I wrong about the verb forms I think it should be, or is something else going on here? | is:
* = "to flee", in its stem form () →
* = the suffix that expresses wanting to do, conjugated to (again, the )
* = "to become", in past tense →
So this means something to the effect of "it became the case that he wanted to get away".
For the sentence as a whole, I would offer a translation like "he began to want to get away from the difficulties of being a celebrity".
For "he did not want to get away", you would indeed use **** . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "verbs, tense"
} |
What is シ●ブ, and why is it censored？
The other day on the train I saw this advertisement for some tabloid, with headlines all over it, as they do:
!
I'm trying to figure out what `{}` is. `{}{}`? "Sneaky lover"? Assuming `{}` to be something like the "clandestine" definition used in `{}`, and not the species of fern. Though, "fern lover" would be kind of interesting.
What is a ``? And why is it censored? | is common slang for crystal methamphetamine.
Regular newspapers usually use the more politically-correct , which literally means "stimulant drug", but nearly always refer to methamphetamine or cocaine. This being a tabloid (and perhaps because the term is a little more specific), they went with the stronger word , but out of that typical faux-coyness about "loaded" terms in Japanese media (*), opted to censor it.
As for the wider context, it's a bit off-topic, but:
Famous 80s artist ASKA was recently arrested for possession and use of said stimulants. The ~~~~ part probably refers to the "friend"/"girlfriend" (didn't follow the details too closely) that was charged alongside him (and whose house would have apparently been used to store and consume the narcotics).
*: Apparently, it's really bad if kids get to see a slang term for drug spelt out on a subway ad, but totally fine if they get their fill of half-naked, boob-cupping, barely-legal models on the same ad. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "words"
} |
Origins of -ちゃん
I'm wondering if anyone can provide the origins of the honorific "-". It's a diminutive, and German has "-chen" as a diminutive suffix. Is that a coincidence?
What is the first recorded use of "-"? | Yes, it's most likely a coincidence. We can see this by comparing several titles:
The formal , which is clearly Japanese, was shortened to , which is now the most common and general title, and is more or less unmarked. was further reduced to the hypocoristic , which is also very common, though not quite as much; and there is also a variant reduced from in similar fashion at a later date, which is the least common of the four.
The earliest cite for in is 1813, and for it is 1900-01. Although both are after Japan had first been exposed to German, I think the large majority of borrowings from the German language were from the Meiji era and later (1868-), following the opening of the international borders in 1853. To me it seems like the simplest explanation is that given by dictionaries, that is derived from , and is not related to German _chen_. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "etymology, diminutives"
} |
Topic は vs. direct object を for "I have never X"
The sentence pattern for "I have never X" is covered in this question: Is there a form for "I have never heard of"?
However, I'm confused on which particle to use for the noun in this sentence pattern. For example:
From a Japanese children's book:
>
> "I have never seen a peach as large as this."
Notice that it uses after . Here is a second example from the cited question.
> {}
> "I have never heard that song before."
It uses after .
Are both particles acceptable? Do they convey different meanings? | I disagree with Kaji's analysis. While Kaji's is the textbook answer concerning the question when _-wa_ is used, the explanation remains opaque.
Rather there is a _-wa_ after _momo_ in the first example, because we can assume that the speaker has, at some time, seen big peaches. The one referred to in the sentence, however, is, among those seen, the biggest.
That is not the case with the second example, though. I understand the sentence to imply that the speaker hasn't heard that specific song before, but not that s/he has NEVER heard **a song** before.
So, the answer to your question is: yes, both particles are good, but they imply different things about the noun to which they are attached. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particles, particle は, particle を"
} |
What is the difference between 護る and 守る?
Is there any difference in meaning between {} and {}? When there are multiple kanji for a particular reading (like {}/{} or {}/{}), they are frequently used in different situations (hot weather/hot to touch or first time/start). According to the dictionaries (jisho.org and a pocket dictionary) {} is more common, but the story I'm reading now is using {}. So I was wondering if there would be any particular reason for using over . | Basically is the more general and common word for "protecting, guarding, or keeping someone / something."
The []{} is not listed in (thus it's not taught in schools), and it can be only specifically used to protect/guard something from foreign attacks.
* { ( _keep a promise_ ): Good
* : Not good
* {} ( _keep a secret_ ): Good
* : Not good
* ( _uphold/obey the law_ ): Good
* : Not good, or maybe OK if you mean "to protect the law itself from being altered badly"
* {}/ ( _protect the homeland_ ): OK
* {}{}/ ( _protect oneself from damage_ ): OK
* / ( _guard the goal_ ): OK
Personally, I always use for all those purposes, and regard as the word only for novelists or songwriters. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, homophonic kanji"
} |
ものには… in 「ものには順序というものがある」 Some hidden word or phrase?
I need some help with translating my Legend of Zelda guidebook.
> Search for dungeon items!
>
>
>
>
I'm a bit stuck with the second line. Something like "In a dungeon the objective is of course beating the boss, but [finding] things there really is an order"
Yeah... a bit stuck as you can see! I assume is hiding a verb, but even then I am unsure of the sentence.
Typically in the Zelda games you have to find a specific item before you can get to other chambers and then fight the boss. So it must be referring to that. | This "" means "Things".
"All things have order." or "All things are set in the sequence."
In this case, translation might be
> Of course, the target task in the dungeon is defeating the Boss but you should do something before do it.
And I'd like you to post the next phrase, I guess there is a clue in it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, usage"
} |
"the cows were happy and friendly": is "親しい" the right word?
I am writing an email to my friends, about a trip. We went walking by a field and the cows came over and were happy to be petted. I want to say "the cows were happy and friendly" but the word I have in my notes is which seems to be for a close friend, and the word "intimate" is used. The cows were not _that_ friendly ;-)
Seriously, is there another word I can use? Like the equivalent of "good-natured" perhaps? | I guess you could use the word {} You can use it when referring to a friendly dog (towards people) so I guess it could be applied to cows too. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word usage"
} |
どういう in Place of Other Question Words
Related: versus
I was wondering why is used in situations like asking for meanings of words, or in something like , for "What's going on here?" Does anyone have a good reason why saying "How would you say" is favored over just asking a direct question like "What is the situation" or "What is the meaning?" | XX here is like English "what kind of XX". It's slightly vaguer with more room for expansion, and could come across as slightly more humble or non-confrontational on the part of the speaker. In terms of rhythm and idiom, starts with , immediately indicating that this is a question, rather than , where we're halfway through the utterance before there's any hint that it's a question. By starting with a clear question phrase, the listener is primed to think of an answer. This doesn't map very well to English, in that the word orders and emphases are quite different from _What kind of situation_ (or perhaps the more literal translation of _how would you say [about] the situation_ ) vs. _What is the situation_ , where the English in all these cases starts with a question word. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "set phrases"
} |
What is 引っ越しハガキ?
In the novel I'm reading now ( by {}) there is a passage about moving house and preparing .
What is ? I guess it's some kind of a note/postcard you prepare when you move but can someone give a more detailed explanation, please? Is it to notify people you know to let them know your new address? | Japan still sends a significant amount of mail by post, particularly {} (new year postcards). A large portion of the population has a list of the addresses of all the people they are supposed to send cards to each year.
When you move, you send a to let folks know what your new address is, so that they can update their address in their list and make sure that there is no unexpected delivery failures at New Year.
(It's generally just a simple postcard that says 'We've moved!' and 'stop by if you're in the area!' or the like. If you buy a new apartment many companies will give you a stack of postcards with a picture of the apartment and the company that built it so that you can just use those to send to your friends and save you some effort/give them some free exposure)
![Sample Postcard]( | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Asking "have you tried X" or "have you ever Y"?
This has always been a problem for me, so I'm hoping you guys can answer it once and for all. Often, I want to ask somebody if they've ever done something before. For example, in an email yesterday I was talking about a trip to Yorkshire and wanted to ask my friend
> "have you ever eaten Yorkshire Pudding?"
(when he was living in the UK a few years ago.)
I can find a couple of ways to express this.
> /
>
>
These both feel, more so the last one, like I am asking "recent" rather than "ever". I've always associated "" with recent activity, I guess from my early lessons e.g. "" ""
Are these sufficient to ask "have you ever eaten Yorkshire Pudding?" ?
In English I would say "Have you ever eaten Yorkshire Pudding?" or "Have you eaten Yorkshire Pudding before?" rather than "Have you eaten Yorkshire Pudding?"
Perhaps my English is wrong lol | The format:
>
translates to:
> Have you ever eaten ?"
You could also ask if they sometimes eat yorkshire pudding in a similar fashion:
>
This translates roughly to:
> Do you eat ?
* * *
The second question you mentioned:
>
Is asking in the context of some time frame in the past. It **could be** recent, or it could be in the past as well.
For example, if your friend is talking about a time they went to some restaurant in the past maybe you could ask if they ate yorkshire pudding at that time by using the above.
However, if you have no context to ask about, it would probably just apply to recent time, like that day or something. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, questions"
} |
What does 「など」 mean in this context?
I have been translating articles from NHK News Easy for practice, and I've noticed they sometimes use in a way I'm not familiar with. For example, in an article about a train that's about to be decommissioned because of its age, this sentence occurs:
>
I don't really understand the meaning of , since my grammar resources explain the meaning of the suffix as "non-exhaustive listing, like "etc.". So, does this mean that "JR West Japan _and others_ " decided to retire the train? | Yes, this "" simply means "and others."
According to Wikipedia, is operated not only by JR, but also by 2 other companies (JR and JR).
< | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
How do the verbs 得る and もらう differ?
I know two verbs which are translated as "to get/receive," namely, and . From the usages in which I've seen them used, they seem to be interchangeable; are my suspicions correct or is there a difference I should be aware of?
For what it's worth, I see usually translated as "to get" and "" usually translated as "to receive." In the textbooks I'm using, was introduced much, much earlier than - but obviously curricula aren't necessarily indicative of actual usage. | * = to (actively) get / acquire something (in general).
* = to (actively **or passively** ) receive / get something **from a person**.
Examples where is more appropriate:
* receive a present from a friend
* receive a letter from the son
* receive money from the parent
* catch someone's flu
Examples where is more appropriate:
* get information from the internet
* make a profit from stock trading
* obtain knowledge by studying
Examples where / is both acceptable (with slightly different nuance)
* /
* /
Using looks he's a little more thankful to his employer/friend. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
Having trouble parsing this triple negative sentence
In my JLPT practise book, there is this sentence, which is designed to test if one can track all the negations:
> {}{}{}{}
Up to ``, I think it's saying, "there is no job as uninteresting as that job." But then we hit ``, and I get a bit lost. I feel like it's saying "there is no job where there is no job as boring as that job," which doesn't really make sense.
How do I parse this sentence so that I can understand whether the speaker thinks `{}` is interesting or uninteresting? | How about parsing it as this:
>
... reading as a rhetorical question.
* * *
You can say ()(or more colloquially ()) to mean "I suspect that~~" or "I think it probably is~~". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, negation, parsing"
} |
What does it mean when この is in front of a personal pronoun?
As in and . I know the literal translation, but I never understood what the intent of it is. | I think usually implies some quality of “me”. You can translate it as “someone like me”. You can insert some adjectives between and <first person pronoun>.
Usually it sounds proud or arrogant, especially in .
> ()
>
But as Hyperworm pointed out, it can be used in exactly the opposite sense. e.g.
> ()
>
I think tends to refer to some positive quality, and some negative quality. But I'm not sure.
* * *
> … ****
!enter image description here
I think this is a pose of . (Does anyone know the name of this pose?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar, pronouns, demonstratives"
} |
Usage of ていられない
I have a question about the usage of . Can we use it when we speak about somebody else, not about yourself. The examples I've seen are only about the speaker.
For example in the sentence below the speaker is telling that those doctors can't even make an anesthesia well?
>
Context: - speaker, the patient. is the doctor, and by sentence the speaker is telling about the doctors he has been before. | I think as you suggest, could be rewritten to to yield mostly the same meaning.
here seems confusing, but consider:
>
This seems probably less confusing because it's you who does . However, if you think about it, it's you who went to the doctor and authorize to be anesthetized. So arguably it's still you who is anesthetizing you. Especially, sounds like a all-knowing guy (he can tell how doctors behave from their attitude), so it makes sense he sees it that way. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Difference between 特別 and 特
Everywhere I look, they both just seem to be defined as "special" or "particularly/especially" (in the adverbial case).
I'm trying to form a distinction in my head.
Here's an example from my dictionary for :
> **** (Today I'll wear specially-ordered clothes)
Why can't it be
> ****
Or another case (from JED):
> **** (today it's especially cold)
Maybe someone can provide examples for me where they can't be interchanged - or examples that emphasize the difference. I would be greatly appreciative. | I think you have hidden an answer in plain sight.
The example sentences you give translate as "specially" and as "especially". As far as I can tell, this is exactly how you would use them in English and Japanese.
"specially" means something like "in a distinguished manner, for a particular purpose".
"especially" means something like "outstanding, noteworthy, exceptional". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, adjectives, adverbs"
} |
Is there a difference between 平和 and 平安
Is it like is used mainly when talking about the or in terms of historical peace? | In the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese, we can see the following trend
> 1644 results, with more particular results being
>
> * 668
> * 194
> * 55
> * 40
> * 85
> * 28
> * 36
> * 35
> * 9
> * 16
> * 6
> * 33
>
In other words, seems to be primarily used as a reference to the Heian period.
It _can_ be used to mean "calm" (as opposed to "peaceful" ), but for this purpose is more common:
> 500 results (already more than for , after subtracting the specific list above) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
Introduce someone to someone else
I'd like to say "I introduced Mary to John" but only really know how to use when talking about a single person. Is the correct particle to use in this situation?
For example: | I think the most basic form is:
>
>
> _A introduced C to B_.
Of course, you don't have to include all three. In your example, the subject is implied:
> ~~~~
>
> (I) introduced Mary to John.
The word order is fairly flexible, as it usually is in Japanese, and some other variations are possible, but the basic answer to your question is that **yes** , is the right particle, marking an indirect object. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particles, particle に"
} |
Two を in a single sentence - how to understand it?
In the book I'm reading ( by {}) I have found the following sentence:
> ****
I guess it can be translated to something like (sorry for a quite literal translation): "Behind (me) Yuuichi was wiping the floor with a cloth using his hands".
This sentence has two . One of them () I understand as marking the direct object (floor) of the verb (wipe).
I cannot understand what the other is doing there (). What meaning does it have? What grammatical pattern is used in here? | You usually can't have two s in one clause, so when you see one, most commonly one of the following is true:
1. It's part of a construction in which is left out.
> AB → AB
You can recognize this one by the distinctive pattern, often with a comma.
2. A repeated verb has been left out ("backward gapping"):
> XAYB → XA()YB
Unlike English, in Japanese the _last_ verb is retained rather than the first.
3. The links to a verb in a subordinate clause.
> A [ BC ] D
If you see two s in a row like this and they don't seem to suggest the same verb is coming up, it's usually a signal that the speaker has started a subordinate clause. Each links to a different verb.
In this case, I suppose it's probably #1:
> ** (**
Yuuichi was wiping the floor _with a cloth in his hand_. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 36,
"question_score": 22,
"tags": "grammar, particle を"
} |
Why does 「でならない」 not mean "does not become"?
Apparently the phrase `` means something like "unable to suppress". For example, in this sentence, `{}` means, "can't help but be disappointed":
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
But I just can't see how `` can be parsed that way. It's not a double negative or anything, and it just seems to be the negative form of ``.
Recently, in response to another question I asked, I was reminded how `` is attached to words to mean "to become". So, I would translate `{}` as "not become disappointed", which would completely reverse the meaning of the sentence above.
What is the logic behind `{}` meaning "can't help but be disappointed", and why does it not mean "does not become disappointed"? How can I differentiate this phrase from instances where `` simply means "does not become"? | The part is a conditional particle, similar to , , , etc. In , is the cause of .
is the negative form of , which is the intransitive verb of (to do). The relation between and is analogous to and . In modern Japanese, / is only used in some fixed expressions, such as ``, `()/however (you do it) you will accomplish (nothing)`, `/somehow manage`, `` and ``.
and are clearly related to and .
* * *
is better understood as “it is so disappointing that/and I cannot (...)”. This means or that is what you said “unable to suppress”.
Nevertheless, is idiomatic. You cannot really replace it with . And there is a clear difference among , (idiomatic), (idiomatic) and (unidiomatic). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
The different meanings of "life"? 生気／生活／ライフ／生命／一生／人生／命
I was looking through a dictionary and came across . My original question was
> Is this the difference between ?
>
> would be like an idea of life. more abstract
>
> would be concrete. So like something/one's life.
My new question is can you help me to understand the different ways "life" is said in Japanese? I actually forgot about and when I wrote the question. I didn't know about (and others?). I think would usually be when talking about a person's life right? | is English _life_ , _livelihood_ , or _living_ ; day-to-day activities of people.
is _life_ ; it's something we lose when we die. Synonyms:
is more like _liveliness_ , _spirit_ , or _energy_. Synonyms:
is a _whole life_ of someone. Synonym:
is _human's (whole) life_ ; use this only for humans, of course.
is rarely used unless you're a video gamer. When used, it's the same as or .
Examples:
* difficult to live on (due to financial problems)
* public assistance
* comfortable life
* lose one's life in a traffic accident
* little time left to live
* ... if you value your life...
* colorless face
* speak in an inanimate voice
* become energetic again
* once in a lifetime
* one's lifework
* health is low (in games) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "word choice, words, definitions"
} |
あかひげ [赤髭] modern usage?
So I started watching the movie the other night and intrigued by the title I looked it up in the dictionary where one of the definitions was:
> Westerner (derogatory)
Does it really contain this meaning?
How is this used (if it is indeed used?!?) in modern Japanese?
If it's not used what word can be used to express "Westerner (derogatory)" in modern Japanese? | Born in Japan and raised in Japan for more than 30 years, I have never seen "" used as a derogatory term of "westerner".
Before I write this, I did find an entry in a Japanese derogatory terms glossary, and it does say it's "Westerner (derogatory)." However, more than 90% of the words in that list were totally unfamiliar to me. So I believe it's safe to say there's no derogatory nuance in "" in modern Japanese. Maybe it was a derogatory term in the Edo period.
Today, "" reminds Japanese (not younger than 30) of what you've just watched in the movie; a humane doctor who sacrifices himself and willingly helps weak people. It is a stereotype of "ideal doctor" in Japan, just like "" or _Blackbeard_ is the symbol of pirates. There is Akahige Prize for doctors.
(However, its original novel, , published in 1958, is full of discriminatory terms and acts by today's standards...) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word usage"
} |
Use of Causative-Passive Form and ために in this example
I’m struggling to translate and understand this example dialogue from my textbook.
:
My attempt at translation:
Student: Teacher, why must we study lots of these kind of Kanji?
Teacher: Not everyone has to study them…..
Student: Myself.
I’m not entirely sure why the causative-passive form is being used in the first sentence. Why not just causative? I also don’t understand how to translate and have it make sense – ‘In order for who’? | In the first sentence, it's passive causative, because the subject/topic of the sentence is "we (students)".
A very literal translation would be
>
> Teacher, why are we made to study _this_ many kanji?
>
>
> Nobody is _making_ you study. For whose sake are you studying?
>
>
> For our own sake...
X is a very common way of saying something like "for X's own good". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, conjugations"
} |
Meanings and translation of 「いいように」
I have a question about the meanings and usage of . I thought that it only has one meaning, which is "to act as one wills, to do something as one wills". Like in the example below.
> []{}
>
> They are being led by the nose.
At least before I saw the dialogue below, specifically this sentence - []{}. I was told that here has the meaning same as . And as far as I can understand, translation would sound something like "But only if I take it from the positive side." or "But only positively speaking.". Unfortunately I couldn't find this meaning/translation in dictionaries. So, could you please explain me the this expression.
> :
>
> :[]{}
>
> :[]{}
>
> []{} | You are discussing two meanings of `` here:
1. At X's will; In whatever way that's convenient to X; As X likes
2. (quite literally) In a good manner; In a positive way; Rightly; Nicely
The first `` is an idiom, usually used with certain verbs such as ``````. It's not interchangeable with `` or ``. Very often this `` implies this person X is evil. That's why it's in dictionaries. (If it's _you_ who asks to treat yourself freely, then there is no evil sense: = "Please use me as you like.")
The second meaning is quite literal, and that's why you couldn't find it in dictionaries. `` is literally translated as "catch (it) in a good way", and you really have translated this . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
むやみに equivalents : 勝手に vs よく考えないで
Working on practice problems for JLPT N1,
had the following sentence:
****
Correct answer per the book is .
Incorrect answer per the book
Can someone tell me why the former is to be preferred? | There's a bit of a nuanced difference there.
* `` is acting without _caring_ about (the effect on) others.
* `` however is acting without _thinking_ about the consequences.
So, the answer `` matches ``'s meaning of doing something _without considering_ if it might (e.g.) inconvenience others. In contrast, using `` would mean doing it _without caring_ if it inconveniences others.
EDIT: would be nice if you explain what I"m getting wrong when you downvote. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Passive voice (~あれる) + Te form?
I've been faced with the following sentence:
>
What I'm wondering about it is the "" part.
I know that Kikareru would be the passive form of Kiku - to listen.
So, what is this ~te ending doing there? | The same thing any te form does. It's "continuative" and the part that comes after elaborates on that condition. So if you say then whatever comes after will be in the context of having been asked such a question. So means that, having been asked such a thing, the speaker wonders if he/she/whoever is being asked will be able to stay calm. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "て form, passive voice"
} |
‥ができないと vs ‥はできないと
Every evening, we play the song, where they sing:
(x3)
Now I've been grappling with this language long enough that ‥ sounds natural in this context, while ‥ sounds off, but I couldn't put my finger on _why_. My wife, a native speaker, pondered this for a moment and then theorized that would be a simple statement of fact:
If you can't clean up, the cleanup monster will come!
While implies that, while there may be lots of things you can't do, surely you can _at least_ clean up:
If you can't even clean up, the cleanup monster will come!
I buy the first half of that explanation, but the second seems fuzzy. Is she right, and is there a more general rule here? | I think it's the opposite? simply states the fact, while would imply "at least". I'm a native speaker myself.
For example,
-> I got the silver medal
-> I got at least the silver medal (but not the gold medal)
-> If I don't get the silver medal, I can't return
-> If I don't even get the silver medal, I can't return | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle は, particle と, particle が"
} |
Difference between the words for "living/residing" [住む/棲む/泊まる/暮らす]
I have come across various words meaning "living/residing".
What are the differences between them and their usage? I've listed what I think are the differences. Are they correct?
* : Live in some place more or less permanently
* : Same as above, but for animals
* : To live/stay at some place temporarily
* : ? | is to live somewhere in the sense of residency. It's where your house is, where you're staying. It's the same kanji as in {}, or address. Basically the place where you live.
You're right about . It refers to where an animal lives, like where a bird would make its nest. Googling it I find a lot of literary uses, especially with relation to demons, like "."
refers to where one stays away from home, like at a hotel on vacation.
refers to your daily life. Your everyday, your daily situation. It has more of a sense of what you're doing and your condition in that situation rather than the plain idea of place of residency that you would find in . It refers to your existence within society. You find the kanji in compounds like []{}, which is _living alone_. Note that with you use the particle , as in , but with , you use the location of action marker , as in . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "word choice, usage, nuances"
} |
Is "リア充" (Riajuu) interchangeable with "playboy"?
I often see phrases where Riajuu appears in situations where I think it could be translated to "playboy" without any loss in meaning, following from the context and the Urban Dictionary definition.
Am I right to think that way, or does "Riajuu" and "Playboy" have a nuance in meaning?
eg.: Boy says something outgoing to a girl. Then he says to himself: | is different from "playboy".
**** : an internet meme constructed from `` (real) + `` (fulfill). a person who is _successful or fulfilled in real life_ (vs. an _otaku_ who is living in the world of anime or video games).
In most cases this refers to someone who has a lover, used with some sense of jealousy. Sometimes this is used to refer to any "non-otaku" enjoyment outside anime/game worlds, such as skiing, parties, or going to an amusement park.
Depending on context, even includes people who are happily and busily spending their days on business (vs. hikikomori).
**** : a playboy, a woman chaser, a ladykiller (vs. ordinary person), just as you know in English. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "usage, internet slang"
} |
さて vs. そして: When should you use one or the other?
The title pretty well summarizes the question. vs. : When should you use one or the other? How are they different? To me, they come across as being used very similarly, at least when at the beginning of a sentence, but even then, there are probably different little nuances. | is a "decorative" word and is used like "Now,.." or "So, ..". It doesn't really matter even if you omit it.
> **** : **So** , let's get started.
is a coordinating conjunction and can be translated into "Then," or "After that".
> **** : The sky got dark, **then** it started raining.
Also, it could simply mean "and". For example,
> **** : I got newspaper, an umbrella, **and** a chocolate. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words, conjunctions"
} |
Word difference question - reply (返事 vs 返信)
A simple questions here on word usage.
For reply I have always used . Today however a friend mailed me and said . This word is new to me. How does it differ? | Both mean reply, but can only be used if the reply is transmitted via code (be it letter, e-mail, flag semaphore, Morse code etc. as opposed to speech (including telephone), gesture etc.). Note that does not refer to the object that contains the reply; it refers to the reply.
E->OK
E->OK
->OK
->Weird, speech isn't via code
**EDIT** :
Re: `transmitted via code`, I think the best practical way of defining it would be "not via speech or gesture". To your example, spy talking in code would be because the transport layer (haha you can tell I'm an Engineer) is still speech, but I think it's border line. If they'd do the same on the phone, that will be still . However, if they transmit encrypted message via phone (like by reading out bunch of numbers etc.) or even in person, that would be now because it's no longer via speech. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What do you do if a genkoyoshi line ends with e.g. す。」?
Suppose that you're writing on genkoyoshi (), and you are writing a quotation, e.g.
>
And let's say that each line of the genkoyoshi has 8 blocks. The first block would, I presume, be occupied by ``, followed by one block for each of the kana ````````````.
What do you do with the rest of the quotation? My understanding is that you're not supposed to put punctuation at the beginning of a new line, so you can't split it `` and ``, nor `` and ``. Do you just glom all of `` into a single block?
(Or do you just never include a `` immediately prior to a closing ``?) | According to
> Cram all three into the bottommost block -- "". The better schools, teachers and publishers will not accept any other method. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "handwriting, orthography, genkōyōshi"
} |
Difference between 便利/不便 and 都合がいい/悪い
These word pairs both seem to mean "Convenient/Inconvenient". But what is the difference between them and usage cases?
From looking at their kanji and a few example sentences, this is what I've come up with. Is this correct?
* /: A physical object is convenient. e.g., "This tool is convenient"
* /: A situation is convenient. e.g., "That day is convenient" | means more like circumstances or condition. would literally translate to the circumstances are favorable (on a particular day), which makes the meaning of "that day is convenient (favorable) for me".
(as suggested by its kanjis, - convenience; and - profit, benefit) means advantageous/profitable convenience, i.e. useful or handy. A situation will be favorable and an object would be convenient.
So looking at your examples, they seem correct. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "usage, nuances"
} |
On 原稿用紙, when are ゛ and ゜ (ten-ten and maru) supposed to occupy a square of their own?
I was intrigued by this question: What do you do if a genkoyoshi line ends with e.g. ? and its answer.
I'm not any good at this but I remember being told for some types of forms (which I thought followed the same rules) that you need to put the []{} (for some reason always called ten-ten and maru in the classes and contexts I heard them) into separate boxes. Was I being misled / is this still current practice for some sort of form? | The rule you mentioned does not apply to for novels and articles. Never.
However, you may be instructed to place and into a separate box, when you have to fill some legacy paper forms at banks or government offices.
![enter image description here](
This is because and consume an extra byte if you encode hankaku katakana strings into old encodings such as JIS, Shift-JIS, EUC-JP, and they have to count the number of bytes.
In my opinion, this is a very bad tradition of the fixed-length-string era, and should disappear at once. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "handwriting, genkōyōshi"
} |
How to say "all in all"
I have been many times blocked in a conversation because I have no way to translate "all in all" in those general contexts:
* All in all it takes 15 minutes to get there
* All in all this movie was quite fun
How to translate this while staying natural and perhaps by using different idioms? | All in all it takes 15 minutes to get there
**** 15
(more examples of this structure)
All in all this movie was quite fun
****
(more examples, more examples, more)
This dictionary might help as well. It includes some useful phrases like . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation, idioms"
} |
トウモロコシ: Why kana? What is the etymology?
First came across this written in Kana
# Midori
> ,
>
> corn (US), maize (UK) (usually written in kana)
Why Kana?
Is borrowed from another language?
What is the etymology of ? | No, it isn't borrowed. The etymology of the word comes from , which was introduced to Japan earlier from China.
When maize was introduced to Japan by the Portuguese, it was noticed that it looked similar to sorghum (, , ). The prefix was added to indicate it was the _foreign_ good type instead of the (also foreign, but earlier) sorghium.
as mentioned comes from . The kanji or in kana was , c.f. (meaning Chinese) . is of course, . Overtime, / became just . So the maize, with the prefix, became ().
Since it is based on Chinese, there's also kanji for that word; . At first the second was replaced to avoid a silly looking name like . Then the prefix was also switched out for , because of its green (outer) colour.
But like most fruits and vegetables, it is generally written in kana today anyway. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "etymology, spelling"
} |
What's the difference between 建てる and 築く?
I recently came across the word , meaning "to build", but I already knew a word for it, .
Looking a bit further into it, seems to include the figurative meaning of "build" as well, such as in "to build relations" or "to build/amass riches", but still has it's literal meaning in actually building some structure.
I notice in my example sentences that is commonly used on "bigger" structures, such as a castle. Is this the case?
What is the difference between these two words, and how are they used differently, if any? | is a generic "to build" a building.
is a word that had its roots in building a castle; specifically, piling up soil and rocks for a foundation. So, this is "to build" in the sense of stacking materials (e.g. stones) into something large, solid, firm. Such as a castle or a dyke.
That sense of putting something together step by step, gave rise to the meaning of "building up" things such as wealth, status, relationships, or even an organisation. Example: .
Other words of similar "to build" meaning:
1. - use for large scale projects like roads, buildings, etc; infrastructure projects
2. - this is also a generic "to build" similar to , but not for very small buildings
3. - "to build (ships)", and also dykes, bigger buildings or other larger works | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
} |
Is this は replacing が or を? (& is this 悪 read as あく or わる？）
This is the "sentence":
> *| condemn violence as evil
Sounds simple? The English translation does not give a subject so I wonder are either or correct if I modify the sentence as follows:
> [/] They condemned violence as evil.
I think is consistent with the pattern in the following two sentences so I suspect that is the natural choice and although is also grammatically correct it is not used.
> | They blamed him for incompetence
>
> | He criticised me for being careless
If is the natural choice then I anticipate this will relate to the nature of the combinations of but I'd be grateful if someone could explain this.
All these came from .
*As a secondary question is this read as or | _(Answer based on information received in chat on 15 June 2014)_
In the examples given either or would be correct.
In Japanese, linguists call certain verbs (like ) "exceptional case marking verbs" (ECM verbs), and these verbs allow "raising to object", where the subject of the -clause becomes the object of the main clause. For example:
> [ ]-
> [ ]- ← SUBJECT is "raised" out of the -clause to OBJECT of the main clause
This is also referred to as "subject raising".
A number of theories have been put forward to explain how/when this can be done but it remains a matter of discussion. The are summarised in the paper "Semantic constraints on the subject-to-object raising (ECM) construction in Japanese" (Link: <
(Re: vs see link in 3rd comment below question from Snailboat.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
Are kanji typically used in times and dates?
Are kanji typically for numbers used in times and dates?
For example, would "" and "" in the first sentence, and "" and "" in the second sentence be normal Japanese? (I'm aware that the following uses hiragana instead of kanji in some circumstances, such as "" being used instead of "")
>
>
>
About writing numbers using Japanese numerals vs using Arabic numerals implies that "", which uses kanji for numbers, would be typical Japanese. | In 12 years living in Tokyo the only place I see kanji numbers is on some restaurant menus and places going for an old-fashioned look. Arabic numbers are the norm for times, dates etc. in almost all aspects of daily life. Kanji is standard for labels though.
So your examples would be typically be written as:
715( 7:15 much more common for time of day, 715 more common for duration )
93(I see much more often, don't ever remember seeing . Maybe in an elementary school - is a lot for grade 2.)
I will often text my spouse and Japanese friends in all hiragana. They say it's awkward to read and they often respond in a mix of hiragana and kanji, but that's just for me.
If by some chance you are learning from a book written for children, I would suggest you change now. It's a rather different process. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, numbers"
} |
What does "随分仲" mean in 「彼氏と随分仲が良い」?
I've seen it in a number of places, mostly in contexts like this one:
>
For me, it feels like translates to "relationship". What worries me is that
1. I have not found the exact pair + in any dictionaries.
2. is an adjective, for extremely
3. by itself should already say relationship.
So, what does this combination really mean? Why can't I find it defined anywhere, even though I find many examples of its use in the web? | You're parsing the sentence incorrectly. It's not `[][]`, but rather `[][]`. That's why you can't find in any dictionary - it's not a word.
You are correct that means "extremely" (well, I might weaken that a little - it's more like "quite" or "very"); here, it functions as an adverb (not an adjective) that modifies . If you consult any dictionary, you _will_ find , which is a set phrase. See, for example, Weblio EJ-JE, which gives "close; intimate; on good terms" as a definition.
With this in mind, we can now look at the sentence you gave: . One possible translation for this is "[someone] is on very good terms with [her] boyfriend." Since is just an adverb and not part of the set phrase , the sentence would still be grammatical if we were to remove it, leaving just , which we could translate as "[someone] is on good terms with [her] boyfriend." Context will dictate who exactly "[someone]" is supposed to be. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
Surprising noun order involving the の particle
I am puzzled by the word ordering in the following sentence:
> []{}
This sounds unnatural to me, though I was told that this is correct by a native speaker (who was not able to explain why). Whenever I've encountered this linking/nominalization/possessive particle before, the nouns were ordered with increasing specificity. (e.g. ).
Based on that principle, I would have expected the sentence to read
> []{}
I.e.:
1. most general: (box(es)),
2. more specific (amongst the boxes)
3. most specific: (one of the boxes)
What am I missing? | If I'm not mistaken, I think there are two acceptable ways to say this in English, too:
>
> One box among those is mine. (more literally) Among those, one box is mine.
>
>
> One of those boxes is mine.
It's true the former looks slightly less-organized, but the nuance is fairly small in spoken language. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "particle の"
} |
準備が出来ている-Meaning and Explanation
Can anyone explain to me why means "It's ready?" I don't think I know exactly what means, as we initially learned it as "able to"- but I've seen other uses like in saying "I have/got a girlfriend," or "There is a library." (At least, I think the latter, like ." In any event, I know is preparation, so the real question is what does mean, and why does it mean that? | There are two uses of :
1. As a potential form for , meaning "can do". Like the potential forms of other verbs, it's stative and generally can't appear in the form. Compare the ungrammatical English "I am being able to do ".
2. As a verb in its own right, means "come into existence, complete, accomplish, perform well", which can have a variety of meanings in different contexts. It can be used for puddles forming, or for making friends, or for being pregnant, or for doing well on a test.
In this meaning isn't a stative verb. It's a punctual verb, and with it has a resultative meaning:
>
> _Preparations **are complete**_
(Punctual verbs are also called achievement verbs.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
"naku" suffix and "o" prefix? 保存をお忘れなくですぞ
>
I am guessing the word "naku" is a suffix meaning not? So then it'd be saying, "do not forget to save!"? And is the "o" before "wasure" there to make it more polite? | means or , _don't forget_. It's the negative form of an honorific form of . Here is the definition of // in the dictionary:
> …()…――
More examples:
> ->
> ->
> ->
> ->
> ->
> ->
Normally, you don't put after , and sounds somewhat archaic.
I presume ending every sentence with is the speaker's idiosyncrasy. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
Pronunciation: Ｗ杯?
From Jim Breen's EDICT:
> ,
What is most commonly used?
Is W ever pronounced the same as 'W' in English and not ?
Will people ever say:
?
?
* * *
I know everyone keeps refering to:
> Pronunciation of W
but that still doesnt answer my question if people ever just use the pronunciation of English 'W' to say Japanese 'W' - I mean there is a clear difference between W and . | Just from living in Japan, speaking to Japanese people, and more than anything consuming lots of Japanese media...
is **by far** the most common.
I feel like should exist but I can't actually remember the last time I heard someone say this.
, no.
If you need some extra evidence I found a chiebukuro post where the answers basically back me up that is the most common.
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> 3.WW etc etc
The pronunciation of W in Japanese is discussed here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
How to read 連体形 + 上
Taking an example from a page naruto linked in another thread:
> ****
My inclination is to read this as since it's followed by , however I've got a nagging feeling it might be read as instead.
* Is my instinct correct in that it's read as ?
* Are there times where + is the appropriate way to read it? | It is read `` as you were inclined to think. I do not believe there are any times when it would be read as `` after a dictionary form. It **_is_** read as `` when appearing directly after a noun.
See also
* - pronunciation?
* What does it mean to be “over a law”? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, kanji, readings"
} |
When should I use ～ている vs. ～ています?
The book says use `` for a) an action in progress and b) a past event that is connected with the present, and it has examples like ``, and all the examples are using ``. But when I look it up in the dictionary, it says ``. So when do I use `` and when do I use ``? | ~ is simply more polite than . You would use with strangers, people you just met, in a business situation, or just to be more polite. would be used in writing, or in casual situations. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
Is there a name for the promotional packs of tissues peculiar to Japan?
Anybody who has visited a Japanese city will have noticed that peculiar type of advertising not common elsewhere.
Packets of tissues containing some promotional offer or even quite like a calling card are ubiquitous. Is there a special term for them? | is the generic term for those tissue packs. As far as I know, there is no one word for " for promotion".
Manufacturers of those tissue packs seem to call them:
* []{}() ( = abbreviation for (sales promotion))
* []{}()
* ()
**Edit:** Everyone knows those promotional tissue packs, so in general you can just say and and so on, without the risk of misunderstanding. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "phrase requests, word requests"
} |
How to Pronounce 化学 "Chemistry"?
A Japanese teacher on Twitter posted that is pronounced and means "chemistry". I double-checked it on tangorin.com and it lists that pronunciation but says that it's pronounced to avoid confusion with ("science").
I can't find any more info on the net about this... could somebody confirm this?
In particular, for my Anki vocabulary deck, which pronunciation should I learn? Or should I shoehorn both into my deck somehow? | I think the basic word is , but the other reading is possible. Here's what says at the bottom of its entry for {}:
>
If you pronounce it this way, you're deliberately using the other reading of the first kanji to make sure the person you're talking to knows which word you mean. I would definitely learn the reading , though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "nuances, pronunciation"
} |
Is there a Japanese term to express the concept of "Comfort Zone"?
According to Wikipedia, it would be "" IN CHINESE- I would like to know if this is valid and recognizable in Japanese, too, or if there are more specific/nuanced terms to convey the same idea in Japanese.
Some examples of the meaning I am looking for, taken from Google definition of the term:
_Comfort zone_ \- noun
* a situation where one feels safe or at ease. _"the trip is an attempt to take the students out of their comfort zone"_
* a settled method of working that requires little effort and yields only barely acceptable results. _"if you stay within your comfort zone you will never improve"_
Finally, Google Translate gives you "" for it. | is totally unfamiliar to Japanese. I don't even know what the first two kanjis are.
Anyway, if you want to emphasize the negative aspect of "comfort zone" and want to say "the place you can't stay forever", a good word for both of your examples is (literally "tepid water").
= stay safe, avoid challenge, lack vitality
> The trip is an attempt to take the students out of their comfort zone.
>
>
> If you stay within your comfort zone you will never improve
>
**EDIT:**
, or frequently abbreviated as by gamers, is more like "safety zone", where you are _physically_ safe.
If you don't like metaphorical phrases, "" is more neutral and usable both in the positive and negative ways. Ex: | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 18,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation, phrase requests, terminology, word requests"
} |
What do you call young animals in Japanese?
In English we have a lot of very specific words for many animals. Male foxes are known as reynards or tods, female foxes are known as vixens, and baby foxes are known as kits.
It's not an isolated instance either. Bucks, does, and fawns. Bulls, cows or heifers, and calfs.
It's not even isolated by class. Roosters, hens, and chicks.
Does Japanese have this sort of word specificity, is there an affix of some sort, or are you forced to spell it out, so to speak, as when saying "young fox" or "baby fox".
I am specifically looking for what to call a "kit" or baby fox, since the closest translation I can find is which is obviously a loan word and doesn't even necessarily mean a fox kit but it would be good to know what to do in the future. | There's the prefix {}- 'child', sometimes spelled :
→'kitten'
→'calf'
→'kit'
→'lamb'
→'piglet'
→'pup'
→'fawn'
→'foal'
It doesn't work for every word, though. {} is 'small bird', and for 'chick' you need to use something like .
But it does work for your word, {} 'kit'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 20,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "word choice, translation, word requests"
} |
About translating ～てもらおう
I was translating some lines and I'm not quite sure the best way to go through this one, specifically the bit:
> ****
Now, I'm aware of the usage of but what would be the best way to bring the volitional form to English?
Keep in mind that the speaker is actively hostile to the listener, so I'm stuck between two ways of reading this: a more direct translation ("I will have you cease your inane rambling!") and one that keeps the intent but is more active ("I will put an end to your inane rambling!").
Are both versions acceptable or is only one incorrect? Or, even, are neither correct?
Either way, thanks for the help. | I don't think one can objectively translate the more subtle points of Japanese, and you should aim for something that sounds the most natural in English.
Anyway, the first one sounds better to me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
この間 pronunciation
Probably a very simple question for those more familiar with Japanese language. How are usually pronounced? Dictionary gives both and , I was wondering which one is most likely to be used in modern language, and is there any significant difference in meaning between pronunciations? | Both are used, but the possible reading depends on the meaning.
**during this time period** : or (I think both are OK)
> I have been sitting here for the last two hours. **During this period** , nobody came.
> 2
**the other day** :
> I went to a movie with my family **the other day**.
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, usage, pronunciation"
} |
Help with the meaning of 大絶賛 in this sentence
>
From what I can tell, the speaker is saying that for reasons mentioned he is living alone at home, but I don't see how (which means very high praise) affects the meaning of the sentence. The meaning "high praise" seems to not fit in at all with the rest of the sentence or context. The word can be used in either noun form or suru-verb form, so its usage and placement has left me baffled. Is there perhaps some omission or something in play? | This is a joke played on the common marketing phrase "". The most common of them is "" which means it's being sold and getting very high praise.
~~Basically it's sarcasm.~~
**EDIT:**
I shouldn't have said sarcasm. It's more like just a word play with a bit of self deprecation. In particular, the speaker isn't trying to convey how bad the situation is received by saying "it's getting high praise". Pure sarcasm, especially those done subtly is really uncommon in Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, puns"
} |
Which part of the sentence is 離陸するまで modifying?
A sentence from JapanesePod101.
>
> We sat on the airplane for two hours before it took off.
The general meaning of the sentence is not in question, but is modifying or (i.e. the two hours until the plane departed)? My instincts say it's the former, but that comma is throwing me off. | >
> We sat on the airplane for two hours before it took off.
Apparently, all ``, `` and `` directly modifies `` in the sentence in question. `` does not form a complete noun phrase by itself.
Instead you have to say `**` if you want it to modify `` and mean "the last two hours before takeoff."
>
> for the last two hours before takeoff
And `` modifies `` in the following sentence, too:
>
> two hours before it took off | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How to say "surprising" in Japanese
I saw this link - When is the correct situation to use or ? It taught me a new word and explained its difference from well.
But it's other words that have me confused.
and . Both mean surprising. When would each be used? What is the difference in meaning?
Also (not sure how to spell it) - I'm told this is only used in spoken Japanese and never in written Japanese... is it dialect? Seems unusual that it would be never written at all. How does this one enter the mix? | I think these are in many cases semantically (not grammatically) interchangeable, but the nuances are as follows:
* : _(adverb)_ The situation is not what the speaker originally expected, but he is not very surprised at it. "Rather" is the closest to this.
* : _(na-adjective)_ The situation is not what the speaker originally expected, and he is more or less surprised. "Unexpected" is closer to this, I think.
One can say or after seeing something unexpected, but cannot say .
* : "Surprising", "Astonishing". It has nothing to do with someone's prior expectation. The degree of surprise is higher than the other two. (It's almost to me, but I'm not sure)
> This dish is more delicious than I had expected.
> This dish is unexpectedly delicious.
> This dish is surprisingly delicious.
>
> An unexpected visitor
> A surprising visitor
* : _(verb)_ Be surprised. informal, but not a dialect.
> This dish is surprisingly delicious.
> A surprising visitor | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Modifying adjectives 「のように」
I cannot understand what exactly is modifying in the following sentence. And is it grammatically possible for to modify ? Because in phrase like this - , modifies . It is the question I've asked some time ago. But in this sentence it's also which modifies , so I'm not sure if it's correct.
> | I would parse it as
> [()][()]
(The relative clause and the adjectival phrase both modify the noun phrase )
... or maybe...
> [{()}]
(The relative clause modifies , the adverbial phrase modifies and modifies ) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the "one type" being "wiped away" in this sentence?
As part of a larger block of text, my JLPT textbook has this sentence:
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
I'm specifically confused about the `{}{}{}` part.
First, I think the `` in `` is from `{}`, as in, "to wipe away" or "to eliminate". So, it's something like "when facing words we eliminate one type"...?
For the whole sentence, it comes across to me as something like, "All of us, when facing words it's easy to eliminate one type with contempt, maybe you could say we generally tend to look at them lightly." Which doesn't really add up to something sensible. I went with "contempt" for `{}`, though other definitions are "disdain" or "make light of", but no matter how I translate it, I can't see how it fits.
One type of what? One type of words? Why would we wipe them away?
What exactly does this sentence mean? | [[]] (or in other words)
The is (to wipe) + (difficult to~). So when we say we are talking about that being something that it is difficult to wipe away. Next, do not think of as contempt. The words immediately following are rephrasing it. is just to treat something with little importance, or in other words, . I do not believe (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that has any sort of enmity or ill will in it that you might find with a word like "contempt."
So would be a sort of undervaluing or disregard of words that is difficult to "wipe away," if we use the metaphor of the original. Ultimately the passage this is from is probably making a point about the importance of words. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, words, jlpt"
} |
澤 vs 沢... is the former still in use?
I've asked about before here on Stack Exchange, but have a follow up question: Is the modern replacement for ? Is deprecated by the Ministry that decides such matters? | 1. Yes, is the modern replacement (aka ) form of .
2. The Ministry of Education () is the body that officially determines which characters are and aren't official.
3. is still used in names, as all (pre-reform) forms of current official characters () are valid for use in names ().
4. This site has a chart showing all of the reformed characters, with the new () forms on top and old () forms on bottom in each row. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, jōyō kanji"
} |
usage cases for「ありがたい」?
I am having trouble with thinking of usage cases for .
The usage case of does not make sense to me. Even though I don't know that particular phrase, I can use it as a template. Therefore, I would expect all of the following to also be correct
....
But none of those sound correct to me. I've only heard used as a substitute for in an informal situation. However, seems a little different because it seems to bring a complete end to a thought, whilemight be followed by a conjunction such as ......
What are some examples of how to useas well as examples of how to use it in an inflected form? | By itself, `` can mean "thankful" or "fortunate". So in many (all?) cases it can replace ``. Or any place where you'd use `` you can make it more informal by just switching to `` (although be careful in doing this!).
Here are some examples:
> * → Thanks for coming. (Sounds flaky to me though)
> * → Fortunately I have always been healthy.
> * → Accept the invitation with gratitude
> * → Your help will certainly be welcome.
> * → Fortunately, the rain stopped in the morning.
>
If you want to sound _really_ humble when thanking someone, you can use ``. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "usage"
} |
Alternate spelling for ありがたい, or typo?
I looked up `` in my dictionaries within OSX (looking at this question), and one of the dictionaries (can't tell which) has the entry listed like this:
> ** **
You'll notice that the kanji in the second representation have swapped order. Is/was this an accepted spelling for ``, or is this likely just a typo in this dictionary? | Shogakukan does list the combination with a reading of in one place, in the title of a kabuki play: . Poking around online suggests that this is read as . The reversed kanji order would match Chinese syntax better than Japanese, making me wonder if this is simply a _kanbun_ style of spelling.
EDIT:
Googling a bit more brought up this OKWave Q&A wherein the "best answer" claims that this is originally the spelling for , changing in meaning over time to be and then used with that reading. However, the etymology for does not seem to have anything to do with , at least according to Shogakukan, and using for seems far too much of a stretch.
This goo thread seems to confirm my suspicion, that is simply the _kanbun + kun'yomi_ spelling of , as suggested by their _kanbun_ example of a different word using where the kanji comes first in the spelling, but the reading comes second in the pronunciation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "kanji, spelling, i adjectives"
} |
Some questions about the use of となる
According to what I read, is the written counterpart of . Nevertheless, I stumbled upon some use of that seems not to fall under the typical usage of (which, for me, means "to become" as in ).
Sometimes seems to be used in place of the copula . (Ex: {}{})
Another use that I do not understand can be found in this example:
> ****
in paragraph 1.1.3 of
Thus, my question is what do mean those usages of ? And is there any other usage of ? | Like your example already suggests, I've always understood it like this:
Whereas underlines a process of transformation from something to something, is more used when expressing "make up, equal, take the position of".
I.e. means the end of the transformation "from student to teacher", whereas would mean "take the position of teacher". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
meaning of はぐった
I would really appreciate your help. I just read the sentence
>
and I can't quite figure out what means and what the basic grammar of this conjugation is. I'm kinda lost... | I have done some research on the web and seems to be the past form of which means "to stray from", "to get lost".
Actually, in your sentence, the verb should have been but according to the goo dictionary the meaning of the two verbs tends to overlaps.
So, {}{}{} means "Again, I lost the chance to have lunch."
References :
* The entry in the goo dictionary (mind the 3rd point)
* entry in the goo dictionary | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, slang"
} |
Usage and meaning of とのことです
I see this often in business emails, I guess it is not very important in terms of meaning but I couldn't find any post on stackexchange about it.
What does add to a sentence? Here is the latest example I've read:
> | >
is a hearsay and a bit formal way.
For example, your boss said Mike is working at .
Then, your business partner asked you where Mike is working at?
So you answered
>
If you like to express it in common way, you can say
> Mike | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "politeness, keigo, business japanese"
} |
Particle の in this sentence
Here is the sentence from , :
>
>
> (the Cell Game is a martials arts tournament for those who don't know the manga)
I'm not sure of what the first means here :
Is it the equivalent to in subordinate clauses? But then I don't really get why would be used :
> The Cell Game, on which the (attention of the) entire world stakes the future of the earth, is about to begin.
My guess is it's the same as in :
> This is John, my brother.
Then a translation would be :
> The Cell game, center of the entire world's attention, and on which we bet the destiny of the earth, is about to begin.
Or is it something else?
Thanks for your time. | There's something interesting going on here. The in can be easily explained as a standard used to string nouns together, like "of" in "the player of attention".
However, in , it gets harder to defend this standpoint. is not really one word, it occurs almost exclusively with after it (Google gave me very few examples with and , and they seem a bit strange, at least to me). Also, the intonation, ↓, not ↓, hints that we're not talking about a compound noun here.
It seems more natural to treat this as a relative clause, i.e. = . This is a productive pattern, e.g. = , although it seems restricted to formal contexts. There's also a parallel without a Sino-japanese -verb, e.g. , but here the only surface difference is the missing subject marker.
It seems obvious that this syntax could come from Chinese/kanbun influence, e.g. Mandarin , but others would probably be better at filling in the details. Also if anybody has better examples, feel free to comment or edit. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle の"
} |
What does 側 at the end of a verb mean?
I haven't seen this very often at all, so this has got me stumped.
Here's an example with it showing up frequently:
<
The title, for example: ""
How do you translate this sentence, and how would you read when it's used like this? | is read in this context and it means "standpoint", "side", "party", etc., all of which amounts to "person(s) involoved" in the action described just before the .
> []{}[]{} means "interviewer(s)"
>
> means "interviewee(s)"
Thus, []{} means:
> "Try(ing) to consider the feelings of those interviewing inexperienced applicants" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
「日焼{ひや}け」 is not representative of a means to nominalize verbs?
I was just thinking about the sunburn I will get during the upcoming 4th of July holiday. Then, I wondered if {}is a verb nominalization. If it is, I am not aware of such a pattern.
Is it an ad-hoc conglomeration of the idea of "sun", "skin", and "burn"?
// make the object implicit
// drop the article
// drop the trailing ""
Or, is this representative of a certain verb nominalization process that can be used to nominalize other verbs? | This is a common pattern of taking a noun + particle + verb combination and shortening the verb to it's stem form:
As Choko points out in her comment to your question:
> drops the particle and changes into the stem =>
>
> drops the particle and changes into the stem =>
>
> drops the particle and changes into the stem =>
>
> drops the particle and changes into the stem =>
>
> drops the particle and changes into the stem =>
There are similar phrases that aren't created exactly in this way, but similarly. For example:
>
And others that have more nuanced meanings
> does not just mean but references a distance.
So it's not a fast rule, but holds in many cases. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, etymology"
} |
Proper Grass Radical Stroke Order
I was told today that the grass radical, e.g. the top of has a gap in the middle of it, and googling it suggests that it is sometime written like this. Is that strictly in Chinese, is it sloppy, or is it just another way of writing? Is the correct way leaving it connected? | The form of with a gap in the radical making it 4 strokes instead of 3 is called the (old character form) and the one that is used most of the time these days is called .
Neither is correct or sloppy, they're just two different ways of writing the same character. This is related to the fact that characters in general have been simplified in different ways over the years, starting from when they were drawn in the old days in China ( for this specific radical). You can see more about this radical here:
<
<
I also use a kanji reference dictionary called that lists the along with each .
It seems to me that tend to be used more often in names than in any other words. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, radicals"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.