INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
How to say "about" as in "to read about"
I wonder how to say something like
> Now I'm reading about ways to get to Kyoto from Tokyo.
I know the necessary words but I wonder how to say this "about". Will it be okay if I just write this?
> | Your sentence is grammatically correct. is a good way to say "about" in many situations. However, in this case I think it would be more natural to say
> ****
> I'm [ looking up / reading about ] how to get from Tokyo to Kyoto.
is often translated to "investigate, examine", but it's a very common word and I think "look up, read about" are equally valid translations.
sounds a bit like you are reading, say, a monograph on historical travel routes. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, word requests"
} |
「どちら様でしたか？」 - why past form?
In a novel I'm reading ( by {}), there's this situation where the door opens and a woman enters the room asking for the main character by name. The main character, being surprised and not knowing the woman, asks her who she is:
> ****
My question is: why the past form of is used in ? Those two people are standing there talking to each other, so why the past form? Would it be possible to ask ? | It's used for politeness. Here's what Martin writes in his 1975 _Reference Grammar of Japanese_ , p.603:
> **Sometimes the perfect is used more for politeness than for time reference** : = 'What did you say your name was?' ( **when the person has actually not yet said** ); 'You have your chop (= signature-seal) with you, I presume'.
Note that Martin refers to the form as the "perfect" rather than "past tense" form. This usage of with present time reference is usually only in questions, as noted by Hasegawa in her paper _Tense-Aspect Controversy Revisited: the -ta and -ru forms in Japanese_ (1999), which was pointed out by Tim in the comments section. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, copula"
} |
How to say don't tire/wear yourself out?
I guess there is a slight/subtle difference between the two, but also wondering what is the preferred/acceptable way to express this to someone who is a good friend (not just an acquaintance). Ideally it should show some concern but without being forceful or commanding. | is one very common way of saying something along the lines of "don't do more than you can".
It's also used to mean "don't wear yourself out" in a physical sense, but can be used in virtually any context. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "expressions"
} |
Difference between 区別 and 差別
What is the difference between {} and {}?
I looked them up in my Japanese to Chinese dictionary, but the dictionary defines them to be "difference", to put it literally. | and both carry a mean of "discrimination" but have distinct meanings in Japanese.
is for putting things in different categories or domains, i.e. the ability to distinguish. For instance, the phrase []{} = to discriminate between good and evil.
often means discrimination in the pejorative, i.e. to place a []{}, here meaning difference in level or quality between two things, people, countries, etc. Thus, []{} and []{} are sexual and racial discrimination. There are a lot of other words in that category as well. But as Choko points out []{} means "product differentiation," so the word is not exclusively used with this meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances"
} |
Meaning of 「のでは」
What does mean in the following sentence? What changes if we write this sentence like this - ?
> ****
_All of the excessive nutritions appeared because of the oversleeping, are gathering in his stomach, it's the opinion of boys in our class._
* * *
I think the meaning is different from the sentence below.
> ****
_You can't get a tan by staying in an air-conditioned room through summer._ | According to
> ‐
>
> 1 … in; at; to; as for; in the case of
>
> 2 … judging by [from]; from.
>
> 3 …
>
> 4 …, …
>
> 5 …
seems to be an instance of 5, i.e. an abbreviation of , while an instance of 4.
By removing you reduce a rhetorical question to a plain statement. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
meaning of (verb stem)＋ませぬな
I'm reading a manga, and in it one of the characters uses grammar that I've never seen before. The sentence is as follows:
>
I understand pretty much everything else in the sentence:
[]{} = page
= find
= certainly
= (humbly) wanted to meet
But because of this conjugation that I'm not familiar with, I'm not sure how it all fits together. What does + mean? | * indicates the negative (as in Classical Japanese) and ~ is in fact the precursor of the modern ~.
* is a variant of
(see also What nuance does "" bring? and vs in // )
Since Manga often indicate the end of a sentence by a line (or column) break, rather than a period, I would bet that the sentence is
>
>
In any case,
> = ( _modulo nuances_ ) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "conjugations"
} |
Meaning of 玉ヒュン
What does mean?
It seems to have something to do with not experiencing fear of heights.
Context (posted on social media with a picture taken vertiginous height):
> | It's kind of a crude term, so my answer here will be kind of crude, haha. I hope that's okay.
Ever heard a guy say, after seeing something like a video of somebody climbing a tall tower or something, that they felt fear? And that they felt it in their testicles?
basically means that.
here is a kanji-fied shortening of , a colloquialism for (testicles). is a sort of sound effect -- like something whizzing past you. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how the comes into effect here, but... it makes for something that's kind of fun to say, haha.
Basically what she's saying here is "[I got so scared that] I felt it in my balls, and I'm a woman!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
読みます or 読んで form to express habit
In my textbook it says you can use the form to talk about habitual actions, such as
But I read on the internet (source) that the correct form for this is and the sentence should be
Is my textbook wrong? | I think you're just missing what the source is referring to.
The part where it says
> It is also used to describe a habitual action and a condition.
Is referring to this:
> (2) The present progressive: the ~ te form iru or imasu (formal)
So it's not referring to the form but the / construction.
So for example,
Note also that this doesn't mean that is used _exclusively_ to describe a habit. Just that it can be. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
} |
Examples of Japanese nouns that seem like adjectives when translated into English eg 曇り
As above. This sentence came up in my test:
and I was a bit puzzled why it wasn't kumokkute (I translated it as cloudy = adj) until I looked it up on Jisho.com. But I'm still confused by this concept so I'm looking for examples of nouns like this so I can understand it better and know which nouns I should be aware of, if there are any. Unless this noun is an exception. Please list any common ones if you can think of any,
Thank you! | Some English adjectives have no corresponding Japanese i-adjective or na-adjective, and you have to use noun- or verb-based expressions in Japanese.
Examples I can think of are:
* green, orange, pink, gray, etc. (Colors in Japanese. Despite the article, is also a perfect i-adjective just like )
>
> (Incorrect: )
* windy, sunny, cloudy, rainy, etc.
>
* sick
>
* different
> AABB
A few young people use , , , etc., but these are broken and you should avoid them.
* wrong
> (Incorrect: )
* dead
> 5
* angry
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Meaning of て form + えん
I was watching an episode of One Piece, and while studying the transcript, I came across this sentence.
Ace told the other pirates "If ya wanna meet Luffy, I'll tell ya where he is". In the word , what does the part mean? Is it some sort of grammar construct? Is it commonly used in colloquial Japanese? Thanks guys! | The is the casual form of elongating -adjectives into . So in this case it is really `` getting changed into ``. There may be another topic here about this form, but I can't find it.
The is just the abbreviated nominalizer. The same as . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "conjugations, て form"
} |
Is setting a topic obligatory?
For instance, if I say the following as the first phrase in a conversation:
>
>
> Hi! I was looking for you at the picnic, but couldn't find anywhere.
Is it OK to construct the sentence without a particular topic? Is `I` as the topic implied in this case? | I think you can say it like this:
> **** ***(polite)
*→ ****
**The is the honorific form of (), and its subject (=) is implied. To avoid the confusing with ()( = potential form of ), you can rephrase it as , using which is another honorific form of .
Or:
> **** (casual)
* * *
If you want to say "I couldn't find you" more literally using "I" as the subject, you can say it this way:
> ()(polite)
> or
> / (casual) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particles, syntax"
} |
Forming a "habitual" sentence: "I usually get up at 7.15"
> ****
Would this be a correct way to say 'I **usually** get up at 7.15'? Not sure is correctly placed before the time+ | Yes, you can place frequency words like , , , etc. before "time+".
>
> []{}
> []{}
> etc.
For more examples, see Webliousually | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
} |
"verb+ものです" has an additional meaning?
I am trying to remember if the following sentences have the meaning of "it is a custom/habit."
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) "Taking one's shoes off before entering a house is something they do in Japan."
(2) "In a formal business situation in Japan, people always exchange business cards when they do their self-introduction."
(3) "In Japan, on March 14, men give chocolate to women."
I am trying to think of how to say "something is a habit". Has anyone seen this grammatical structure (verb+), or something similar, that has my desired meaning? At the least, I am 97% sure I've heard the sentence "". | These are grammatically correct, but perhaps is stronger than you might think. Especially I think the third example is too strong; it's something like "Every guy is expected to give chocolates..."
White Day in Japan is not that obligatory, so I'd recommend 314
(BTW, is usually written in hiragana when it means "to give." And giving chocolates on White Day is rather uncommon.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Expressing control over circumstances—or a lack of it
If someone is discussing a situation, and how it is beyond their control, what would be the most natural way to express this? The two options that come to mind offhand are to use either ("to manipulate") or ("to control"), but I'm not sure which is best in which setting.
In the interest of giving the question context, here are a couple attempts at sample sentences:
> * (or)(or)
> "No matter how much I like the team, I can't control the outcome of their matches."
>
> * (or)
> "Clear weather tomorrow would be great, but I can't control it."
>
>
Are those about on the mark, or is there a better way to phrase these kinds of statements? | I think @ssb's would work. I'd like to add some more phrases:
> ()
> ()(or)
> (/)
> (/)
> ()
>
etc.
:
>
>
>
* * *
You also have a more literary phrase:
> ~~[]{}
>
:
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
} |
Addressing strangers without knowing the name
How does one address a stranger in a casual conversation when name is unknown? For example, I had a conversation with an older Japanese lady and I wanted to compliment her on her English (but in Japanese, for some reason). Usually in such situations I might've gone something like
> or
But without the name it is quite difficult for me at this point. Using feels really rude, neither I'm comfortable relying on zero-pronoun and going without any context.
Should I inquire about person's name in such situations? (obviously, not right before I have a sentence to use the name in). | As _YangMuye_ explained, honorifics can be used to clarify first and second person without ever needing to use a first or second person pronoun. In that, usage of {} implies I'm talking about me. Usage of {} implies I am talking about you.
An extended discussion about this topic can be read on the thread titled as a second person pronoun. As far as I can understand, that thread can fully explain your question. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, politeness"
} |
Unnecessary に in "どんなに" in this sentence?
The following sentences are from a reading passage. I'm confused on the third sentence - the previous two are just given for context.
> ****
I understand that the meaning is something like "No matter what kind of commonplace or appropriate reasons you give, there's nothing you can do about those words." But there's no verb ("give" in the case of "give a reason"), and it would seem would only apply if there was some kind of verb (for example, ...). As it stands, shouldn't it be ...()? What am I missing here? | The here takes a because it's being used adverbially to modify adjectives and . The bit up through the is parseable as one big noun phrase, which could be diagrammed as:
`[NP [ADV [ADJP [ADJ ] [CONJ ] [ADJ ] [PRT ]]] [N ]]`
(Click this link, paste the above into the text field, choose a Japanese-compatible font like JP-Gothic, and click the **Draw PNG** button to see a prettier version of the diagram.)
Code key:
* `NP` == noun phrase
* `ADV` == adverb
* `ADJP` == adjective phrase
* `ADJ` == adjective
* `CONJ` == conjunction
* `PRT` == particle
* `N` == noun | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
} |
What is a word for "participation" that resembles "kameseru"?
According to the article "On Being Late to Work in Japan | " (linked from this post at The Workplace):
> The word for participation – _kameseru_ – has a special significance which also explains why Japanese bureaucracy is so overwhelming...
As far as I know, is not a Japanese word, and it doesn't look like any variations on the vowels ( or or or or some combination thereof) or gemination () give you anything useful either. Nor can I think of any near-homophones (? ?) that mean anything related to "participation".
What word might the article have meant? | I'm the author of that post, the 'insufferable self-absorbed hipster.'
It was a typo - I'd meant 'kamei-suru' but was pretty bad at Japanese when I first arrived (and still am not very good, but continue to learn and practice even after having left the country). It's this:
+
And basically refers to 'becoming a part of the group' by engaging and participating in the group's activities. I think in hindsight it may have a much more limited function. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
年休 vs. 有休/有給 as paid time off work
I have heard both terms, {} and {} (or occasionally ), used to describe paid vacation time, or {}. In my situation it's always been , but I know people just a town over who have insisted that the term is . I have said to people and they have looked at me confusedly and said
Is there any actual difference between these terms, and is there any pattern to when one is used over the other? Should I default to ? | Basically, and are just the two ways to abbreviate . They are usually interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, has more formal, technical nuance, and it specifically refers to as defined in the Japanese law.
is a more casual and popular (and thus ambiguous) word. It's sometimes not limited to and may be confused by any other kind of paid vacation set by each company. (For example, I expect varying answers by non-professionals for questions like "Is also ?")
I believe majority of people prefer to , but some media seem to have chosen as the standard abbreviation for , which is surprising to me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Can と AND や be used in a sentence for a list of things
I have been reading about using and .
Now, I understand the basic idea that is for a list where the list is not all-inclusive. on the other hand essentially informs the listener that "only these things are what I mean."
Are there any times where the "and" and would both be used in a sentence? Specifically for a list of things?
>
as a possible (and poor?) example. If I wanted to say in the example above "My hobbies are skiing, golf, studying English and Japanese, and karaoke." | Your example sentence I think is a little clumsy, but short answer: yes. in a case similar to your example would just be a component in one of the noun phrases that makes up your list. For the sentence, however, would be better. Points to take away:
* not .
* When making longer lists of things, Japanese typically works, unsurprisingly perhaps, in the reverse of English, with further conjunctions omitted. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particles, syntax"
} |
Grammar of との, what is the meaning
So here in this sentence below "" was used 2 times. What does standfor? Can someone please explain it to me?
> **** **** 2 | Generally speaking:
links to a following **verb** (or other predicate)
links to a following **noun** (or noun equivalent)
That's generally what does--indicates a relationship to a following noun:
> **** The particle links to the following **verb**
> **** The particle links to the following **noun**
In English, we use word order instead of a particle:
> go [ **to** the sea ]
> the road [ **to** the sea ]
We can tell that the **_to_** -phrase relates to the verb **_go_** or to the noun **_road_** because they're next to each other. But that doesn't work in Japanese--you need to specify that it relates to a noun by adding .
Likewise, in your example, **** needs **** to relate to the following noun, . In English we could just say "collaboration [ **with** ]", but in Japanese you need to add ****. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
Why is Typhoon Neoguri sometimes referred to as "ノグリー"?
Why is Typhoon Neoguri sometimes referred to in Japanese as "", and not as ""?
The English language Wikipedia's disambiguation page for Typhoon Neoguri mentions that it used to be referred to in English as "Noguri", but that was back in 2002, and there's been another Typhoon Neoguri between then and now.
Is it because Japanese has a commonly used transliteration of the Korean word for "Raccoon dog" ()? | My assumption would be that neoguri is one way of romanizing the hangul , but that the pronunciation is closer to "noguri." Given the tendency of katakana to go with pronunciation, it would be . Listen to the Korean here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords, spelling"
} |
Difference between こんにち and きょう
My dictionary says {} is a special reading. My textbook presents it in the third lesson, so I'm guessing it's a normal pronunciation. So... what's the difference between {} and {}? | Both means _today_ , but the meaning depends on the pronunciation.
refers to the day after yesterday, the day before tomorrow.
> It's raining today.
means _present age_ , _nowadays_ , or _these days_.
> Young people of today do not read newspapers.
This difference is rather strict; basically you can't expect they're interchangeable. I recommend that you memorize how to use first, because is less common. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
に - same meaning as として?
Could somebody please give me a hint about the meaning of in **** . If I'm understanding correctly, here has the same meaning as .
Some sort of translation:
> Maybe he took it (Luis's laugh) as a rebellious attitude, the captain tutted, facing forward again.
With context:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> |
()
()
()
() ()
()
x
()
andhave nearly same meaning but is correct here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
} |
how to say "does not make sense"?
I recently wanted to say " _The Japanese counting system does not make sense._ " However, I could not figure out how to communicate the full meaning of "does not make sense". I don't want to say that it is good, bad, difficult, stupid, weird, etc. I want to express the closest approximation to the abstract meaning of " _does not make sense_ ".
I found " **{}** " in a dictionary. I've never even heardused all by itself. I've only heard it in words such as and . So, I'm not so sure that that phrase is a natural thing to blurt out in a conversation.
* Is actually a natural thing to say in daily conversation? Does it have the meaning I want?
* The phrase " _makes sense_ " can be used in many contexts, and most of the time it can be talked around using Japanese I somewhat know. But, in the specific case of " _The Japanese counting system does not make sense._ ", how do you capture the nuance? | I think the closest approximation is `` (lit. _reason is not understandable_ ).
>
This is an informal expression, and depending on the context, this can be used to express your _subjective_ , personal confusion (does not make sense _to me_ ):
> ****
... and to express that something is _objectively_ a mess:
>
Indeed the first sentence can be interpreted in both ways, and people may ask back to you saying ? ?
* * *
``, `` or something like these basically expresses the _objective_ lack of logic:
>
This says the Japanese counting system is bad and illogical (to anyone).
And `` (noun) is sometimes used, focusing on subjective understanding of the speaker (It's all _Greek_ to me):
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "phrase requests"
} |
What does よいではないか mean?
I saw the phrase (yoi de wa nai ka) in a comic strip, and decided to look it up because its literal meaning of "isn't it good?" didn't seem to make any sense.
My research indicated that it was related to something a man says while unwrapping a woman's waist cloth on her kimono (such as in this cheaply made iPhone game), which confused me even more because there was nothing remotely suggesting something that would make one say .
Can anyone explain the history behind this phrase and its current usage? | literally is "Isn't it OK", and usually it means "That's OK" or "No problem".
In general, is a pompous expression and used by high-ranked people, such as kings, mainly in fiction. Usually real people use shorter expressions such as "", "", "?", "?".
So-called is also a famous recurring joke in Japan, and that's why you got many search results related to this. This is how it goes:
> Woman in kimono: _Please stop it, sir!_
> Man: _Hehe, don't worry, it's fine..._
> Woman: _Oh, nooooo!_ (kimono stripped)
> (Maybe some kind of hero jumps in)
I doubt real people in the Edo period played like this (belts in kimono are not that long!), and apparently almost no one knows who did this first. I remember a Japanese comedian (Ken Shimura) did this frequently in his comedy show in the 1980's.
If neither of these explanations still makes sense, please edit the question and provide more context. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Still trying to get my head around に and で
I've been trying to understand those two particles when applied to these phrases:
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
>
What I more or less understand is:
> 1. the only/main thing I have for breakfast
> 2. at breakfast time, but not at any other time
> 3. at breakfast time, but not restricted to that time.
>
So, my questions are:
* What general function does fulfill in sentence 1 (specific time, direction...)?
* Is, in sentence 1, functioning as a time expression?
* In sentence 2, is functioning as a time expression and indicating a restrictive period of time? | In sentence 1, is not functioning as a time expression. It's like _for_ or _as_. "I have green tea **for** breakfast."
when used as a time particle can indicate:
1. the age at which something was done: _At the age of 25 I went to Japan._
2. the end point of a period of time: _I finished my homework in/after an hour._
Neither of these apply in sentence 2 so is not functioning as a time expression. The is showing that is the place/setting where the tea-drinking is taking place.
In sentence 3, itself is not a time expression, but together with ( not you get 'the time of breakfast' or 'breakfast time'.
> Only one doubt I have: what does indicate in the first sentence?
In sentence 1 means _for_ or _as_. It functions like . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, に and で"
} |
つもり - expectation. How to use?
In my notes I have the following example:
> - I expect my work will not stop.
Does anybody know the rule for using ? Is it just verb plain form e.g.
> - This month I expect to buy [the] house
Some guidance would be appreciated. Many thanks!
EDIT: I've found this example which indicates my notes may be wrong (first example)
> 1035 I'm going to work now for 10 years and I won't get married until I'm 35 or something.
So have we decided that is to express an intention, rather than an expectation that something will happen? If that is so, then how do we say we expect something to happen? e.g. "I am expecting to pass the exam" | I'm a bit uncertain where the question "is it just verb plain form" is coming from here, since functions as a regular noun/nominal grammatically.
It means something like intention or expectation, where the specifics of the intention modify the by coming before it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage"
} |
Meaning of 虚ろに in this particular case
I was doing my daily dose of reading and I came by this particular sentence, which I had a little bit of trouble finding the meaning for.
The context is a patient who had brain surgery and is struggling to get his thoughts together. I roughly translate it to "Once again my consciousness has faded from these effects".
The has been the main problem I have with this particular sentence. I know the is a way to address something hollow, or give a sense of emptiness thats different from ; but I'd like some confirmation on the usage of that in this sentence. Also, theis written in hiragana, so I'm not 100% sure on it meaning "effects".
Once again, thanks for anyone taking their time to answer this question! | First, it looks like you are somehow seeing a word that is simply not there -- []{} --, which is preventing you from understanding this sentence even without the word []{}.
The word that you should be seeing instead is []{}. means "around here/there". Unlike is very often written in kana.
(For the pronunciation-conscious students, []{} and []{} are pronounced very differently from each other. The pitch accent is on the in and it is on the in .)
> []{}[]{}
means "to become not fully conscious"
> "From around this point (in time), I became not fully conscious again." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
"は + verb" instead of "を + verb"?
I have stumbled upon instances where " + verb" is used in situations where I thought " + verb" should be used. For example, recently I've seen
>
> I was prepared for that
>
>
> don't choose an easy road
Is there a difference? And if there is, what's the "rule" when to use instead of ? | is normally used a subject marker, but its also used for emphasis by slightly subverting its standard usage. When used this way, it's usually to show contrast the object with some other object. In your example sentence (), the speaker indicates that they're prepared for the eventuality that their conversation partner just mentioned, but maybe not some others.
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, particle は, particle を"
} |
How do you use と言ってた?
I am reading Genki II. And I found a report sentence (a sentence that states what somebody else said) that ended with :
> ****
> He said he ate too much chocolate.
I've got two questions:
1. Why is in its stem form ()?
2. And, why are we using instead of ? | 1. The verb is in its "stem form" because that's the form attaches to. This is what Martin refers to as the **excessive** in his _Reference Grammar of Japanese_ (p.434):
> You can attach to the infinitive [stem form] of most (probably all) verbals, to produce a new verbal, the EXCESSIVE form with the meaning 'overly' or 'all too (much, many, often)'.
In Japanese, what you call the "stem form" of a verb is usually referred to as the {}, and if you look up in a Japanese dictionary you'll see that it attaches to the of verbs. From :
> ≪ **** **** ≫
>
>
> > ――――――
> ―
> ―
> ()―
> ―
>
> …→→
This doesn't have anything to do with , though. It just happens to be part of the quote in this case.
2. is an informal contraction of , which is the plain form corresponding to the polite . It's a more colloquial way of saying the same thing. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "て form"
} |
What does adding お at the end of a word change?
An example would be: "watashi wa cake o() tabetai". What does the do? I tried on google translate and it seems it gives pertenence to that thing..like it belongs either to you or me..but I still need actual clarification. | There are three particles in Japanese which are typically spelled differently than they're pronounced:
1. (pronounced _wa_ rather than _ha_ )
2. (pronounced _o_ rather than _wo_ )
3. (pronounced _e_ rather than _he_ )
Although you're hearing it correctly, in this case it is actually the particle , marking a direct object:
> ****
This particle comes directly after the word or phrase it marks, like particles usually do in Japanese.
* * *
We have direct objects in English, too. But in English, we don't have a particle like . Instead, we mark direct objects with word order:
> **I** want to eat **the cake**.
Here, we can tell **_I_** is the subject, and **_the cake_** is the direct object. Why? Because of their location. If we switch them, the meaning changes completely:
> **The cake** wants to eat **me**.
Japanese word order is much more free than in English, because the Japanese language has little words like and doesn't have to rely on word order all the time. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle を"
} |
Is "先生 / せんせい / sensei" haughty or overly-formal
If I were to tell my Japanese friend that I plan to become a teacher, would I literally say that I will become a sensei? I have always thought of this as an honorific title, and it feels odd to call myself as such. I don't know of any "general" term for teacher. Is there one?
Thank you. | In general, you're correct. Calling yourself as _sensei_ has to be avoided, because it's an honorific word. The better word is .
However there is an exception. If you are to become Sensei of elementary schools or kindergartens, I think it is OK to say "", at least informally. Kids do not understand honorific expressions, and teachers in those facilities frequently use as the first-person.
"/" would be frowned upon in a formal setting.
**EDIT:** Actually my answer didn't mention how "/" sounds like in _informal_ situations, but in that case I totally agree with @dainichi. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, usage"
} |
How to say "rough year" or "rough time"?
I want to say "it was a rough year", but I'm not sure how to put it.
I thought of "" which I understand means "difficult age", normally used to describe the rebel age of kids.
How do people normally put it? ? Can we use | The main point for saying "rough [time]" is that you should express [time] as a proper time period.
> (one) day
> (one) month []{}
> (one) year
(Cf., "Have a nice day".)
is I think common for "I had a rough day". works similarly.
works as well, although it's more like "difficult year" than "rough year". That is, sounds a bit more collected, as though you were in control (at least emotionally), in spite of hardships. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, time"
} |
What difference is there between そろそろ and もうすぐ? (if any)
and can both be translated as 'soon', but I feel they have different uses and connotations.
My take on it is that is slightly more formal and has more of a meaning of 'It's about time (we)...' as in this example:
> Shall we get going? / Isn't it about time we go?
Whereas sounds more urgent, and has more of a meaning of 'almost' or 'just about to', like in the following example:
> Summer vacation is just around the corner.
Can these be used interchangeably? Can I say the following sentence:
>
To me it sounds a bit stiff and formal. | I see little difference in the level of formality. may be, relatively, a bit more casual or colloquial than , but, I can't say that is a formal or stiff word in general.
Only has the meaning of "expected time", "high time", "it's about time". You can just say … when you want to leave now, to interrupt a boring discussion, or to change a situation in general. You cannot say … in such cases.
And in your example:
>
>
Both of these are okay, and the difference is small. But if you're innocently celebrating the upcoming, happy vacation, I think the former fits better. To me, the latter might sound a bit less exciting, or might sound like some kind of action is expected.
>
>
> (in an ad for a travel package, etc.)
>
>
> …
>
> (in an ad for year-end oosoji goods, etc.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "words, usage"
} |
「〜がする」 the extended use of する (to do)
I'm going through some basic grammar and this one website teaches the "extended" use of the word . There is a confusing example which looks like:
> ****
The translation is: "(I) hear the sound of waves". The way I learned it prior to this site is:
> ****
What is the difference between these two? | X is a phrasal verb and is most often used in phrases such as and {} and even . It is used with words that are about perceiving or sensing something. (More phrasal verbs here.)
Yet it does not really require the actual sensing part from the part of the speaker, but instead is a pretty objective way of saying that 'there is a smell' or '[something] is making a sound'. The focus is less on the sensing but rather just the existence of the sensory input.
sounds odd to me. It means something like _[I] listen to the sound of waves._ It should be _I hear the sound of waves._ With the verb, it would work as a request such as _Try listening to the sound of waves_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "translation, nuances, verbs, syntax"
} |
私は猫が好き and 猫は私が好き
I started reading basic grammar of Japanese, and found this sentence:
>
> I like cats.
I thought is the subject particle, so I supposed that would be the subject of the sentence. **** seems to mean "like". So I expected to mean _" Cats like me"_ rather than _" I like cats"_; however, it seems like _" I like cats"_ is the correct meaning, as another example ( _I like bananas_ ) in the mentioned dictionary entry also has the same structure.
I asked another learner and got this phrase () as the full version of . However, this confuses me even further, because somehow I understand it as _" Cats, I like"_ (and probably _" Me, cats like"_). And I think no matter how strange it means, it's still a perfectly fine sentence.
How should I understand these two following sentences? Which one means "I like cats" and which one means "Cats like me"?
> 1.
>
> 2.
> | Particles have multiple uses or meanings. can be used to mark the subject. However is an adjective not a verb. In this case marks the target of which is cats.
> 1)
>
> 2)
The pattern of these sentences is: Topic target of adjective adjective
1. I(topic) like(adjective) cats(target of adjective).
2. Cats(topic) like(adjective) me(target of adjective). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "grammar, particle は, particle が, は and が"
} |
Using the stem form of a verb like the て form, as in 燃えゆく or 飲みほして
What is the significance of sometimes using the stem form of a verb like how the form would be? For example:
> (from HANABI)
> (from Ambiguous)
It's something I hear now and again, but never understood what its grammatical roots are. | []{}[]{}, []{} are compound verbs(): + >> , + >>
> : ... ← continuative form() verb + verb
* * *
Compare: () is made of the verb + the subsidiary verb() /().
> : ... ← te-form verb + subsidiary verb | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, て form, compounds, renyōkei"
} |
How would you say "if you don't mind my asking"?
This is something that is often said in English to politely ask a question while avoiding sounding overly intrusive. For example,
> What do you do for a living, if you don't mind my asking?
>
The way that I would think to translate it is:
>
But I'm not entirely confident, because that's a literal translation, and there may be a more natural sounding set-phrase for it. Is my translation correct? Or is there a better way to say it? | A very common (and mature-sounding) phrase would be []{}[]{}. means "obstacle", "inconvenience", etc.
> []{}[]{}
>
> You may add a at the beginning as well.
Other natural expressions would include:
> Polite:[]{}
>
> Less polite: | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, politeness, phrase requests"
} |
Use of 自分を and もらう
I have trouble understanding the following sentence:
>
Is it. Mister Lukas wants to get called by his first name but it's hard to do so because he is 3 years older than the speaker. Or does the speaker wants to call him Tom?
I don't know to whom is pointing, isn't it always pointing to the speaker? In this case the sentence wouldn't make sense since the speaker wants to receive something "".
I think I am confusing either the or the part. | Although it isn't a great analogy, I sometimes think of as the Japanese counterpart to the "reflexive" (just because sometimes translates to "himself" or "herself"). That doesn't really work here, but in any case, still points to , even though he isn't the speaker:
> ****
> _he wants to get people to call **him** by the first name_
> he wants to be called by his first name
So,
>
> Mr. Lucas says that he wants to be called by his first name, but him being three years older than me makes it really quite hard to call him "Tom". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How do you say "to ask for" in Japanese?
How do you say "to ask for" in Japanese?. For example:
> He asked his boss for a raise.
>
> We ask for great revival.
Is "{}" fine? In particular, I want to use something that's natural and normal, but that's not disrespectful to superiors. Some of the usual sources, like jisho.org, don't seem to be very definitive about this. | The most normal word choice for "to ask for" is []{}.
{} means "to ask for" only in the sense of seeking guidance from someone above you -- not in the sense of asking for a raise. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
} |
How impolite is it to call a waitress お姉{ねえ}さん?
Were I in a situation where I want to get the attention of a waitress in a noisy restaurant, I kind of feel like calling-out: "{}". I think that I've seen this done in a movie, as well as seen native speakers do this in front of me (but only at a bar where everyone was pretty drunk).
However, I think I've been told that addressing a waitress, or waiter, as , or {}, is impolite. Is this correct?
Addressing a waitress as {} is off the charts impolite, right?
Say that I am at a beer garden and want to get the attention of one of the waitresses by saying , what would be an appropriate substitute? Is just not addressing her at all the only way? | I wouldn't do that. It's true that some people use , but you'll be taking unnecessary risk. For a example, some older women might get offended for being called that way, and some younger women might get offended, too! It's like calling somebody "Hi _young_ woman!".
Of course some people will like it. If you say to an , you might get that beer for free :) That will also constitute a kind of joke. But unless you are using it for this effect, I would stay clear.
> Addressing a waitress as {} is off the charts impolite, right?
You have to be very old for this to be ok, like > 65. I.e. you have to be classified as /. Even then the other person must be very young, like < 25\.
If the other person is _really_ young (like < 8) then it's ok for a non-/ to use it. However it will sound very old fashioned. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "word choice, politeness"
} |
what is the difference between [法度]{はっと} and [法律]{ほうりつ}?
To add a bit more to my question, I'm wondering if the words are used interchangeably, or if has more a sense of law that is set up to ban or prohibit something? Is a commonly used word? | is the general word for "law", as in (obey the law),(forbidden by law) or (Watanabe Law Firm).
I believe that the most common use of is to mean "something that is terribly bad manners", and that it's almost always used with in front — . A quick Web search found:
> :
>
> "Talking about the bride and groom's ex-lovers is a no-no: faux pas that guests mustn't make at weddings"
It seems that originally, meant a law forbidding something, but I don't think it's used in modern-day legal discussions. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, definitions"
} |
Differences and similarities between 係 and 担当
I have some questions about the difference between and .
1. Do these words have the same meaning? Basically, can they be used interchangeably as "the person/group in charge of something"?
2. I know that there can be more than one in a department (for example, when sending an email, it seems like is acceptable), but can there be more than one ? Or does only point to one person within a department? On a similar note, if you don't know who the person in charge is, should you write or ?
Thanks! | Basically, yes they have the same meaning, but normally the company decides which word they use in each case, and a customer or business partner shouldn't use the words interchangeably. If they call themselves as "XX" then you call them that way, too.
is treated as a person (even if there were more than one person in charge), so you use , not .
[]{} is treated as a group, so you use []{}, not .
If you don't know the name of the person in charge:
> XX + (eg )
> XX + (eg )
>
If you know the name of the person in charge (=YY):
> XX + YY (eg )
> XX + YY (eg )
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
How to say "As a <position>, ..."
Example : **As a friend** , I think we should...
What do you add to to add the "As a" prefix?
Also, after that part, does the rest of the sentence follow the normal rules of a Japanese sentence?
What I mean is, could I comfortably add "As a friend" at the start of any Japanese sentence without changing anything for it to make sense?
Edit : Also, if you could put your answers in both Kanji and kana, that would be great, since I do not understand Kanji yet. Thanks | Generally speaking, is used for "as a". You use a noun before . For example:
> As a friend...
> {}... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
な, の, である and ために
When used with a noun could have two meanings :
> (1)
>
> There are scholarships _for (the sake of)_ students.
>
> (2)
>
> Since s/he is a student s/he has to obey the rules set by her/his school.
With the second meaning, it is possible to express "the state of being a student". Indeed, I can rephrase the second translation as "Since s/he is in the state of being a student s/he" has to obey the rules set by her/his school. Thus it is possible to express this state in the past.
> (3) .
>
> Since s/he was (in the state of being) a student, she had to obey the rules set by her/his school.
In this sense of expressing a state, is equivalent to , right ?
So I can rephrase (2) as ... and since and are somewhat equivalent I should be able to rewrite this as (since is the of ).
So the question is: Is all this possible or mere speculation ? | Yes, all the reasoning above is just mere speculation. Now is the why (I'm not sure to use the good terms so feel free to edit if you think it is necessary).
The major difference between and is that is a real verb (ie. it is not defective) but is not. So there is no restriction in the use of the of but according to _() (wikipedia) 5th note below the fisrt chart there is this sentence the - of is limited to a few cases:
>
Which translate to (thanks to Choko):
> Those (= and ) can be followed by particles etc...
>
>> :
>
> ... but cannot modify nouns (=cannot be followed by nouns).
>
>> : ****
>
> By the way, those who don't recognize na-adjectives as a part of speech (=those who deny na-adjectives) think differently (eg. they consider as " + ()+ noun", not as "na-adjective + noun").
This explains why could not be used in this case. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the difference between ～あろうが and ～あろうと?
I'm writing a report for a class, and at first I wrote:
> … **** …
But then I sat back and thought, maybe it should actually be:
> … **** …
But now I'm not sure if there's actually a difference, or if there is, how it actually affects the meaning in this case. So... **do these actually have different meanings/connotations?** And if so, how so?
Thanks for your help! | There is virtually no difference in meaning but there is a slight difference in nuance, therefore, in actual usage.
Using + could make you sound a bit more defensive and/or excited about your own opinion being presented than when using + . The latter would help show your composure as an author better than the former.
Without knowing what you want to say in your report, however, it is difficult to say which one you should choose. The "safer" choice in general would be to use , naturally. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, meaning"
} |
What is the meaning of masu-stem + proposition
Example sentence:
> ****
What is the meaning of this construction? Does it have a special meaning? | A bare -stem can be used to join sentences together, much like the -form. Another valid way to render this sentence would be as follows:
>
In both cases it translates to "In accordance with the wolf's words, [I] went to the woods." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, renyōkei"
} |
Meaning of XXをYYと認める：「形容動詞を品詞と認めない立場」
On the wikipedia page there is this sentence and I can't make sense of the part in bold:
> ****
Here is my try :
> (Those are) only used when preceding things like . However, a noun cannot use those in order to modify (another element). Moreover, from the view point which does not recognize na-adjectives and (???) parts of speech, there is another way of thinking ???.
May somebody help me so as to understand this part? | I think it's saying...
Those (= and ) can be followed by particles etc...
> :
>
>
>
... but cannot modify nouns (=cannot be followed by nouns).
> : ****
>
By the way, those who don't recognize na-adjectives as a part of speech (=those who deny na-adjectives) think differently (eg. they consider as " + ()+ noun", not as "na-adjective + noun").
* * *
By the way, the is not a /adverb ("furthermore") but a /conjunction ("/by the way").
XXYY means "recognize/consider XX as YY". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
} |
影 vs 形 vs 形状. What's the difference between them?
I've been reading a text and all three of these come up vs vs . I know they mean shape/figure, but is there a more nuanced difference between them? I can see the logic of where they are in the text but I can't figure out the difference. | If you are familiar with the general difference between on-readings () and kun-readings (), you already know the basic difference between (kun) and (on).
* is used in informal conversations/writings and most of formal conversations, while is preferred in formal written texts or scientific articles.
* Usually Japanese children learn first, and many Japanese idioms are based on . (...)
* is frequently combined with other words to form longer phrases, as in (shape-memory alloy).
The primary meaning of is _shadow_ or _silhouette_ , not _shape_ , in modern Japanese. A few certain words, such as , contain to mean _shape_ , but I think such usage is archaic or poetic.
> : OK (Casual)
> : OK (Formal)
> (*): Incorrect (at least in modern Japanese) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, words, nuances, synonyms, wago and kango"
} |
What do you call brothers or sisters of the same age?
From what I can see people are forced to use the term of a younger or older brother/sister oneesan, oniisan, etc.
But what do you call a brother or sister if they're the same age as you? | I think that even twins, born only moments apart, are considered to be older and younger based on who was born first. So even if you're both twenty years old, the normal rules apply.
That's why you can say things like "older twin brother". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "terminology"
} |
Do these two questions differ in any way?
There is a question in my Japanese book to translate a sentence. This is how I translated it:
>
But, this is how my book translated it:
>
Are there any differences in meaning or nuance? Or is it acceptable to use either one? | The direct object particle stands next to the word of phrase that is the direct object in your sentence. This phrase in your translation is .
To analyse the meaning of this phrase, let's look at its parts:
- My letter.
- Above my letter.
- The desk above my letter.
So the direct object phrase is then "the desk above my letter" and your sentence is "Don't read the desk above my letter".
See how stands next to the direct object "desk" and the rest of the phrase is used to further describe the desk. In your sentence, stands next to the letter and makes the letter the direct object while the other part of the phrase describes the letter. So the book's translation sentence is "Don't read my letter on the desk" or in better English "Don't read my letter which is on the desk". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, meaning, particle の"
} |
Understanding the phrase 「最も多くの乗客が乗っていた」 from a news article
Reading an article on NHK, it starts with this sentence about the missing Algerian plane. The French foreign minister says that it probably crashed in northern Mali:
>
The part I'm confused about is this:
>
This seems to mean that "most passengers were on board" when the plane crashed. Is that what it means? Where else would they be? | It's a relative clause. You need to look at it with the following head noun:
> ****
> _' **France** , which had the most passengers on board'_
France had more passengers on board than other nations. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What is the て-form of みます?
I have learned from my previous studies that it is ``.
However, Google translate seems to give me the answer ``.
Which is correct? | If you are talking about []{}/, the -form is | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "て form"
} |
How to express "X sounds like Y"
How can I express the idea that one word sounds like another?
As a concrete example, I wanted to say, `sounds like fryer`.
Looking in dictionaries (wadoku/jisho) for "sound like" turns up , but I could only find one example sentence with that phrase on tatoeba, and it was used in a different way ("that sounds too forward").
Is there a better way to express what I want to say? Or, if is actually correct, how exactly would I use this expression? | I think you can use
> XXYY
> XXYY
> XXYY
> XXYY()
> XXYY()
> etc.
For example...
> Sit down please
> I get off(casual)
> fryer
> You know me()
> What time(casual)
>
* * *
is used in set phrases like ... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, phrase requests"
} |
と言います vs．と言われています
I'm playing The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Pastand this sentence came up (spoken by one of the 7 maidens):
>
>
I think this means "It is said that the Hylian people could harness/manipulate a mysterious power.". Why did they use `` instead of ``? I thought that's how you'd indicate a myth or some widely-believed story. | The difference is very subtle, but there is a difference. With ``, it sounds as if the myth is actually true or people somehow believe it. With ``, it sounds as if it is an actual myth. There is no rule that says you must use `` when indicating a myth.
I've never played the game, but you can probably infer that the maiden actually believes the myth and she is informing the player about it. That's at least the impression I get with ``, but again, the difference is very subtle. It makes sense with either way. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations"
} |
Can 依存はない mean "no objection"?
I'm having trouble understanding a translation I've encountered in Makino and Tsutsui's _Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese grammar_ , under 1.
The original sentence is as follows:
> ****
Which the textbook translates into:
> I have no **objection** to regarding Kazuo as our adopted son.
According to the dictionaries, can only assume the meaning of "dependence", not "objection".
:
> ――
EDICT:
> dependence; dependent; reliance
Which should make the original sentence, given the lack of any context, translate into something like this:
> There is no dependence on regarding Kazuo as (our) adopted child. (???)
The meaning of this sentence is unclear, although it would have probably made more sense given the broader context that I don't have.
My question is whether it is possible for to be interpreted as "objection" in this (or any other) sentence and why. | Who wrote this textbook?
The word it should have used is , not .
Both words are pronounced but only will fit in the context.
means "objection".
means "to have no objection" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, words"
} |
「思っているようです。」or 「思っている。」 for describing another person's opinion
As explained in the thread Difference between and ., when describing what you think are the thoughts of another person, might be more appropriate than ?
(1) ~~{}{}Bob{}{}~~
(2) ~~Bob~~
I think that #2 sounds better.
Other than speaking for myself, or a group that I represent, is not the better option? After all, you are only capable of stating what you think the other person appears to be thinking. | I would say
> (casual form)
> (polite form)
> (not */ *)
to say "Bob thinks that prices are high",
> (casual form)
> (polite form)
to say "It seems that Bob thinks prices are high", and
> (casual form)
> (polite form)
to say "According to Bob, prices are high" (or "Bob says that prices are high.")
* * *
If I heard/read
> (casual form)
> (polite form)
I would feel like asking "()(Who thinks that prices are high?)"
I would rather expect something like
> XX(casual form)
> XX(polite form)
which means "According to Bob, (it seems that) XX thinks that prices are high", or
> XX(casual form)
> XX(polite form)
which means "According to Bob, (I hear that) XX thinks that prices are high." (Bob told me that XX thinks that prices are high.)
* * *
By the way, if I just heard
>
>
>
>
then I would think that the subject is "I", the speaker. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
What is the difference between 危ない and 危うい?
I came across this question, and found the same meaning in the dictionary for both options
> (a-) or (b-)
however the answer booklet says it is (a-), what is the difference? | They have the same meaning of "dangerous", but is used more in the written language (), whereas is used more in the spoken language ().
Here's a Chiebukuro question asking about this.
has a note in the entry for
>
(Warning: possibly inaccurate translation ahead). Basically it says that has replaced in modern times. Nowadays, the usage of is literary-like, and expresses the urgency/imminence of a worst case scenario like death or decimation. In contrast with that, expresses that something bad is going to happen, regardless of whether it involves bodily harm (threat to life) or not.
Additionally, in 's entry on , it mentions that
>
The seems to suggest that it is not the case now though, hmm... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, synonyms, i adjectives"
} |
difference between 歩く and 散歩します
I was wondering the difference between the two words since both mean to walk.
When to use verb and when to use | The verb is equivalent to the English term "take a walk". That is, is more of a recreational activity, as opposed to it simply being a means to get from one place to another. is a general term for walking.
From dictionary.goo.co.jp:
> ―
> To leisurely walk for recreation or for health. A stroll. " ___ through the park" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Translating “Woe be to those…”
I'm trying to say this in Japanese: "Woe be to those who near the swamp."
I wasn't really sure how to go about this, but I came up with this:
>
> _Woe for those who go to the swamp._
Is this correct at all? I'm very unsure about this sentence. Perhaps there's a better way of saying this? | To match the tone of "woe" and the slightly older sounding English of the original, why not?
>
Your
>
Is, I'm sorry to say, mostly nonsensical: "disasters for the benefit of those, who goes to the swamp?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, translation, syntax"
} |
(Ordering food) difference between なし and 抜き
What is the difference between endings and when you want to exclude a certain ingredient from food? Aside from when ordering soft drinks, I thought that for most other things should be used. But my friend has been saying to get rid of an egg, so I'm curious when which one of those is appropriate. | As a customer, using either one is completely fine. Among us native speakers, it is like each person has a habit of using one over the other.
Point is each eatery tends to use one word over the other among its staff members as well, meaning that even when you order by saying, for instance, []{} = "with no eggs", your waiter/waitress might reply by saying []{}. This happens quite often but do not be discouraged because they are just using almost as a house rule. It is not that they are trying to correct you because you used the wrong word. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 25,
"question_score": 15,
"tags": "usage, nuances"
} |
「～てはいただけません」- Why the は?
>
>
I'm playing Ace Attorney 3 (), and there's a girl in the dock () giving evidence. She's just been found to be lying about something and is asking for forgiveness.
I've seen the pattern as a humble request, but why has she put a after the ? | When you see a in the following structures, it emphasizes the preceding verb, adjective or noun.
> "[]{} (conjunctive form) or the -form of a verb + "
>
> " of an adjective + "
>
> "Noun + + "
+ + fits the first pattern above and in the phrase, the speaker is subtly adding emphasis to her petition for mercy. Without the , she could sound pretty arrogant. She could sound like she takes it for granted that she will be forgiven. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "honorifics, particle は"
} |
Difference between 北辰 and 北極星
In Japanese, I found two common translations of the English word "north star/polaris".
1.
2.
Could someone tell me the difference between the two?
I saw that is used for the design on the Hokkaido flag, so maybe is more "romantic" and is more "scientific"?
Thank you!
ETA: "North star/pole star" in English means "a visible star that is approximately aligned with the Earth's axis of rotation" (from Wikipedia). "Polaris" is the name of the star that is currently the north star/pole star now. (Thanks virmaior) | []{} is the word you hear and see to refer to the North Star basically 100% of the time in present-day Japan. That is the word you learn in school as a kid and use the rest of your life.
[]{} is seen mostly in company names and such. I could not speak for other Japanese-speakers but I could say that the word is basically non-existent in my life for referring to the North Star.
Thus, is both far more "scientific" and "romantic". To me, there is not even comparison.
I would love to hear different opinions from my fellow Japanese-speakers here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Etymology and meaning of ukemi (受け身?) as part of 合気道
I practice . We do a lot of break falling that we call ukemi. I was led to believe that it meant safe escape from a technique. However, I started looking at the Japanese and found I only had part of the answer. I believe that ukemi can be translated as receiving body (). It is what uke (, whoever receives the technique) does when nage ( thrower?) or tori (, grabber?) applies a technique.
Am I correct in my assumptions?
Are my kanji correct?
* * *
Cross posted from **Martial Arts SE**. | Your kanji are correct. []{}[]{}. You can also write it []{}[]{}.
The general meaning of , however, is not "receiving body" but "passive." Thus, the passive voice "it is written by him" (vs. active "he writes").
I am not familiar with your martial art, but I would guess that it means you take a passive rather than active role in the combat -- receiving the action of others and responding to it.
* * *
I could imagine this being understood as "safe escape" if there are Buddhist overtones that imported in seeing actively fighting as being interested. But it's definitely not a very natural translation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "etymology, terminology, sports"
} |
Difference between 目覚める and 起きる
I searched for both they mean to wake up.
When do I need to use and . | literally means "to get up", while means "(your) eyes are opened". This can mean either literally (i.e., waking up from sleep) or metaphorically (come to one's senses, come to a realization). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
What does 'hikarian' mean?
'Hikarian' (full name '') is a Japanese anime that I was in fond of when I was a child, but I have no idea what does 'hikarian' mean. Oxford dictionary tells me that 'hikari' has only one meaning - light, and in wiki I found that 'hikari' is a kind of train service in Japan, which makes lots of sense for me to understand 'hikarian'. Now the issue is that what does the ending 'an' mean in 'hikarian'? Does the word 'hikarian' make any sense?
P.S. As you may notice in the full name that 'hikarian' is the only katakana, is it supposed to be a name of a character? | "Hikarian" is a proper noun, and unique to this anime. Ordinary dictionaries don't have this word.
In the Wikipedia article, I can see almost all of the characters are named after Japanese trains or famous stations. English Wikipedia article has many links to the original Japanese trains.
According to the Japanese article, "Hikarian" is the name of a planet ()(=star) and the name of aliens (humanoids) living in that planet. The main heroes in the anime seem to be all Hikarians. So I think the ending "-an" is English suffix "-an", as in _American_ or _christian_. The word was created by someone to mean "people in Hikari planet". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, anime"
} |
What is the difference between 「一応」and 「一時的に」
I wrote the sentence:
>
The appropriate word to use is as suggested by a native speaker. However, when I asked the difference between the two words, I wasn't given an answer. As far as I understand, both words mean "tentatively" or "for the time being". Is this not correct? | is "as a quick, dirty, incomplete [resolution / strategy / answer / explanation]", and implies that there's a better way to do/explain/resolve something.
Examples:
> (implies something is preventing him from saying he's 100% fine)
>
> (he has done his homework, but not perfectly)
Your sentence:
>
Depending on the context, in this sentence means either "To put it plainly, ..." or "I know this is not good, but for now ...".
simply means "temporarily". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "words"
} |
Which form should be used: ろくしゅうかん or ろくしゅう?
The full sentence, which I had to learn was:
>
But I don't understand the meaning of the "-kan" that follows Can anyone please enlighten me when and why I have to use that suffix? | The here is in kanji, and this is used as a suffix to refer to a span of time. in your sentence is spelled in kanji and means "six weeks", but in a way that is more ambiguous than the English. Various suffixes can be added on the end to make things more specific, like {} to mean "the sixth week", or {} to indicate six weeks' worth of something, or {} for a span of time. Have a look partway down the Weblio entry for , for sense 1 under the reading for some examples of how this is used. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "suffixes, time"
} |
Telling the speaker apart from the person being spoken about
A recent question about the usage of quoted speech contained this interesting sample sentence:
>
Often when I read this kind of sentence, I wonder if `` is part of the quoted sentence, or the actor doing the quoting.
That is, can this sentence only be read as "They say that the people of Hylia were able to harness a mysterious power" (which seems to be the only reading considered in the aforementioned discussion), or is "The people of Hylia say that they (not necessarily the Hylians) were able to harness a mysterious power" also a valid reading?
If only the first reading is valid, is this possibly due to the usage of the particle `` versus ``, which would mark the speaker? | I would interpret it this way:
> []{}
> (They say that the people of Hylia were able to harness a mysterious power.)*
with or without the commas.
And I would write it this way:
>
>
> or
>
* * *
If was the subject of , then I would expect something like this:
> **XX**
> or
> **XX** ****
>
* * *
*I interpreted your sentence this way maybe because of the words that are being used. If I read, for example:
> []{}[]{}
I would read it as "Mr Yamada claims that he was able to walk on stilts as a child," with or without the commas. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "syntax, quotes, parsing"
} |
Meaning of そうして
I can't completely understand the meaning of in the following dialogue. As far as I can guess it is similar to , but what is the point of using ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
is the speaker, .
Translation attempt:
> I understand that everyone is disturbed by me, who is speaking indifferently **like this**. | First, I assure you that your translation is already good. You understand the sentence structure perfectly. One might question if your word choices of "disturb" and perhaps "this" are best, but it is good that you understand that is a relative clause. If you had, as some would, placed a "mental comma" after the , it would have cost you a lot.
Regarding vs. , it is often a subtle choice. While I should not make a hasty comment by reading just a few lines from an entire book/story, we tend to use // to keep a certain distance between the narrator and the events decribed by him/her. "Objectivity" would be another word for "distance". This is usually the same even when the narrator is the first-person.
> "~~~ by me, who is speaking (as) matter-of-factly as that." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Middle Dot (中黒) in Non-Japanese Names
My previous question about ellipses () in Japanese got me thinking about the middle dot () in foreign names.
When I was in college, I learned that if you have a non-Japanese (or, rather, non-kanji) name, you should put a in between your first name and last name.
For example:
However, when exchanging e-mails with a native Japanese speaker, I will often see a katakana name typed with a space in between the first and last name:
For example:
Which is technically correct: middle dot () or space ()? As a non-native Japanese speaker, I prefer a space, but does a space look incorrect/confusing/unaesthetically pleasing to a native Japanese speaker?
Thanks! | Also referred to as {}, I prefer it over a space because it looks and feels better. Traditionally, Japanese was not written with spaces. So style-wise, I think it is more appropriate to use instead of space. Nowadays with English and global influence, I am seeing spaces used a lot more, especially in digital text.
Secondly, it depends on where the name is located within the text. For example, if you are writing the name at the top of an email, then a space wouldn't be so unnatural. However, if the name is within a newspaper article, then the entire text is broken up by the use of this space. Using a in this situation would preserve the flow of the text.
To summarize, I don't think there is a 'technically correct' answer. Both are correct and it just depends on which style you prefer, whether personal style or a formally established style. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "punctuation"
} |
How would you say "this song is played" and "in some places/cities" in natural Japanese?
I'm having trouble saying the following thing in Japanese: "This song is played when the traffic light turns green in some places in Japan."
Specifically, I don't what would be 'the most natural/correct way' to say "this song is played" and "in some places".
Thank you in advance. | "This song is played when the traffic light turns green in some places in Japan."
"this song is played" is ""
"in some places" is "" or ""
Hope this helps! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What is this 10^40 thing?
While checking out "" (as in , specifically) I found that apparently one of the associated meaning would be 10^40 (i.e. 10 elevated at the 40th power).
Example -taken from Tangorin.com:
sei noun / noun with genitive case particle :
1. (logical) true; regular
2. 10^40
3. original —Abbreviation. →
4. positive; greater than zero; —Mathematics term. →
10^40 is a pretty large number (estimated number of water molecules on Earth: approx. 4.5x10^48) and I wonder if this is to be intended as "infinite", or if not, when is this specific "meaning" supposed to be used. | It is legit. From
> ⑦ 11040
Also, from the Wikipedia JP page on " ()").
> 1040
You can see a list of these numerical terms for large numbers on the Wikipedia JP page on "". Oh, here's an English version.
That said, while has the corresponding entry for each in the list, and do not list the definition for everything from (1024) to (1048) inclusive.
Additionally, the Wikipedia JP page on " ()") mentions that
>
i.e. the terms for 1016 () and upwards are rarely used nowadays. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning, numbers, word usage"
} |
Expressing a mild preference
I'm wondering how to express a very mild preference towards an option when being offered several choices in a conversation (e.g. when arranging a meeting time with a colleague).
I am familiar with the expressions .. and .. , but both feel stronger than what I want to say.
Essentially I'm trying to complete this sentence with something natural-sounding:
X | > a very mild preference
How about using []{} etc. as in
>
> []{}/
> []{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "phrase requests, questions"
} |
Regarding the meaning of ～曲げて捉えて
I was translating some stuff and ran into this line: .
Now, as the title said, my main issue here is the "" bit; would it be correct for me to read it as something like "misunderstanding"?
As in: "It seems you're misunderstanding (the point of) my words"?
I went with that because it seems like the + would work as the point of the speaker's words being distorted and THEN wrongfully grasped? So, misunderstanding seemed like the proper choice.
Any confirmation or clarification is appreciated.
Thanks for the help! | Trusting that the unmentioned subject of the verb []{}[]{} is the listener as shown in your TL, I might go with something like:
> "I feel that you're distorting my meaning, (I'm afraid)."
"Misunderstanding", to me sounds kind of too innocent (unless that fits the larger context better). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
} |
Looking for references on 複合格助詞
I am currently doing research on automatic case frame () acquisition and its applications. A case frame describes the syntactic structure of a predicate by providing a canonical representation of its syntactic structure (also known as ). Traditionally, contain only non-complex case-marker (e.g. , , , ), however, for some applications in computational linguistics, we are also interested in complex case-markers () such as , , , , and so on.
Do you know of any comprehensive study on ? Is there a list of most frequent ?
At the moment, the best I have is the list given in but it lacks some common (e.g. ).
[EDIT] Thanks to @snailboat I also got the list proposed by Samuel Martin in _Reference Grammar of Japanese_ (about 200 phrasal postpositions). As the author noted:
> (...) it is difficult to give clear criteria for what is, and what is not, a phrasal postposition. | Samuel Martin calls these **phrasal postpositions** in his 1975 _Reference Grammar of Japanese_. Starting on page 577 he produces a list of over 200 of these, giving literary and modern forms where applicable, marking whether or can be inserted between the elements, whether a polite version is available (as in for ), and so on. Although you're unlikely to be satisfied that this list is complete, it could make a good starting point. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, syntax"
} |
Why is the kanji for luck the same as to carry?
Why is the kanji for () the same as the kanji for ? Did the kanji just somehow end up being the same, or were the two meanings related somehow? All I can think of is some kind of "carrying luck", but that doesn't seem right. | I think there are multiple interpretations of this character, but it's clearly a combination of (from ) and , which suggests the movement-related meaning came first and "luck" was a derived meaning. But how was it derived? Here's what Henshall has to say:
> is **movement** 129\. is **army** 466 q.v. Some scholars take the latter in a literal sense, giving **army on the move** and by association **transportation** and the **fortunes** of war. Others take it to act phonetically to express **round** , as well as lending its own connotations of both **circle** and **vehicle** (from a circle of vehicles), thus giving a meaning of **vehicles rolling along** , and hence **transport**. **Luck** is then felt to stem from an association between fortune and circular/cyclic movement.
It seems like the exact way it came to mean "luck" is unclear, but there you have a couple possible ways it could have happened. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, etymology, history"
} |
Why was "一匹" used for Godzilla?
I've heard someone say that "{}" was used at the end of the original Godzilla movie, with Dr. Yamane saying that Godzilla wasn't the last one of "them".
Why did he use that, as opposed to "{}"? Do Japanese speakers sometimes use the wrong counter to be ironic, or is there another reason? | There is certainly a reason for that. In this case, it is for expressing Yamane's (or the human kind's) derogatory feelings toward Godzilla.
The counter []{} simply does not carry that derogatory connotation among us Japanese-speakers; It can only be neutral. In case this is what you are wondering about, the size of Gozilla does not matter as Godzilla is way too large to begin with. The general real-life rule of " for smaller animals and for larger animals" does not apply here.
[]{}, however, does just the job when used in the right context. With it, you can "say" out loud "little f*****" without actually saying it.
Believe it or not, can even be used to refer to humans if they are your enemies. In sports, excited fans often use it to refer to the opponents. You will hear people say something like , at the bottom of the 9th inning with two outs in baseball. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 44,
"question_score": 38,
"tags": "counters"
} |
I wish I hadn't gone there
I would like to translate this pattern "I wish I had/hadn't done XXX", precisely within this context: I went somewhere and I wish I actually hadn't.
I could come up with:
>
Whereas Google Translate says:
>
Who's right and are there different ways to express this? | Most naturally, it would be:
>
Colloquially and naturally,
>
The Google Translate has given you gibberish this time as it usually does. It makes little sense as it means:
"I pray that I did not go there."
The speaker does not even know if he went or not. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Meaning of 「生きるにしても死ぬにしても」
In the video game Mother 3, there is a group of beings called the Magypsy, who are rumored to be very old. While talking to humans, one of them says the following:
> 100
Note: The game's text is in almost all kana; kanji are mine. The original text is,
While my guess is that this means something along the lines of, "A human life, from beginning to end, lasts at best a hundred years", I'm wondering about the exact meaning of the construction. Jisho translates as "even if", but I can't find a way to phrase this sentence like that - "... even if they live, even if they die..." doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Is this some grammatical form I'm not familiar with, or is it perhaps my interpretation of the sentence that's the problem? | The sense of both verbs is active rather than passive sense. In that case "live or die as they might" could be a closer interpretation.
It may refer to the fact that humans barely live longer than a hundred years despite their best efforts, and nothing that they do lasts more than a century (thus the "die as they might" part).
As for , it might make more sense if you interpreted it as "even if one (actively does an action)", rather than the simplistic "even if". It pertains to the consideration of the performance of some action, rather than referring to the action happening.
For considering the passive happening of some action, would be your ticket. For example, would mean "Whether it may rain or it may be sunny, I've got my umbrella so there's no problem."
If we were to substitute for , it would anthropomorphize the weather by giving it some sort of "will", as in "Whether the rain chooses to fall, or the weather decides to be sunny..." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
What is the difference between -さん and -さま?
Recently I watched the film "The Wind Rises" by Studio Ghibli in Japanese with English subtitles. I heard one of the children referring to an elder as [name]-. I was wondering, what is the difference between - and -?
Any answer would be appreciated. | Sama () is a markedly more respectful version of san. It is used mainly to refer to people much higher in rank than oneself, toward one's guests or customers (such as a sports venue announcer addressing members of the audience), and sometimes toward people one greatly admires and can be used for either gender.
See the Wikipedia article Japanese honorifics | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "suffixes"
} |
What is this use of と辛い
In the sentence
>
I'm a bit unclear as to what is actually supposed to mean (or even if it's supposed to separately be and ).
As far as my understanding goes:
means something like "become (someone's) girlfriend"
in this context, I think, means "painful"/"bitter"
So perhaps "(someone) was hurt by becoming girlfriend to friend" (in other words, they broke up?) What's the use of here? | This looks to me like a case of the conditional , basically meaning 'if/when'. The sentence then breaks down like this:
> [[]]
You've got a bit wrong - it's not 'become a girlfriend' but rather 'get a girlfriend'. You have to figure out what is doing here, also. The '[someone] gets a girlfriend' doesn't have a marked subject or agent in English, but it has a subject in Japanese that isn't the agent, so the agent (in this case 'a friend') is added with . So is 'a friend gets a girlfriend', and is then 'when a friend gets a girlfriend'. The whole sentence then works out to something like 'it's tough when your friend gets a girlfriend'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, particle と"
} |
What does [可愛が]りたい mean and how to use it?
Touka o kawaii ga ritai kimochi, osae rare nai yo.
The example sentence is like that. I'm wondering if this ritai here is in the same use as aritai like in Questions about .
What I know is that means cute and since is a direct object particle, it makes
Touka is cute
is feelings
is suppressed, and negates it, so it means cannot be suppressed, but the part makes me wonder.
If the use of here is the same as in that link above, then does it means the English translation would be
It can't be suppressed that I felt Touka is getting more and more cuter
? | comes from + , but is almost a word in its own right.
→ + = feel like / act like
…
comes from +
→ + = want (to do)
…
control one's feelings
/
unable to control one's feelings
want to fawn over Momoka
⇒(Someone) can't resist the desire to fawn over Momoka. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Ta form + ように + phrase with verb meaning/usage e.g. 拗ねたように頬を膨らませる
>
>
>
>
>
Could anyone explain these or how you interpret the ta form of the verb in these usages? | > "(Verb phrase A in - form) + + (Verb phrase B)" means: "(Someone) does/did/will B as if he did A (or A happened)"
[]{}[]{}[]{} = "(Someone) puffs out his cheeks as if he got sulky"
[]{}[]{} = "(Someone) nodded lightly as if he gave up"
[]{}[]{}[]{} = "(Someone) spoke out as if he got up courage" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
～ておく or ～とく for preparation (conjugation and nuance)
A few quick questions regarding and the casual form
Firstly, when changing from to the more casual I'm assuming the verb is first conjugated to the form then the is dropped and replaced with and it can then be conjugated following the godan conjugation pattern as in the examples below.
I.e.
> → →
conjugates as godan such that and . In the case of verbs that have a ending do they conjugate as
I.e.
> → →
also conjugates as godan such that and
Is my understanding correct here?
Also, are there any nuances that make it outright different from in terms of preparing for something? Is it simply that one of the sentences below feels more natural than the other?
For example
>
> vs
> | Yes, all your assumptions about about the conjugations are correct.
And far as comparing it to , simply means "intention (to do something)". It doesn't directly have anything to do with preparation or doing something beforehand. That it carries this mean in your example is incidental. With your sentence, the preparation is explicit; with the sentence, the preparation is implicit. But in general, using is not for preparatory situations.
> * → It snowed a lot last night, so I intend to go skiing this weekend.
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, conjugations, subsidiary verbs"
} |
Which is more natural: イエス様の救う恵み or 救うイエス様の恵み?
I'm trying to translate "Jesus's saving grace". Translating directly from English, the phrase that comes to mind is:
>
But I get the feeling that maybe it's more natural and articulate to put the verb first and the noun modifier second:
>
In English, this sort of ordering would amount to "saving Jesus's grace", which is not what's intended, but maybe it's more natural and people would understand what it really means.
So I almost asked this question to see which of those two would be more natural, but now I'm also starting to think that maybe instead of using , I should use . Is this so? What's the most natural, articulate way to say this? Thanks! | As a Christian who worked at a Japanese church, I can say that `` and `` are both fine, although the latter is somewhat ambiguous in parsing, i.e., it could be parsed as either
> * () → Jesus' grace that saves.
> OR
> * () → The grace of Jesus, who saves.
>
To disambiguate it, you could add in a
> * ****
>
Either way, the phrase beginning with sounds more refined/formal to my ear. And of course, if you're saying this in a more familiar setting (like to other Christians), you can leave off completely.
And not to dump on @Tim's answer, but I have never heard any Japanese Christian use ``. Sounds way too dictionary and impersonal. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, translation"
} |
What is a word meaning "to ask"?
I've needed to use a word "to ask" recently, and the word I decided on was []{}. But I have strong doubts that this is actually the right word to use in a situation such as this:
> I would like to ask you something. (e.g. about my name, about what time it is)
Is there a better word to use than []{} for "ask" in this case? I've heard of []{}, but in both cases I can't find anything on how to use either of them in an actual sentence. | Without a doubt, the single most natural verb choice among us native speakers is:
> []{} (sometimes written as )
= "Can I ask you a question?" More literally, "There is something I want to ask, OK?"
= "Can I ask you a question?" (Literally.)
[]{}[]{} = "Ask me anything!"
, though some J-learners seem to use it as if it were the default verb, is actually too big a word for everyday conversations. They should know that it sounds pretty formal.
is used much more often than by native speakers but we definitely use more often than in informal situations. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Causative form + te form + another verb construction
In this specific case:
>
So, what's the meaning of such a construction? I understand what each thing does alone (the causative form, the te form and the verb in past indicative), But what happens when we jumble it all together?
For context, the complete phrase I'm trying to understand is:
> | (causative verb form) + + expresses receiving the permission (or opportunity) to perform an action from another person.
in meaning. Former is only politer than the latter.
> []{} means "I/We received the permission to take/collect ~~."
>
> One could also use as a translation "I/We had the pleasure of taking/collecting ~~."
Note that I personally do not write supplementary verbs (in this case, ) in kanji. That is actually the rule both in schools and the printed media.
> []{}[]{}, therefore, means:
>
> "These are the data from (or "on") the teachers that I/we had the pleasure of collecting at different times."
(Without further context, one could not tell if it is "from" or "on/regarding".) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "verbs, syntax, て form, causation"
} |
Are katakana names pronounced as they are written?
My name is Laurence. I would write this in Japanese as ` (rorensu)`. My question is, when I introduce myself, do I pronounce my name as it is in katakana, or as it is in English?:
That is, would I say this:
Laurence --> Laurence desu
or this:
--> Rorensu desu
This is just an example. I am also asking about _all_ loanwords, for example:
Soccer --> Soccer ga daisuki desu
vs
--> Sakkaa ga daisuki desu
To summarise, **are Katakana loanwords pronounced as they are written in Japanese, or as they are pronounced in their country of origin?** | As a general rule, yes loan words are pronounced just as they are written. I say general rule because I have noticed bilingual announcers on the radio who mix English and Japanese do sometimes insert the original pronunciation into their Japanese sentences.
As far as your name is concerned, yes it would be normal to say it as you write it in katakana: When you are trying communicate something on the phone, for example, you don't want people getting distracted with an unpronounceable name, or, off the phone, unwilling to talk to you because they can't say your name properly.
When people meet for the first time names are often an easy talking point, even among Japanese people who ask each other what Kanji they use. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "pronunciation, katakana, names"
} |
How to properly pronounce コップ?
How to properly pronounce (meaning: cup)? Should it be + short and quick + soundless or something different BTW, is there a good online source where I can look up word with proper Japanese pronunciation? | As for the pronunciation, read as it is written in katakana. There is no special rule you have to consider.
However, both and are commonly used in Japanese, and that may be the source of confusion. So let's see the difference.
* : pronounced as _KOPPU_. This roughly corresponds to a mug, but can refer to a cylinder-shaped cup made of glass like this. A paper cup is called .
* : pronounced as _KAPPU_. Used for etc. Interestingly, a mug is , but is more commonly used than . I don't know why. And World Cup is , not .
* : a drinking glass. , , etc. Glass as material is called .
Google's image search would be the best tool to grasp the idea. I think you have to just memorize when to use and when to use ... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, pronunciation"
} |
Recognizing a Kanji?
One of my friends is translating some stuff, and he told me he needs "a second opinion for this one since he's having troubles to identify the first one".
I know the second one is , but I really can't identify the first one. I belived for a second it was Katakana, but I've checked both of my basic tables (my Japanese is extremely basic, worse than my English though), and I really can't find it.
I've tried to search words that end with , but that would be extremely slow, so I wanted to ask you guys, is this a Kanji? If so, which one?
!Is the first one a kanji? | This is actually two words: one consisting of two characters in katakana () and the other is in hiragana () - together . is often written using katakana as .
The meaning depends on the context but could be "don't do it", "no", "it's not good", "you should not do it", "that's wrong". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, katakana"
} |
Properly translating a conditional
>
>
I would translate this to:
> Even if I could meet you by chance,
> I would never leave your hand a second time.
That is because of the following analysis: moshi, if; mo, even; kimi, you; ni, preposition required by meguriau; meguriaetara, -tara form of potential of meguriau, meet by chance; nido to, a second time; kimi, you; no, possessive particle; te, hand; wo, object marker; hanasanai, negative present of hanasu, let go of. Trouble is, I've seen translations of this, which is from Time After Time by Mai Kuraki, which translate it more or less as:
> Even if I had met you by chance,
> I would not have left your hand a second time.
But if hanasanai is present, why should I translate it with a past conditional? Wouldn't it make more sense to translate it as a present one? It _is_ true that -tara contains the past suffix -ta, but so what? Does it necessarily imply a past action? And if so, why use the present in the apodosis? | > But if hanasanai is present, why should I translate it with a past conditional?
You shouldn't.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to translate it as a present one?
Indeed. Or a future tense.
> It is true that -tara contains the past suffix -ta, but so what? Does it necessarily imply a past action?
No. The -ta is aspectual, i.e. it explains what will happen "after having met" _you_. It works because happens after .
The distinction of aspect and tense is subtle in Japanese, but as a very rough rule, I usually say that -ta (etc.) expresses **past tense** in matrix verbs, i.e. main clauses (usually the last verb in Japanese sentences), and **perfective aspect** in other positions (subclauses, relative clauses etc). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, conditionals"
} |
The song in my thought
>
>
1. `The song of returning thoughts` or `The song returning in [my] thoughts`?
2. Does `yasashiku` at the end imply a verb or is it a sort of continuous form, as I sometimes seem to see done with -i forms of verbs? Maybe it is from `yasashiku naru`, so both things? | means "come to life again". means, a song that makes you nostalgic. So in this case, the nostalgic song which was shelved in his/her mind came to life again probably because he/she heard it again.
"" means "still tender" and roughly means "to my heart". I.e. "Still tender to my heart". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
[因果]{いん・が}: A bass-ackwards contraction?
In Japanese, we often see where the beginnings of multiple words are taken to make a contraction word.
> * → **** **** → A juniour college
> * → **** **** → income and expenditure; earnings and expenses
> * → **** **** → The United Nations
> * → **** **** → Remote control(ler)
>
However, `` is an abbreviation for **** ****. I can't say I've seen any other words formed by combining the end pieces. Why did come about this way? Why isn't the abbreviation ``?
If you have other examples please list them.
* * *
Edit: Oops, yes, of course I meant ``, not ``. I was multitasking and my wires got crossed. | Perhaps the following would reek of Chinese thinking, where for example is traditionally thought of as _two_ words.
= of the , i.e. causing reason
= which has , i.e. the produced result
Both words arose in Chinese as a way to eliminate homophones by adding redundant adjectives (obviously all reasons are causing, and all results are produced). The original words are simply and ; thus they are used in compounds. Put it another way, the compound "" probably is older than the words "" and "", which came after sound changes caused much homophones.
This is similar to how {} had too many homophones and useless was added, and {} had too many homophones and was added; you still use and in compounds though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "words, abbreviations"
} |
つー事 as a sentence starter
What does it mean when people start sentences with ? Is it an abbreviation of something else?
Two examples of such are:
| is the common contracted form of and furthermore, of .
In the order of formality, it is and . Learners should know that among the three, borders on slang. DO NOT use it with your teacher, boss, etc.
Needless to say, is pronounced exactly the same as . (That is only if you are pronouncing correctly in a single syllable.)
All of these forms are quotative in function and meaning, referring to what has already been discussed, implied or has been shared as common knowledge between the speaker and the listener.
> means "and so", "therefore", etc. when it comes at the beginning of a sentence. It is also sometimes used in colloquial speech as a conversation-ending phrase meaning "That is all I have to say." In that case, it is said just before saying good-bye.
>
> comes at the beginning of a sentence and it means "So, that means ~~" or "If that is the case". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
} |
Email: 「回答」vs「返事」
In the context of email sending, in order to acknowledge an email which is better?
>
>
>
Also, if you have some rules on when to use either, it would be much appreciated! | It all depends on the content of your most recent correspondence.
> If the other person has answered an important question that you had asked previously, you can use []{} as means "an answer to a question".
I used the word "important" because something like "How are you?" is not one of the questions I am talking about here.
The honorific would be a nice touch most of the time, but it would be optional if you were way "above" the other person.
> If no Q&A has been performed recently, you cannot use the word like above. You can say, instead, []{} as only means "reply".
That honorific is used virtually 100% of the time in this set phrase regardless of your relationship with the other person. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Confusion with the の particle
I am currently learning basic grammar using the Tae Kim's guide to japanese. In one of his examples he roughly translates this sentence:
> ****
as " _Do you think [he/she] will really eat this type of thing?_ "
My question is, how does the possessive **** particle make this sentence different from for example:
> | here is not a possessive , it's a nominalizer, a formal noun. is adjectival and cannot by itself constitute a noun phrase.
In other words, means "this type of", means "this type of thing". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, words, meaning, particles, particle の"
} |
How to say farewell in 敬語?
Is just acceptable as a 'goodbye' in , or is there a more formal version? | is used mainly by school children, but adults use this less commonly in everyday conversations. Here's the list of possible expressions:
* : Typically used after work. This is only polite enough to say goodbye to your colleagues. Don't say this to important external guests.
* (): Typically used when leaving (and entering) an office, conference room, etc. You can use (without ) at the end of a phone conversation.
* () : Even more polite one with a humble form.
* : Very polite greeting, which is described elsewhere. It's unlikely that you hear this in a business setting.
And there are shortened forms: These are no longer considered as "polite", but are very frequently used, instead of , among colleagues who know well each other. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "expressions, keigo"
} |
Is こればよかった correct or not?
The Tanos JLPT list contains this sentence:
> Disneyland was very interesting. You should have come with us.
But the accepted answer at Chiebukuro for ... says:
>
>
>
Also, my IMEs refuse to convert into , and Rikaichan does not give any meaningful translation for .
Is there a contradiction, or am I misunderstanding something?
Is correct?
Is correct?
If there are several definitions of "correct", I am interested in what JLPT deems "correct". | I think the correct form in standard Japanese is []{}, since Wiki says of is .
I think is a typo or an error. Maybe the person who wrote this uses a regional dialect and typed (unconsciously or carelessly?), and it was not converted into kanji so they just left it as it was. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "conjugations"
} |
Is 「うそおっしゃい」 to be taken literally here?
In the video game Ripening Tingle's Balloon Trip of Love, the protagonist Tingle meets a fortune teller who demonstrates her powers to him. She asks him, "You come from a far away town, right?" If Tingle answers, "No", she responds:
> !
>
Now, from what I understand, `` means, "You're lying". However, since she continues with "I understand, you're lost...", it doesn't sound like she really disbelieves.
In this context, is `` to be taken literally, or is it a set phrase expressing astonishment like, "You must be kidding" ? | First, is the imperative form of the verb []{}, which is the honorific form of []{}.
means the exact **_opposite_** of what it means literally. Its literal meaning is "Tell a lie!", but that is clearly not something a person would say under normal circumstances, is it?.
Thus, always means
> "Don't lie (to me)!"
A more common form is:
>
which also literally means "Tell a lie!", actually means "Don't lie!" 100% of the time.
The nuance of these phrases is "Lie all you want; I can see through you!", "Lie if you want but it won't work!", etc. Thus, you are, in essence, saying "C'mon, don't lie to me!" These expressions are loosely called []{}.
(Nothing to do with the question, really, but in this context means "I". The speaker is using it like a first-person pronoun in talking to a younger person. This is very common in Japanese.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 25,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, set phrases, imperatives"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.