INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
ใใใใฆ or ใใใใฆ word-request
![enter image description here]( is my first time asking a question so I'm pretty excited! Thanks a lot in advance for taking your time to read my rant. At the moment I'm working on a translation, but I'm having problems with a word that's hard to define because it's hand written. This is the phrase: But when I look for "Kuyuete" meaning, even if I split the word in two, I didn't found any meaning. It seems I have three totally useless japanese dictionary's because I didn't found anything at all. So I tried with: "Kumeete" but I didn't have luck neither. Have you heard about those words? I've been looking for it about 1 week. Thanks a lot!
Edit: I added the image text, it seems the real word is " **** " instead "" and finally after a loong research I think "" it's the word I'm looking for.
|
The verb you are looking for is **** , which means " ** _to hold between one's teeth_** ".
(This has nothing to do with {} ("to add").)
{} means "the part (someone) was holding between his teeth"
**** makes no sense.
{}("to dip up") does not conjugate to . It can only conjugate to **** .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, word requests"
}
|
Tense in noun modifying clauses?
When modifying nouns, if the noun you're modifying is a person, can the noun modifying clause be past tense? So if I wanted to say:
> The person I saw yesterday is here again today.
Which is correct?
> 1. ****
>
> 2. ****
>
>
|
In this case past tense is correct and it's irrelevant if it's a person or an inanimate object.
But there are more points to be careful about in your sentence:
* no need to use after the
* is a state verb, so it should be (instead of )
* also no need for after , in fact you would want to stress the fact it happens again, so fits here
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "tense, nouns, modification"
}
|
What is the meaning of ใจ in this sentence?
Its from the song "Stay with me";
>
Also, is there a better way to translate the 'naide' form of a verb than "without doing"? It sounds quite odd I think.
|
This could be the quoting ``:
"Don't go!", [she] cried.
Or the the contidional one (though it's unlikely here , as mentioned by @snailplane below):
When [she] said "Don't go", [I] cried.
To tell which it is, we'd need more context.
* * *
**EDIT**
I found the lyrics (Stay with me by ) and the song goes like this:
Stay with me...
Stay with me
So it seems the first version is correct, except the subject is the singer.
> I cried, pleading "Don't go!".
(changed slightly to avoid the double meaning of the English verb "cry")
The other stanzas also use the quoting `` many times.
* * *
As for ``, here it is short for ``, i.e. it's a request to not do something (go back in this case). See also Why don't we use instead of ?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, particle ใจ, negation, imperatives"
}
|
Difference between ๅฉใใใใใใใใ and ๆใใใใใใ
What is the difference between the verbs and ?
Apparently, both mean _to save_.
* * *
When searching on Google, I found the same question asked on Yahoo! :
>
I was able to understand the question, but my Japanese knowledge is far from enough to understand the answer. Anyway, it would be helpful to have this question asked in English so other beginners could have a chance.
|
means to help. Not to save. About the same as extend a helping hand.
means to save. When helping suffering people and talking about religions, you can use this.
In everyday life, you should _not_ use . It sounds odd.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, nuances, verbs"
}
|
How Could One Read 4649?
In the Japanese version of Smash 4 for the Wii U, if you let the game come up with a name for you, one of the names it pops out is 4649. I'm assuming this is some joke based on the readings of the numbers being read as a name, but I can't quite decipher what it's supposed to be. Does anyone have any insight on this?
|
I think it's []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}......
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "names, numbers, puns"
}
|
Confusing use of ใจใใ in ใๆฅใใจใใไฝใ็จใใใ
The speaker is experiencing unusual levels of politeness after visiting the house of a relative who wants them to do a favour (he didn't visit with the knowledge that she wants a favour):
>
> _As soon as_ I came can I help you?
I'm not sure which part I'm failing to understand. I was sure meant 'the moment that'/'as soon as'. And I thought that meant 'can I help you?', but when I put the two together it makes no sense at all.
|
While " ** _Can I help you?_** " is one good way of translating {}{} in some situations, this is not one of those situations.
Here, something like " ** _So, you want a favor, eh?_** " would fit much better.
> "As soon as I arrive(d), you want a favor, eh?"
I should perhaps mention the fact that "You want a favor (or something), eh?" is a far more literal TL of than "Can I help you?" is. The latter is a fairly free translation.
That is because the part of the ending makes the phrase feel/sound more like a statement than a question. adds a mildly exclamatory or even accusatory tone to the sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, reading comprehension"
}
|
Can homophonic kanji (in this case ๆจ and ๆจ) be used purely to avoid repetition?
I came across this sentence in :
>
My understanding is that , unlike , can convey not only resentment but also regret. My questions are the following:
(1) Does carry anything like this connotation in the context of ""? Does "" express something less aggressive than ""?
(2) Are two different kanji for used here simply to avoid repeating kanji within a short span of text? If so, does this practice generally nullify the particular connotations of the homophonic kanji in question? For example, if were used purely to avoid repetition, could it ever connote regret, or would it only express resentment?
|
(1)It cannot be determined whether the โโ include regret or not. More before and after sentences are needed for me to judge it.
(2)Recently even Japanese can rarely distinguish these two kanji for because "" is way more common, and almost nobody without writers of pure literature uses "". However, I suppose that your practice sentence was quoted from a pure literature, so that the author used these two different Kanji to differentiate the meaning. To avoid the repetition of same Kanji, they don't change the kanji itself but change the verb itself because they know, to be exact, every Kanji has a subtle different meaning from each other. In this case, I suppose "" contains regretful meaning, and "" express more aggressive and is pure curse to someone.
Anyway, Japanese except writers of pure literature don't use "" so much in daily life because they don't know the difference correctly.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "homophonic kanji"
}
|
Why does ใฏ refer to a particular rather than general in some cases?
The sentence I am asking about is the following
> [][][][][]
> Person who does not like fish like meat
>
> Source: Tae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese
My understanding, which is probably flawed in some aspect, is that after [][][] should make the sentence mean "People (in general) who do not like fish like meat", since would mean in general as opposed to a particular occurrence ().
How, then, would the general form be conveyed (i.e. "People (in general) who do not like fish like meat")?
|
You are correct and that website is incorrect on this matter.
Upon hearing/reading the sentence:
> โ {} โโ {} โโ {} โโ {} โโ {} โ
Practically all Japanese-speakers will take the to mean " _ **people in general**_ ". It is just _**extremely**_ unnatural to form that sentence when the speaker/writer is referring to one particular person.
To alter the sentence so it talks about a particular individual, one could say:
> or more naturally,
>
> **** **** โUses a pair of the contrastive 's.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "particle ใฏ, particle ใ"
}
|
the ใซ่กใใพใ construction and particles
I know the (place)(noun)(verb) construction, but I also know that in some instances the particle can indicate the place where we're going. Is it possible to use instead of in this construction? For example, to say ? If not, why?
Is it any different when there is no noun, just (place)(verb)?
|
In saying "going _**to**_ a place", nearly all Japanese speakers, myself included, would use both and interchangeably. That is the cold fact whether or not the strictest grammarians would approve of it.
Both of these sentences are correct and natural-sounding:
> {} **** {}{}{}
>
> ****
Saying that the two sentences mean different things would be nitpicking.
> Is it any different when there is no noun, just (place)(verb)?
No, it is the same. Either or can still be used to indicate the destination.
It is perfectly OK to use _**two**_ 's because the meanings/usages are different. One indicates destination and the other, purpose. For instance, you can say:
**/** {} ****
is the purpose of your visit. It just needs to be conjugated into its continuative form to connect to the purpose-marking particle .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle ใซ, particle ใธ"
}
|
problem to find this kanji
Can you help me with this kanji , I can't find it ... ![enter image description here](
|
It's . It can mean quite a few things depending on the context, but it's probably "use".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Meaning of ใใช at the end of this sentence
What is the meaning of at the end of the following sentence? (I divided it into 3 pieces because this is how it's written on the manga page it is taken from. Source:
> "" // //
I read on dictionaries that can indicate a wish, or uncertainty, but I think it has just an emphatic value in this case. My attempt:
> "Jin Saito" is not what he looks like / I know it 'cause I've always watched him / (But?) There's no way I can say it
I would also be grateful if you could correct any error in my translation, thank you!
|
+ + + +
In this context,
"though", "although".
here is a sentence-ending particle expressing a light kind of declaration.
> {}โ
therefore, is Kanto tough guy speech for:
> {}
= " ** _There is no way I'm gonna tell him, though._** "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles"
}
|
How would I express the sentiment "Remind me again tomorrow"?
Consider the following conversation:
> **Miss A:** Mr B, could you please pick up the customer at the airport tomorrow?
>
> **Mr B:** Oh yes, could please remind me again tomorrow?
How would I in a natural way express Mr B's wish to be reminded again lest he forgets.
My first guess would be something along the lines of:
> B
However this doesn't convey the meaning of "reminding". Another way could be:
> B
But I'm not sure you can use in this manner. Is there some better way of expressing the intent to "remind me again later"?
|
'To remind' is one of the verbs that are difficult to directly translate into Japanese. is grammatically and semantically correct, but sounds fairly unnatural to me.
is fine, but would be better. You may add , or something to make it sound clearer and milder.
**EDIT:** Some businesspersons might say , too, which may be safe depending on where you work at.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "words"
}
|
What is the grammatical form for the ungrammatical ๆจๆฅ้จใ้ใฃใใใใ ?
Consider the situation in which when I left my house in the morning for working, I found the street was wet. I think the following expression is ungrammatical.
>
Because (conjecture) must represent event that will happen in the future or represent the current state of something or someone.
>
does not make sense as well, right?
# Question
So what is the correct expression to say the following?
> There might be raining yesterday.
|
You can use that means "seeming to be" or "appearing to be":
> ****
>
> It seems that it rained yesterday.
* * *
By the way, is still a valid sentence which means "it seemed likely to rain yesterday."
This is valid because "" was a conjecture about future or present at the time it was made.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Another ใฏ and ใซ question for ใใใใใใญใขใๆชใใฆ่ฆใใชใใใ ใใ
>
> It's disgusting and I can't look.
Sometimes still confuses me. I assume I should parse this as () with an implied subject for i.e. 'it'.
I started reading as "I'm disgusting and ...". So the question is, is:
>
ambigous as a standalone statement ? Can it mean both "I am disgusting" and "It's disgusting for me"?
Can I disambiguate it by adding particle :
>
?
|
Yes,
>
has an inherent ambiguity whether it describes the subject's quality or feeling. Some words in English also have the problem, for example:
> I'm cold
could be both "I feel cold" or "I am cold-hearted". Thankfully Japanese has different word for each ( and ) so that we don't end up in confusion :)
But you could usually make use of context:
> โโ
> โ _I feel disgusted and cannot look at it_
>
> โโ
> โ (I think) _I am disgusting and he cannot look at me_
and so on.
> _Can I disambiguate it by adding particle :_
>
>> __
Yes, but it's more like rewording because it changes the meaning a bit. Typically it means "too disgusting for me".
It may be a dirty hack, but if you say **** it'll be understood almost solely as "I'm disgusted/sick".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใซ, particle ใฏ"
}
|
What does ๅฅ็ดๆ้:2ๅนด mean?
When looking for an apartment, I often see :2 written. What does it mean? I have to make a contract for 2 years and then it can be renewed or extended with some extra renewal cost? Can I rent just for 1 year?
|
As a sentence of Japanese, it just means the contract is valid for two years.
Practically, first you have to check whether it's or . The latter is uncommon but it means you cannot extend the contract and have to leave your apartment after the contract expires (3 years, for example). See:
Unless explicitly mentioned as **** , it's , which means you can basically rent the apartment as long as you want. Still, you need to renew your contract usually every two years. You may be charged additional 1 or 2 months of rent money under the name of ("contract renewal fee") unless otherwise mentioned as . In any case, you can leave your apartment before two years pass without penalty provided you notify the owner one month prior to the leaving date.
But there may be exceptions on a case-by-case basis, so you need to understand the contract. You can have a detailed explanation before you make a contract.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Confused on why ๆฅใฎๅบ and ๆฅใฎๅ
ฅใ mean what they do
So, it is my understanding that means sunrise and means sunset. However I'm having difficulty understanding why. to me would mean, "The sun's exit", and to me would mean "The sun's entrance". Can anyone help me better break down these nouns? Is there some meaning to and that I am missing?
|
The picture here is actually about the horizon ().
means that the sun "comes out" from the horizon.
means that the sun "goes into" the horizon.
Hope this could be helpful to you.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, particle ใฎ, nouns"
}
|
Saying goodbye to a store clerk
Many times I find myself saying thanks to a store clerk, flowed by their saying thank you very much. I am used to walking away saying bye or have a nice day, but am not sure what the equivalent is. What is the proper phrase for someone I don't know but a polite have a nice day. If this isn't common to do that is also good to know.
|
It isn't common, especially in those mass selling stores. Not I'm highly introvert, but most Japanese don't say anything, or just nod a little (which is a slightest form of bowing).
Of course, they do usual greetings as friends when the clerk and the customer have personal acquaintance (which is pretty often in my neighborhood store), but in most cases, the Japanese in-store conversation is the clerk unidirectionally greets the customer.
However, if you'd like to say something in response to clerk's ,
> ,
should not sound very weird, or in restaurants,
>
makes you polite.
In some one-man managed small shops or boutiques, you might feel the real necessity to say a word like:
> , , etc.
but in my opinion this sort is nothing but general social conversation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "greetings"
}
|
Understanding what ้ใซ means in context with an emotion
I'm having trouble understanding exactly what this person is saying to me. The context being that I was asked a question by them, and after responding they said this:
> โฆ
I believe: = Was that so!? And maybe: = Able to hear that and ...
But: = was oppositely relieved (?) Does this mean they became relieved, and were worried before (the opposite of relieved), or something else?
|
It means "(I probably shouldn't have heard that) but when I could hear that, I was rather relieved ."
in this sentence means "on the contrary", "rather". For example, (I failed, but on the contrary it was good).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, adverbs"
}
|
When angry we shout "F***!", but what do ๆฅๆฌไบบ shout?
I have to ask, when you kick a Japanese boy in the nuts or whatever, ignoring the obvious sounds a human makes when entering into such a state, what bits of language will they impulsively shout in their anger.
I ask this as in English we have a beautiful array of anglo saxon gems to choose from, but in Japanese what is the equivalent?
|
I am too soft-spoken a person to be familiar with cuss words, but here are some examples in no particular order.
* {}
*
*
*
* {}
*
*
*
* {}
* {}
*
*
* {}
*
*
*
* etc.
Around Nagoya, we have , which comes from the old, elegant word {}.
Stop me now or I'll be typing words/phrases I shouldn't be in public.
Note: is the slangy pronunciation of .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "word choice, culture"
}
|
Help understanding N๏ผใงใใ+ N
This is the the full sentence below:
> A:
>
> B:
> ****
The book I was reading was teaching that the is acting like in a respectful formBut I never heard that we can use N+ N before...
Is equals to or
|
I do not know why the "books" Japanese-learners use often give you incorrect information.
We do **_not_** say {} **** {}; We say **** .
The honorific form of that is **** . So, in meaning,
>
In these phrases, means "you", the listener.
> " ** _You, the specialist_** "
**** is fine, but is not. That , needless to say, is **_appositive_**. The appositive has been explained numerous times on SE.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does ็ทๅผตๆ{ใใใกใใใใ} in this sentence mean?
I am reading Yotsubato! (Link) manga (Ch.82, Pg.3) in Japanese. I came across this sentence:
> {}
 in front of him and says that he is nervous because the plate doesn't have flat surface and it wobbles. But when I try to translate it into English,
> (as for this lid) {} (nervousness) (exists)
Excuse my translating if it's not correct (I'm a beginner) but what I understood is, he is somehow feeling nervous about this plate or the plate is making him tense. What confuses me is the last part [].
If I am correct so far, this would mean something like, as for this lid, nervousness exists ? This is confusing me. Is this natural way of saying that something makes you feel nervous ?
|
Yes, it's obvious from the context that the sentence basically means "using this lid (as a plate) requires me to tense" because it wobbles.
(or, more commonly, ) may be used with something like or 2, but usually not with a . The sentence is definitely said in a comical, playful way. The "serious" version would be something like , but it would be less funny. Don't try to analyze this sentence too seriously.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, words, manga, word usage"
}
|
Help with constructing "yesterday I took a nap for a half hour" in Japanese
I tried (at least) to construct a sentence. However, when I showed it to a native-speaker and asked if it was correct they did not understand. But I can't see what is wrong with it...
>
What I tried to say:
> Yesterday I took a nap for an half hour.
Is this sentence incomprehensible?
|
> {} **** {}
By , you probably meant to say {} for "half an hour", but still we do not say in Standard Japanese. We say 30{}.
I have heard that they say to mean "half an hour" in Kansai (around Osaka, that is), but I am not sure if it is true. Hope someone can confirm this.
Also important is that you do **_not_** need to place a particle after 30. It is not even optional; You cannot use a particle there.
So, you will have:
> 30
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
ๅ่ฉ๏ผใฆใ a subtle grammatical nuance or an error?
> **** โฆ
|
โฆโฆ
โฆ
โฆโฆ ~~~~
โฆโฆ
โฆโฆโฆ
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does ๆฏใๅใใฆ mean in this context?
_I just started learning japanese a few months ago, and my japanese is a little basic, I can't understand some kanjis yet... Hope someone can help me... thanks!_
I was reading a manga, and while I was reading, a boy confessed his feelings to a girl, he said he liked her. But in the end, the girl is thinking:
>
And finally, the story ends there. I really couldn't understand what's the meaning of the sentence because I am struggling with the verb .
I searched and saw that is a form of . But, I read many meanings of the verb (like "manipulate", "abuse", or "worry"...) and I don't know which one of them is the correct one here.
Thanks for any help!
|
It means to involve someone into one's arbitrariness.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, verbs, conjugations, phrases"
}
|
ใใซใณใซใณใใจใใไฟ่ชใใใใฏๆน่จ
> **** โฆ
> โฆ
zokugo-dict
|
{}
{} {}
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
ใใงใใชใซใใจใฏใใฉใใใใใจ๏ผ
>
|
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, expressions"
}
|
Adjective + Tokoro Ga
I've been trying to translate the following sentence:
>
The part I think I have a problem with is:
>
> guai ga warui tokoro ga
I believe I picked up the "somewhere"/"anywhere" and the _-tari suru_ form of the verb _au_ correctly. However, I can't put it together with the two s and the after an adjective to make sense of the whole sentence.
Does the serves here purely as a noun? The rules I found for it are always with Verbs.
Which indicates the subject of the sentence?
|
In this case is being used literally ("place"), rather than in order to nominalize the preceding clause. So "" is actually modifying , making the sentence mean something along the lines of "There aren't any external wounds, but does anywhere (+) feel bad/off ()?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, particles"
}
|
ใๆฒขๅบต็ณใใจใฏใใใฃใใใชใใงใใ๏ผ
>
|
{}{}
{}
!enter image description here
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Sarcastic dialogue "Well, not as much as you need to"
Let's suppose there is a hypothetical tense conversation where one says:
โ Maybe you should try to think a little bit (or, "how about you think a little")
And the other person replies:
โ Well, not as much as you need to
How's the following:
> โ
> โ
|
Nice try but the last half of makes little sense.
Native speakers might say:
> {}{}{} or
>
>
This would change the meaning a little bit, but a _**very**_ common reply in this kind of situation is:
> or
>
>
I could make these more "street" and slangy if I wanted but since it's Christmas time, I will refrain from doing it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, nuances"
}
|
Meaning of verb + ใฎ+ ใงใฏใชใใใจใใ
How can I interpret this sentence:
>
In this paragraph:
> โโ ****
The translation is:
> By the way, have you heard of the term 'hobo-hobo'? Actually, this word was chosen for this year's New Word Prize which is held by Sanseido, which is a firm famous for making dictionaries. The criteria needed in order to be chosen as the New Word is that it has to be โa word represents that particular year, it wouldn't seem out of place to publish the word into the dictionary from here on, and that it is word that will more than likely become a household word in timeโ. I felt that this event was interesting since the word is chosen from a different viewpoint than that of the concept of the buzzwords contest, in that it is not a word that stays on your mind or creates an impact, but one that will gradually spread and may become a word that gets used in everyday conversation.
I don't know how fits in this sentence
|
I think it's not a fixed expression but just which just happened to be next to each other. If we split them, the sentence could be parsed like this:
> ****
>
> From now on, [this word] **might** gradually spread and become used in everyday speech
>
> ****
>
> an event of being chosen based on **such** a viewpoint
>
>
>
> [I] felt that it was interesting
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
}
|
ใใฒใใฃใใใใฃใฆใฉใใฎๆน่จ๏ผ
""
|
100
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "dialects"
}
|
whats the different usages of interjections ใกใใ, ใใ, ใใ?
I understand the meaning of interjections (, , , , ,, ). But i dont really know in what kind of situation i can use those words. Especially i would like to know the different of usages between , , , and the differences between , ,, , Here i give you the examples of the conversation, i found this in "One Piece"
> โโ
>
The other one
>
>
other one
>
> โ
So whats the nuances and can those word being substituent for one and another?
|
> , ,
As you know, these three all have the meaning of "no," if used as interjections.
First, has a stronger nuance of negation (close to "you're wrong"), compared to the others. I'm not sure if it is an interjection; can be interpreted as a complete sentence which consists of a single verb .
and are the same in the level of negation, but politeness is different. is polite and isn't.
* * *
> , ,,
Say "" when you can't understand, recognize or believe something. So this word implies that you are in doubt.
"" is suitable when you noticed something. It is similar to "" in that you can use it when you noticed but not fully recognized something.
"" is no more than its literal meaning "What?".
"" can be used in the same situation as "" but "" sometimes includes the nuance of strong denial (like "I can't _understand_ what the hell makes you say such a terrible thing")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, nuances, expressions, interjections"
}
|
ใใ or ใใ for the possession of a living thing
We all know that is to be used with inanimate objects and with animate, living things. However, almost all examples of usage that I've seen thus far is in the context of something or someone _being_ there. _There is a cat there_. _There is a man there._
What happens when it comes to listing the ownership of items? If I were to say that I own a cat, does the rule to usestill apply?
>
>
>
I get that usually one would use here, but this just for the sake of example)
In this case, the former sounds wrong (at least to me), even though it follows the rule. The latter vice versa.
In another example, what if I don't physically _own_ something, but rather have someone?
>
>
>
Both the above sound correct to me, even though in both example, the subject is living and should be used.
Can someone clarify?
|
We don't say when someone owns something whatever they are but it is used in indicating the existence of something animate. I feel is a bit unnatural to me but and () would be more natural.
The second your two sentences are unnatural because isn't used with animate objects as you know but is natural like .
In addition, has some meaning like (need), (shoot), (roast).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Provisional + ใใ + ใ + ใ ใ
โฆ
I think the here is the abbreviated resulting in .
I'm not sure how to connect it with the provisional form .
If the latter means: _It will be good if I somehow say..._ , then would the former modify the _will_ to _would_?
The result being: _It **would** be good if I somehow **said** (as in named this place)._
Is this interpretation correct? I was trying to translate it around being a noun. It made some sense due to the overall context, but felt like I'm forcing the meaning. Thank you.
|
First, you have misinterpreted the word .
You translate it as _somehow_ , but its meaning is _how_ or _in what way_.
The part is good, so the literal interpretation of is _It would be good if in what way I say._ So its meaning is _how I should say_.
Next, yes, is . The second point is that is an abbreviation of , whose meaning is _I wonder_ here.
So, translates to _I wonder how I should say._ In this case, however, _I wonder **what** I should say_ is actually closer to its nuance.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
Is ใใใๆ bad, or good?
Someone described climbing the Sydney Harbour Bridge as "". Is that supposed to mean cool, awesome (in the modern day positive meaning), and great, or does it mean terrifying?
Weblio doesn't have a dictionary definition, but the corpus examples given seem to suggest it means terrifying.
The main reason I'm wanting to check is that itself used to mean terrible, but now means amazing.
|
basically just means terrifying/terrified. / here works as an intensifier (="very", "really"). Climbing a bridge is indeed a terrifying thing, and the expression doesn't contain any hidden meanings.
In very limited contexts might be used to refer to something really extraordinary and awesome (e.g., a godlike FPS game player may be sometimes described as ), but it's fairly slangy.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Can ใใจใ be used as a noun describing the correction or the fact of correction?
Can {} be used as a noun for actual correction (or the fact of correcting oneself), or does it imply actually saying the word literally?
If someone describes their conduct using can it be used in both of the following situations:
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
>
or only the first one?
|
No, cannot be used as a noun. It can only be used as an interjection.
Thus, you _**cannot**_ say:
> ****
You _**can**_ say:
> ****
If you must use a _**noun**_ for some reason, you could say:
> {} **** or
>
> {}{} ****
(Hope I am reading your question correctly.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Can ๆฐใฅใ be used with quotation ใจ?
As in this example:
>
I think that the beginning says: "As for Mr. Lewis's Japanese, even Prof. ลta..."
And then the end is: "...[his Japanese] is so good to the extent that he [Prof.] didn't realise."
But did he not realise "if he was a foreigner", or that "he was a foreigner" just enclosed with the particle?
|
> Can {} ("to realize") be used with the quotative ?
Yes, it definitely can.
Why so? Because in Japanese, the quotative is used with far more verbs than English-speakers might associate with upon hearing/seeing the word " ** _quotative_** ".
Those verbs include:
{} "to say"
{} "to speak"
{} "to hear"
{} "to write"
{} "to think"
{} "to feel"
{} "to teach"
{} "to notice", "to realize"
There are **_many_** more. Crazy, isn't it?
> But did he not realise "if he was a foreigner", or that "he was a foreigner" just enclosed with the particle?
The latter. My TL would be:
> "Lewis's Japanese was excellent to the extent that did not even realize that he was a foreigner."
If this helps, . If imaginary quotation marks seemed to make sense for the word/phrase right in front of , you could be sure that it is the quotative .
In other words, thought that Lewis was a native Japanese speaker.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle ใจ"
}
|
Are there rules for omitting ใซin phrases?
> "Kurai mori, samayou"
translates to "in the dark forest you wander". Is the comma here replacing the function of ni? can you always replace it this way or is it specific to this sentence?
|
> Is the comma here replacing the function of ni?
No, it isn't -- in two meanings.
* * *
First, your phrase " _kurai mori, samayou_ " ([]{}[]{}) is not a grammatically well-formed sentence.
It looks like just saying "Dark forest, (you) wander." How you interpret these words is up to you. So that comma doesn't have the function of _ni_.
* * *
Secondly, to be a valid sentence, it should be " _kurai mori **o** samayou_" ([]{}[]{} **** ).
" _Kurai mori **ni** samayou_" is incorrect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle ใซ"
}
|
Combination of verb + ใใจใ
In the following sentence:
โฆ
The first part: , I understand as: _what (you) want to know_ , because of -tai and koto combination.
The second part: โฆ, means I think: _(I) will properly inform (you) later_.
The above seems to make sense when put together, but I think I'm not capturing the meaning of . The first part seems like a noun and with a single in the sentence my guess would be _too/also_.
Considering this, could the sentence be translated as: _(It is) what (I) want to know too, (I) will properly inform (you) later._? Am I at least close?
|
As soon as I read your last sentence, I knew that you were overthinking. The sentence in question is much simpler than you seem to think both in structure and meaning.
> {} **** {} {}
The simply suggests that there are other things (besides what the listener wants to know) that the speaker will be explaining/teaching for the listener later on.
In other words, modifies .
Your guess of being "too/also" is correct, but the important thing is to know "what too", "also what", etc.
Unless this sentence appeared in a context/situation **_so unusual_** that I could not even have imagined, it would mean:
> "I will surely teach (or "explain to") you the thing(s) you want(ed) to know **_and stuff (or "other things")_**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle ใ"
}
|
Meaning of ใใ in conjunction with ไป
I was trying to understand , which I eventually concluded must mean: _just now_. I explain it to myself as emphasises the noun _now_ , as _only_ or _just one_. Is this correct?
While on it, I came across: , which appears to have the same literal meaning.
Do these two statements mean exactly the same thing or are there any differences in meaning or use?
|
is a single formal word that means _(just) now_ , _(at) present_ , _(very) soon_ , etc. It works as a noun and as a standalone adverb without any particle.
> * (formal)
> Now we start the meeting.
> * (formal)
> He will come (very) soon, please wait for a moment.
>
is three words ( + + ), and there's nothing idiomatic. means _(as for) now_ , and means _just_ , _only_ , _merely_ , etc. For example,
> *
> Now only this photo remains (everything else is lost).
> *
> I just want to sleep for now.
>
Note that in is an adverb that modifies something different than (usually a following verb).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Difference between ๆฏ and ๅฆฃ
What is the difference between {} and {}?
|
is a very common term for mother. is rarely used nowadays and usually understood as "late mother", but it may be used as a variant of .
> ( )
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, nouns"
}
|
Difference between ใ and ใใ
For example,
As far as I know, both are non-exclusive lists and isn't in chronological order (don't know about ). Is there any other difference besides that? The one I hear the most in Japan is , but that might be just because it's Osaka and they have their own way of saying things.
|
You could say is cumulative and is dispersive.
Repeating โฆโฆโฆโฆ is like combining multiple "... as well as ... as well as ... as well as ...", while โฆโฆโฆโฆ is like lining up "(for example) ... or ... or ... or ...".
As long as the subject is singular, both eventually imply the same person do all the things so that the difference is somewhat obscured, but when you use them with plural subjects:
> **** **** **** โฆ
> โ _They are all good-looking AND smart AND good singers AND... at the same time_
>
> **** **** **** โฆ
> โ _They are all good-looking AND/OR smart AND/OR good singers AND/OR..._ (a certain member has one or more properties in the list)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Meaning of verb phrase-ใใจใ ใฃใฆใใใ
>
> There are even times when a wounded and cornered stray dog will attack a human.
In my TL I have guessed that is (there are times when...) with the being replaced by to give the meaning "there are **even** times when...". Is this correct? Why is there a comma here?
My other thought was that might be quoting the stuff before it, but I got stuck with that line of reasoning.
|
You have got this one correct.
> Verb Phrase or Mini-Sentence + ****
means:
> "There are **_also/even_** times when ~~~."
It is sayig that ~~~ is totally possible. basically means .
The comma there is unnecessary and it is usually not used at all. The author might have had a reason for using a comma, but without further context, we could not be certain of it. Most likely, it was for emphasizing the fact that the stray dogs actually could attack humans at times.
NOTE: This should not be confused with the sentence-ending , which is **_quotative_**. "~~~~, he said.", "~~~, it says", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใฃใฆ"
}
|
Is there a difference between saying ใใฎๆ่จใฏ ้ซใใงใใ and ้ซใๆ่จใงใใ
Hello as the title says I want to know if there is a difference between these two sentences :
1.
2.
Thanks
|
There's about as much difference here as there would be between the phrases "This watch is expensive" and "This is an expensive watch". They're interchangeable for the most part, but keep in mind the subtle difference.
So say for example, you wanted to say something like, "According to this expensive watch, it's 3 o'clock". It's more natural to phrase it like,
> (According to this expensive watch, it's 3 o'clock)
rather than to split things up and say it like,
> (This watch is expensive, and according to this watch, it's 3 o'clock).
Native speakers tend to go for the sentences that convey their thoughts the best with the least amount of effort. That goes for any language though. Anyway, hope this helps!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of ๆๅบๅณๆธ?
This is the title of a technical document:
>
What is the meaning of ? Is it "document to submit"? On dictionaries, is translated as book, but in this case I think it is simply a document (later on it is stated ). Here is my translation attempt:
> Guidelines for the preparation of a 'Document (attachment) to submit for quality evaluation'
Also, could you please confirm that means attachment? In the first paragraph of the document it is repeated ( ()), so even though it is between parenthesis it seems an important detail.
Thank you!
|
I think you are totally correct.
At first I thought means a book, but it is definitely a document if it is written in another document that " ()".
This usage of is not common and only seen in documents for governmental procedures.
And yes, means attachment. To break it down, it can read as , "attach separately." So it indicates that " ()" is a separate document that should be attached to a main document when submitted.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, words, lexicalization"
}
|
ๅ variants in different fonts
Due to Han unification, the same code point represents the Chinese (T/S), Japanese and Korean variants of a given character. The rendered glyph is determined by locale, lang tag (web) or similar. If a variable like this is misconfigured, it can lead to confusion or irritation with natives and misunderstandings with learners.
One such character is like in {}. Source Han Sans renders it as  would be the summary.
. All fonts shipped with succeeding OSes since Vista should match the new form.
The glyph change is only normative to printed characters. Both shapes are recognized in handwriting and people usually choose the simpler one.
**UPDATE**
The download page of JIS2004 conformative fonts for XP (in Japanese)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "kanji, computing, kyลซjitai and shinjitai"
}
|
Is there any phrase similar to "may he rest in peace"?
George Michael just passed away... is there any phrase analogous to "may he rest in peace"? To me at least, that English phrase is emotionally tinged. I mean, I really do feel sad. But of course, I'd never say that phrase regarding the death of a family member because "may he rest in peace" is a little too distant.
So, is there any Japanese phrase that demonstrates genuine respect to someone who just died and who you _didn't_ personally know?
|
We usually say...
> []{}[]{}
or
> []{}[]{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "set phrases"
}
|
Difference between ใซใชใ / ใงใใ / ใฎ
****
****
****
Which sentences are correct / awkward / wrong? Why is there a difference, if any?
|
> 1) {}{} **** {}
>
> 2) ****
>
> 3) ****
This might depend on how you define "correct" here, but I am going to say that all three are correct.
You should, however, expect to see/hear sentence #1 by far the **least often** out of the three. This is partly because of the slightly ambiguous meaning of , which could be taken to mean " ** _to become a criminal of one's own volition_** ". Here, the phrase ("unless one has an alibi") is barely saving it from being taken that way.
To me, sentences #2 and #3 would almost equally be "correct" and common. #2 would often sound more declarative than #3. is such an almighty particle, which makes things easier to say but because of its versatility, it can make phrases using it sound less formal and more conversational.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใฎ, copula"
}
|
Understanding a broken sentence with stuttering
>
> Your classmate's just been hurt by a wild dog. As class representative, get rid of it.
>
> Eh! W-what a.. ,I, I such a ... ????
I'm not familiar with the word and I can't work out whether it's used to mean 'terrible' or 'frightened'.
Does go with here? Or is just part of the stuttering? i.e. is it = "I'm frightened"? I don't know why, but I feel it would be if this were the case.
Or, is just part of an unfinished sentence, and the main sentence is simply = "This (situation/request) is terrible.
|
In Japanese, the important hints (and often answers) are always in the preceding sentences.
โ
**** , of course, refers to {}{} **** ("getting rid of the wild dog")
> Does **** go with here?
No, it does not. It goes with as I said above.
If it went with , the particle after would be and not . " ** _Me?_** Out of all these guys?" is the feeling of . The second speaker was appointed to perform a task; That is a kind of situation.
A: {} **** {} ("Why don't **_you_** go?")
B: **** (" ** _Me?_** No, thanks, man!")
> is it = "I'm frightened"?
I am inclined to say no. What is would be the task of getting rid of the wild dog.
If it meant "I'm frightened.", the speaker would not use . he would use because he would know for sure that he is frightened.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
Which is more normal, "OK" or "ใชใผใฑใผ"?
Which is more normal in Japanese, "OK", or "", assuming either of them is in common usage?
I tried using the corpus on jisho.org, but the results were messed up by "OK" appearing in the English version. Tatoeba didn't get many matches for "", and many of them seemed to be false hits, and also got few hits for "OK" โ is neither form commonly used in Japanese?
|
I assume by "normal in Japanese" you mean in writing, because "OK" can only be written Japanese.
I think this is best answered by a corpus search. The National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics provides an annotated version of the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese, giving the following results:
> 4241 results in total
>
> * OK
> 3849 results (91%)
> *
> 200 results (5%)
> *
> 100 results (2%)
> *
> 43 results (1%)
> *
> 38 results (1%)
> *
> 8 results
> *
> 3 results
>
To do this yourself, go to < search for `` taking you to < go to the `` tab and expand ``.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, orthography, loanwords"
}
|
Does ใงใใใใ mean "due to" or "for" in this sentence?
>
Does in this case X mean "for X" (in the sense of "when doing X") rather than "due to"? Here's my attempt:
> According to the quality evaluation approved by the minister, for the evaluation of the specifications of the requested materials, don't write the "trade name".
Also, could you check the rest of my translation? I'm not sure about the value of the first which I translated as "according to". Thank you!
|
Here, "" in "" means "because."
I'm not 100% sure as the context is not clear, but it is likely that the sentence has the following structure:
> ()
So the role of "" is simply a subject marker.
Now the whole translation would be:
> Since the quality evaluation _related to_ approval by the minister is an evaluation of the specifications of the applied materials, do not write the "trade name".
So roughly speaking, this is saying that the evaluation is not for a product but for materials used for it.
An additional note is that I translated "" to "related to".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
How ใไฝใจ่จใใฐใใใฎใใใใใชใใ works
I'm having a bad time with this expression:
>
I kind of know what it means after a long time spent searching on the Internet, but I just can't grasp how this expression works on a grammar point of view.
Why the conditional? Does the literal translation is something around the lines of "If I say something, is it OK? I don't know..." meaning "I don't know what to say"? Or is it something like "What is something good to say? I don't know..." but if that's the case, why and not ?
Edit: is it something like:
: if I say...
: what is good? (If I say)
: I don't know...
Even if it's correct can somebody confirm it? (Or denies)
|
can be translated into a part of " **I don't know what would be good to say** "
> would be good to say '=.
Difference between ENG and JPN is ENG puts conditional statement on "state" while JPN puts conditional statement on "motion".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, parsing"
}
|
ใใชใจใพใณใใซใใใใชใๆๅณใ๏ผ
>
>
> {}{}{}
>
>
"liaison"
|
= .
Liaison is a term in phonetics describing a phenomenon when multiple sounds get linked together.
Example usage (from <
>
>
> *
> *
> *
>
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Is this translation correct?
From Death Note episode 1:
> ...
This is translated in the English subtitles as:
> I didn't think the Shinigami's Notebook was real... but after seeing its results, I can act with certainty.
The first part of the sentence seems to be backwards...
>
Means literally:
> did not doubt it is reality
So, the whole thing should be:
> I did not doubt the Shinigami (Death God)'s Notebook was real... etc.
Am I correct?
|
You're right. The translation in the subtitles is incorrect.
Maybe you could interpret it this way:
> ****
> ****
Literally: "I had already believed (by then; before ) that Shinigami's notebook was real and never doubted." "I was already not doubting, believing that Shinigami's notebook was real."
**** "with **more** certainty" also shows that the speaker was already certain.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, negation"
}
|
What is the meaning of ็ฏๅฒ็ญใฎ็ณ่ซ็ฏๅฒ in this sentence?
I'm having a hard time trying to get the meaning of in the following sentence. Context: instruction on how to fill in a form to apply for quality evaluation of wood materials.
>
Why the repetition of ? What is the value of ? Here is my bad attempt:
> The section circled in blue is where the write each material variation, numerical value of tolerance and _requested range of scope_.
Also, the meaning of it is not so clear to me. Could it refer to someone that requested the quality evaluation (for example a company)? Thank you for your help!
|
> โ โกโขโฃ("etc")
The first refers to the tolerable _physical_ range of measurement values according to the spec. I'm not sure how , and this differ from the professional point of view (they all seems to refer to so-called engineering tolerance). Maybe they wanted to make it very clear by saying similar words three times.
The second in refers to the extent to which this application form covers. The literal translation of would be something like "application _scope_ ". Actually I don't see any good reason why they needed to use here. Using the same word twice with two different meanings is certainly annoying, and I feel they could have said or instead without changing the meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, words, lexicalization"
}
|
ๅฟ
ใใใ within this sentence
I was learning about and encounter this particular sentence.
>
>
I'm pretty sure that the meaning would be
**_"Manager's opinion is not always right"_**
But if I check the dictionary entry for it means _"not always"._
How come then means "Manager's opinion is always correct"?
|
I think that is like but just used for negative sentences. I am pretty sure that **must** be used with a negative verb, which inevitably makes it mean "not always". It is the fact that it is combined with "" that makes it that way, and not by itself.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, adverbs, negation, polarity items"
}
|
Is there an English equivalent to ใใตใใใจใใ
Ok so I think I've typed/spelled that right, but so I came across this phrase in a random children's book at a cat cafe I go to frequently. So I know what this means, it's like when you just act all sassy, lift your head dramatically to basically tell the other party to f-off as if you don't know them anymore.
But I could've sworn there is like some equivalent to this in English or at least something reasonably close. For the life of me I cannot really put my finger it, I feel like it's something along the lines of onomatopoeia in English as well or something similar to that. The two things my brain keeps coming to are like huff and puff but I feel like that's not even close.
Sorry for the vagueness but it's about all I can come up with.
|
"Humph", "pish", etc., perhaps?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, words, onomatopoeia"
}
|
Use of ใใใ in this sentence
> {}{} **** {}{}
The translation of this seems to be
> (He) will not win against someone who can do both strategy and fighting
However this is the first I've seen used to mean "can do". I would have understood , so am I translating correctly? Else in what context can one be substituted for the other?
|
{} vs.
When a common word that is usually written using kanji is written in kana, you can be 99% sure that it is being used for its "new" and/or colloquial (sometimes slangy) meaning.
So, means "to be able to go", but means something else. What does it mean, then? Let us quote from .
> {}{}{}{}
>
> {}{}{}โ
>
> {}{}{}โ{}
>
> {}{}{}โ
That briefly translates to:
> 1 To be able to perform quite well
>
> 2 To be able to drink in large quantities
>
> 3 To taste good. Tasty, delicious.
So, the word has very positive meanings.
> {}{}{}{}
thus means:
> " _ **It is hard to beat a guy who is very good at both strategy and (actual) fighting**_."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, potential form"
}
|
Particleใใใin the sentence ใๅคไผใฟใใใ็ตใใใ ใใ
So, I'm quite a novice, and I'm having some difficulty parsing the sentence:
> {}{}
I "understand" it means "Summer vacation's already over". I also understand means summer vacation.
At this point, I am speculating, so please tell me if I make any errors: is equivalent to , which means, it's (already?) over. However, I am confused at the use of as the particle preceding . The only use I know for is when replacing or to signify "also".
Could someone please clarify the use of the particle and the meaning of in .
|
> ****
According to :
>
>
> **** **** **** [] ****
So the expresses , light exclamation/admiration.
* * *
> is equivalent to , which means, it's (already?) over.
You're right. / is a copula. is the polite version of .
has several meanings such as "already" "now" "soon" "shortly" "anymore" etc., and I think the in your example can be "now" "already" or "soon":
> ****
> Summer vacation is over now.
> Summer vacation is already over / has already ended / is already coming to an end.
> Summer vacation will be over soon.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "particles, particle ใ"
}
|
What does ใฆใใ mean?
I could not understand right after in the sentence below.
> ****
|
doesn't mean anything on itself, because it's a part of conjugation:
* {} - the verb - which means roughly "to become clear" (as in clear weather).
* {} - verb's te-form
* + - a grammar form for continuous action
* + - continuous action in the past
Combined, means "it was sunny" or "the skies were clear".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "syntax, tense, aspect"
}
|
Grammatical explanation of ใX๏ฝYใฎใใกใใใใใไธไปๆงใจใใใ expression
I came across the following sentence:
> (1)(2)
After the sentence there are two options listed. From the context (a guide on how to fill in a form to request quality evaluation) I understood that the meaning is something like "Choose one specification between (1) and (2)". Looking it up on google I found out that it's a fixed expression often used in forms (see here). What I don't understand is:
1) why the verb used is simply and not a specific one indicating a choice (like or )?
2) why is the dictionary form of the verb used and not the - form or something similar to express a request?
Thank you for your help!
EDIT: for more context, this is the instruction on how to fill the section in question: ()()
|
> 1) why the verb used is simply and not a specific one indicating a choice (like or )?
Because , all by itself, has the meaning of " ** _to decide by selecting_** ". says the following:
> โฆ **** ****
>
>
Moving on...
> 2) why is the dictionary form of the verb used and not the - form or something similar to express a request?
Easy. That is because it is not a request to begin with. Re-read your own EDIT. ()() is what your company will be stating to the Ministry, which is why it says ()() **** .
is what the Ministry is asking you to do and it is already in the "request" form.
The dictionary form is VERY often used to talk about (near) future, as I hope you know.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of ใคใกใผใธ in context of disclaimer
I saw a disclaimer at the bottom of a tourist brochure about ryokans, which in English was "The photo on this page is an image", and in Japanese "" At the end of the brochure, they had "Photos shown in the catalog are images to give an example." and ""
What is the meaning of in this context? Saying that a photo is an image is tautological, so does it mean that it's something like an artist's impression, as opposed to something you're guaranteed to get?
|
Your understanding is correct. For example, in < is explained as
>
Primary meaning of is an imaginary figure you'll have in your mind.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "translation, loanwords"
}
|
Can one say ใชใใใงใ instead of ใ ใใใงใ when expressing hearsay?
At first, I thought the answer was simply that you can only use (because that's all I have ever seen), but today I read the entry for in the _Handbook of Japanese Grammar_ (1940s) by Henderson (PDF via arxiv.org) and was surprised to see that the author listed both **** and **** as ways of saying "They say (she) is beautiful." He went on to say that it would be unusual to hear such a soft sentence as "" in Tokyo, at least used by men. He didn't elaborate much, however. This same book said that the word is often written as (I believe this is obsolete today) and mentioned that it is an abbreviation of .
![enter image description here](
Is "" correct, or perhaps an outdated usage of the form, or is the author mistaken? Could anyone shed some light on this?
|
As a native speaker, , , etc. doesn't sound wrong and does sound softer. E.g. one could accuse some third party by saying **** , implying the third party is wrong. **** is harder to say in an accusational way IMO.
As to how often it's used, I'd say much less than . Whether it used to be more common before I don't know but `` is used as a cliche when the language is intentionally being made archaic, like when old fairy tales are told (e.g. ). I'm also not sure if the gender is a factor.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "grammar, copula"
}
|
What is the meaning of ๅฎถ in this context?
As far as I understand the scentence below it means that it is necessary to take a break after 15 miutes of using a smartphone and other similar devices.
But with what purpose is used there?
****
|
The meaning of "" here is as simple as "at home". It might also have the nuance of "in a family".
It seems that the sentence is on the context of discipline of children. Here "" is "make it a rule" rather than simply "decide". So "" is "make it a rule at home"; that is, "make it a rule as a part of home discipline".
So the whole sentence is advising us to teach children to take a break after 15 minutes of using a smartphone.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Difference between ใใกใซ and ใใกใใ
> ****
> Dad, I don't think there's any special need to state _your opinions_ **when?** nothing is happening/has happened.
I see used to mean 'while'. This is the first time I've seen . What's the difference in meaning/nuance between these?
|
There is a difference in meaning and usage between and .
> Situation + **** \+ Action= "to complete an action _**while**_ a certain situation is in progress"
>
> Situation + **** \+ Action = "to perform an action _**before**_ something happens"
generally implies the speaker's opinion/judgement that it is a bit too early to perform the action. It has a negative vibe to it.
, however, is more neutral as far as the positive or negative connotations it creates.
>
thus means:
> "Dad, you don't have to go out of your way to declare that before it happens, do you?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, conditionals"
}
|
Understanding ใใฎๅนดใซใใฆ in this sentence
Grandad has just promised something he is unlikely to be able to fulfil. He then thinks to himself:
> ****
> If push came to shove and I were to do something like run away, I would be a liar and a traitor. I shouldn't go as far as to say that I don't know what will happen.
I translated as 'at this age', but I don't see the relevance. If he fails to fulfil his promise he'll be a liar and traitor whatever his age. What have I misunderstood?
The second sentence also seems unconnected. I must be missing something here.
|
> {}{} "at this age"
The nuance of the phrase in the context is that the speaker would not like to be a liar and traitor at his old age. That is to say he does not want to be like that at the last stage of his life.
Regarding your TL of the second sentence, you missed the structure around the middle part of it -- .
There is no equivalent of "go as far as to say **_that_** " in the original. There is only " ** _even_** talk about (the things you don't know)".
It looks as though you mistook the for the quotative . That would make a huge difference:
> "I shouldn't be even talking about the things I don't know would (actually) happen." .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, reading comprehension"
}
|
What is the connotation of calling someone "Kozaru Shichinosuke"?
What is the meaning of calling someone "Kozaru Shichinosuke". I know it's the title of a kabuki play and the name of the hero, however what's the linguistic connotation here?
Is it a phrase used in common language now? Or is it limited to people knowing the play?
* * *
The situation is: person A helped person B (brought forgotten thing) and person B responds with .
Person B is very old fashioned, person A is not particularly happy with the response.
|
I don't think is known to most Japanese people. Judging from the plot, I felt a negative word ("opportunist") would describe his character. But I don't know if it fits the context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, culture, names"
}
|
Question about the sentence ็งใๆไผใใพใใใใ
Im using an Anki deck to study vocabulary. It's translation for the sentence is "Can I help you?". Im a bit confused, as I see no question marker in that sentence. I would guess it's meaning to be "I (We?) will help you (us?)". I'm a bit confused since the sentence starts with but ends with Is this a common phrase or is the translation incorrect? I would appreciate any help in breaking down this sentence.
|
As the translation of "Can I help you?", ? may be more accurate than but they mean almost the same thing, don't they?
is used but is often omitted because a subject is often omitted in Japanese language.
In addition, has two meanings: One is "will" like (I will help you). The other is "let's" like (Let's climb a mountain with everyone).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs, idioms, plurals"
}
|
Is there a reason why [ไธญ]{ใกใ
ใ}[ๅค]{ใ} means used/second-hand items ?
I am learning Kanji using Kanji Damage deck on Anki and I came across this vocabulary for :
> []{}{} XXX : used XXX
If I try to literally translate :
> []{}(middle/central) + {}(old) = middle old ?
After a quick search on wictionary, I found that one of the etymology for the word says it is Japanese invention (link).
> Wasei kango (), borrowing from Japanese []{}{}โ (chลซko, โsecondhandโ)
Is there a reason why is used with here while []{}[]{} means old/used clothes without any need of ?
|
While it does mean _middle ages_ in historical context when you pronounce it {HHLL}, the "secondhand" definition (read {LLHH}) is unrelated to that.
In this word stands for "not completely (being one side); so-so":
> ****
So literally means "half-old", that is not worn down to a nub, still usable. Historically the reading is first attested, but it's almost dying out as far as I know.
> _Is there a reason why is used with here while means old/used clothes without any need of ?_
That's complicated, but mostly because it's an established word. Not so many words attached by - actually mean "secondhand". , and maybe? Otherwise they'll mean really old.
> **** **** **** (Source)
FYI there is a derived word to mean un-used goods that aren't able to be sold as new stocks for some reason.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "words, kanji, etymology"
}
|
Shin Kanzen Master has a Chinese element?
I'm using the HelloTalk app. I posted a picture of my Shin Kanzen Master books (JLPT N3). This picture in fact.
![enter image description here](
Then I got this response:
>
and this response:
>
"The book is aimed at English and Chinese speaking countries"? "The kanji on the front page is not Japanese"?
Why do these people think that there is some Chinese element to these books?
EDIT:
(Of course I know that Kanji was imported from China, I just want to understand why these comments were made)
|
The kanjis at the bottom line of the front page (โฆโฆ) are Chinese kanjis. These kanjis are not used in Japanese except , and . One line above is an English phrase "JLPT Grammar." So they judged that the book is for English and Chinese speakers.
But the other part of the front page seems to be valid Japanese phrases.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "chinese"
}
|
Does ไธๅนธ{ใตใใ} always carry a "stronger" idea than ๆฒ{ใใช}ใใฟ?
From jisho.org:
> # **{}**
>
> unhappiness; sorrow; misfortune; disaster; accident; death (source)
>
> * * *
>
> # **{}**
>
> sadness; sorrow; grief (source)
After looking at this, it seems to me that although both words mean sadness, the presence of the other "more drastic" meanings in {} such as _disaster_ and _death_ contribute for the word {} to be interpreted as a stronger/deeper sadness. Am I correct? **Does the word {} always carry a heavier idea of sadness?**
|
"" is an event. There are various events of "."
If you loose your partner or child, you must be shocked and deeply saddened "" by the death of a loved one.
If you gamble away all your money, you might get to be mad about what happened to you, insted of "(feel )."
"" is an event, and "" mostly make people feel sadness, but it depends on the nature of the event of "(unhappiness)."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances"
}
|
How to understand ใฉใใใใพใใใ?
I could not figure it out. What does mean?
|
When I find the pserson who seems badly annoyed or being in a state of numbness. If I have entirely no idea about the situation or backgrand, but I can't just stand by himself or herself and I'd like to get around to telling him or her. I usually talk softly to the pserson "."
It has very little to do with whether I konw the pserson or not.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, expressions"
}
|
Is there a difference between ๆตท{ใใฟ} and ๆตทๅ{ใใชใฐใ}?
The words {} and {} both seem to mean _sea, ocean_. Is there any difference between them?
|
is a literary word used almost exclusively in poems, lyrics, book titles, etc. As its kanji ("field") suggests, it expresses the vastness of the surface of the sea, not its depth. No matter how romantic you feel, don't say in conversations. It sounds really funny. FWIW, maybe I have not used this word in my entire life.
is the ordinary word that means "sea."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances"
}
|
Four verbs meaning "to pursue": ่ฟฝใ, ่ฟฝใใใใ, ่ฟฝใฃใใใ and ่พฟใ
Consider the following four verbs:
* - _ou_ (view in jisho.org)
* - _oikakeru_ (view in jisho.org)
* - _okkakeru_ (view in jisho.org)
* - _tadoru_ (view in jisho.org)
**They all can mean "pursue". What are their differences?**
* * *
_Note: I did read their definitions and tried to catch some nuances by myself, but I am not sure about them. My thoughts was that the first three seem to carry an idea of a chase that requires effort, while the fourth allows an "easy" pursue, such as following a hyperlink on the internet. But even if this guess is correct, the difference between the first three verbs would remain unknown._
|
is closer to "to trace (a road, a wire, etc)" and it does not mean "to chase". is just a colloquial variation of .
and are _mostly_ interchangeable. The primary meaning of and is "to chase (a car, a dream, etc)" or "to follow (an interesting topic, a person that has gone to another country, etc)". Perhaps the biggest difference is the level of formality. In casual conversations is mainly used, while sounds more formal and/or literary. In addition, only means , "to drive (a herd of cattle, like a cowboy)".
**EDIT** : You may have seen this post, but I'm not really convinced by their explanation. In a drama, a senior police officer might say "()!" with great urgency and it sounds to me more formal and/or dignified than saying "!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, verbs"
}
|
Two different usages of ใชใใใซ?
I'm reading a manga in which I've come across the following exchange (for context the second character, B, has just beaten up A in a fight):
> A: ...
>
> B: !!
My understanding of was always that it could be used similar to "Why", so the first comment it simply something along the lines of "Bastard, idiot, why...", but I've no idea how it then functions in the response from B.
|
directly after a noun is a variation of //, used to make light of something and express a negative/derogatory feeling. It does not contain the meaning of _why_. sounds old-fashioned and is typically heard in fictional old man's speech.
In this conversation, is a derogatory word and even strengthens it, so it's okay to translate as "a bastard like you". B repeated to emphasize the irony that A was defeated by that "bastard." ("And you are defeated by that bastard!")
meant _why_ in archaic Japanese (see examples from a ), but it's almost never used in that way in modern Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What doesใใใmean?
Now, I've been at least trying to read , and in the second sentence of my version it shows a odd symbol that I've yet to see.
The symbol in question is the what does it mean? And what happens to the sentences translation as a result of it?
|
is used to indicate previous hiragana is repeated. In your example, you can regard the sentence to be exactly the same as below.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, classical japanese, symbols"
}
|
ใใใ ใใin this sentence?
This is from a Manga, and I don't quite understand how the soredake in the 2nd bubble fits into it? But maybe I am completely off with the meaning of the sentences as a whole - so I've put what I think they mean in italics as well.
Bubble 1:
_I'd say I am a reserved (quiet/solemn) person, but_
Bubble 2:
_I also watched Kou_
Does the soredake simply add an "only"? i.e. I also only watched Kou.
Any pointers are much appreciated. Thank you!
|
> + Phrase or Mini-Sentence + / + /
would need to be remembered as a set phrase because it is a very common one. I means:
> "That is/proves (just) how much ~~~~."
Thus, the sentence in question means:
" ** _That is (just) how closely I was watching Kou._** "
Though there is not enough context provided, I would highly doubt that {} means "reserved, quiet, or solemn" here as you stated. I would think it is more like "slow" or "dull-witted".
Finally, regarding your translation of ....
I will not go into details as it is not part of your question, but you will need to learn not to use " ** _too_** " or " ** _also_** " in your translation every time you see because that is not what it always means. is an extremely nuanced particle.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
What is ใใใพใใ? Possible typo?
I was reading a joke:
> []{}
>
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{}
>
> []{}[]{}
I understand most of the joke except the end of the second line:
>
I see that is used here and I don't understand why it is here. I checked the dictionary on my Mac for the word and it told me to look for where I found , . After I read the meanings, I can't find anything that would make sense in this context.
Then I started to think that this is a typo and it should have been instead:
>
literally, "there does not exist a person who died".
Question: Is this a typo? If not, what is the meaning of and how will the meaning change if I used ?
|
In meaning,
> and
>
>
So, there is no typo here as is a dictionary word. Think of it as a somewhat old-fashioned version of .
The line in question is uttered by a villager, so one could say that is being used as role language at least loosely.
means:
" _ **No one has ever died (here).**_ " or
" _ **There is no one who has died (here).**_ "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, meaning"
}
|
Meaning of ใคใถใใ
As far as I can tell is invariably translated as 'to mutter/murmur' in bilingual dictionaries, and yet hardly ever do I see it used in a context where I feel this translation seems appropriate.
This maybe isn't the best example but it's the one that inspired me to ask. Two girls have just run into a shop to escape from a dog:
>
> "That was a close call"
>
> muttered Maruko breathing heavily.
To me mutter/murmur is something you do under you breath, probably to yourself. It doesn't seem to fit here.
So I'm wondering what Japanese speakers think of when they hear the word , not just in this sentence but also more generally.
|
To me, a Japanese-speaker, means " _ **to speak in low/small voice (mostly, but not always, to oneself)**_ ". So, I personally I have no problem with the verb choice in the line in question.
To me, is not a very special word as far as meaning and usage. It does not have any subtle nuances IMHO.
>
If I were asked to replace the verb by another in that line, I would say:
> {}{}{}{} or
>
> ****
But still, sounds best to me.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Does ๆๆๅค mean Starry Night?
If I am not wrong, the literal translation should be star moon night, right? How does it translate to Starry Night then? Isn't the `` character useless in that case?
|
It is a tricky word, but the doesn't stand for the real moon.
****
> ****
> _(A clear night where stars shine as bright as the moon.)_
Thus the "literal" translation would be "star-moon night" and not "star and moon night".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, kanji"
}
|
่จใใ used here, I dont understand the grammar
I said good morning to my friend and they replied with:
>
I understood this as,
> I was just about to say the same thing
However, I asked them if they could explain the sentence just in case. They said is not like so I've become confused. What does it mean in this sentence?
|
You did understand it just fine.
>
> I was just about to say the same thing
_-(y)ou to suru_ is "to be about to" and is appended to the stem of the verb. The form is _-(y)ou_ applied to the auxiliary _masu_.
So, is the polite form of , but it _can't_ be used to form something like ~~~~.
and are used completely differently. This is probably why you were told they are different.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, volitional form"
}
|
What does ใ๏ผ๏ผผใ mean in this sentence?
Now, I've been reading and have come across (another) set of symbols that I've yet to understand. Given the following sentence.
>
What does the sudden mean?
|
This is supposed to be an iteration mark.
This type of iteration mark is usually only used in vertical writing (the traditional layout for Japanese writing). It looks like a big but is twice as tall.
It also exists in Unicode, so I can try to produce it here, although it may not render nicely:
>
>
>
(Wikipedia does a better job and has more examples.)
The characters `` are often (ab)used to represent the vertical iteration mark in horizontal writing.
So,
> = = =
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, classical japanese, punctuation, symbols"
}
|
ใฎ (no) vs. ใใจ (koto)
What's the difference? How do you know when to use one vs. the other?
I'm asking because I said , but was corrected to ... and I don't understand why.
_(I searched for this question but was surprised to find it doesn't already exist!)_
|
It doesn't make big difference concerning most verbs as other posts say, but some verbs can make big difference. For example, and make these differences.
* I found it rotten
* I considered/expected that it would be rotten
* I heard him play piano
* I heard that he would play piano
In addition, since is a pronoun, it's not impossible to interpret as substitution for and that interpretation makes sentences with ambiguous.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, nominalization"
}
|
Omitting ใ in ๅๆฐใใพใใ
I came across the sentence in writing, and I was under the impression that, in written Japanese particles are not omitted. I can see that that sentence means, "That child counted to ten with her fingers". However, I'm having difficulty understanding if there should be an (or another particle) after . I feel like should be the direct object of , but maybe my understanding of the verb is incorrect.
|
No particle is omitted in this sentence. We rarely say regardless of it's written or spoken, in the first place. This is like an adverb that directly modify a verb without any particle, and this happens very often.
By the way, this can be read as and , both of which are fine but the former is common.
Here are some formal ways to use :
> 1. count five (aloud / with a finger)
> 2. count five (aloud / with a finger)
> 3. count the number of balls
> 4. count the balls
>
You can omit in the last two examples in casual conversations.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "verbs, particle ใ"
}
|
How to spell the name Yana?
[หjanษ] I was wondering if it's spelled , or maybe because the stress is on the first syllable there should be a dash board: ?
|
Depending on how much Japanese you already know, my answer might come as a surprise. I am going to say that either or would be fine so long as **_you_** yourself are comfortable with it.
Unlike the far more commonly seen or heard katakana names such as , etc. that are already widely recognized by the general public as "correct", **_very_** few people (if anyone at all) would feel strange upon seeing or hearing either or . If the "ya" part of "Yana" is elongated enough in your native language, then you might take the latter.
Katakanizing foreign proper nouns is not rocket science; It is basically phonetic approximation. The example I always use when talking about this is the name " **Charles** ". As an English name, we write it as **** and as a French name, **** . The original alphabet spelling has little to nothing to do with the katakanization. It is the pronunciation that actually counts.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "names"
}
|
Does ใฆใใ mean "blush" in this gif file?
This particular gif shows a character blushing, with the word ... but isn't {} (to be shy; to be bashful) an ichidan verb? Is valid? What does it mean? (A jisho.org search for **tereri** doesn't show anything useful)
 that refers to the act of becoming shy. So "" can mean "blush." This kind of onomatopoeia is often freely created, especially in comics.
is one of those created in this way, so it's not in dictionaries.
seems to come from the verb . Though grammatical discussion is not so meaningful, this can be looked at as (the of ) + (suffix).
is a common suffix among onomatopoeia. I feel that it indicates that a small action was completed in a short time. The suffix is seen in other common onomatopoeia, e.g. , and . "" (the small ) is another suffix that has a similar meaning. Thus can be replaced by here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, conjugations"
}
|
Equivalent of saying "I think, ..." for when you're not 100% sure of what you say?
What would a good equivalent for saying "I think, ..." be in ?
Like, if you wanted to say "I think (it's) not from here" and started with...
What could you do to this, or similar sentences, to add a aura of admitted uncertainty to it?
|
You could use:
> {}/
>
> {}/
>
> or
Very informally, quite a few people have been using the following patterns for the last couple of decades:
>
>
>
Your sentence:
> ****
is _**not**_ incorrect, unnatural or anything. It is a good one. With the **** - ending, however, practically all native speakers would think that that would be said by _**older**_ people (and quite possibly by a fictional character).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, nuances"
}
|
Is ใใใใชใฏใ in Kansai-ben "get yourself warm"? What verb does it come from?
Someone lights up a fire and tells the other person (reading from the situation) to get warm by the fire:
>
is Kansai-ben for imperative , but where does the first part come from?
Is it shortened from ? If so why the second of is lost?
Or is it another verb/word? It looks more like a shortened , but this does not make sense to me in the context.
|
The first part comes from {}, meaning "to warm oneself".
We say: {} , etc.
You may have heard phrases such as:
{}{} ("a sunny room")
{} ("a house on the north side of a tall building that gets little sunshine")
Finally, IMHO, all the important words are used in children's songs, not in J-pop or J-rock. Here is a song named {}, in which this is used multiple times.
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kansai ben"
}
|
How would one address oneself when speaking to royalty?
Apart from avoiding using personal pronouns, when speaking to royalty, would one just use **watashi** , like in the following example:
> Time: 05:32 - 05:50
>
> <
>
> **** (edited with help from KyloRen)
Or would one use a different pronoun in real life?
|
First things first, it was actually this,
**** not ****
You certainly could use {}, but you certainly could use {}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, pronouns, first person pronouns"
}
|
ใฃใฆใฏ replaced with ใฃใกใ๏ผ
My friend said:
>
Is the a colloquial replacement for in this case?
|
Precisely.
In meaning,
, .
Thus,
>
means:
> "You shouldn't sing (it/this song/here/now, etc)."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, colloquial language, contractions"
}
|
What is the difference between ใซใใใจ and ใซใใใพใใจ?
What is the difference between **AB** and **AB**?
In the texts I'm refering to both structures seem to mean 'According to A, it is B'. However, the first was used in simplified articles, whereas the second was used in the original articles. So, is it just the case that the second one is used in more formal situations than the first one or is there something else to it?
|
The difference is just whether it's polite or not. There is nothing more than that.
is politer than .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, politeness"
}
|
Past negative informal sentence before ใใ
A native Japanese speaker said to me " " to mean "because I didn't watch it, โฆ." (we were talking about a movie).
As I have learned the sentence structure using is " _[reason: informal sentence]_ _[result: sentence]_ ", I felt this sentence was too complicated. So I asked her if it was possible to say " ", as is the informal version of "did not see". However, she refused and said that would sound strange.
So my questions are: why is the informal past negative form unnatural here? Are there other informal sentences that cannot be used in front of ? What is the pattern? Do the same rules also apply to other compound sentences (like ) and other situations?
|
and are different in meaning. So the grammatical structure of has nothing to do with the problem.
The meaning of is "have not seen" or "have no experience of seeing".
On the other hand, is simply "did not see (at a certain opportunity in the past)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjugations, particle ใใ"
}
|
ใ่ฆใ๏ผใใใ๏ผใใใใ meaning?
I know there is a nuance difference between a regular verb and verb stem + / + but i don't quite know what the nuance difference is.
sentence in question:
> ****
What i understand from it:
> While saying that (what she said had said previously), aqua, seated in the chair without even looking this way, munched on snacks.
How would the highlighted part be different in nuance if it was just a regular ****? or instead ****
If my understanding of any other parts of the sentence is wrong, please tell me so that i may correct it.
|
Your understanding is correct. This should be translated to "even" as you did.
> __ == without _even_ looking
So its nuance is like "without doing even such an easy act as looking at me", **which includes a slight blame to Aqua**.
If it were simply or , it would be just describing her action **without mentioning speaker's emotion at all**.
* * *
This usage of , used together with negations, emphasizes the negation introduced by . - of this dictionary entry matches this usage:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, nuances, learning"
}
|
Meaning of ใงใ or ใกใใใ ใ in ใใฌใใงใ่ฆใฆใกใใใ ใ
Two kids are playing 'house' . The speaker is happy. The person she is speaking to has just suggested that it's pointless.
> ****
> Good grief, it's because you're pragmatic. Come now, _please watch TV_. Look is on.
I'm either failing to understand or in this sentence. I thought verb- meant 'please do verb'. In which case I can't make sense of with a meaning of 'even' or + as two separate particles.
My initial thought is that I am misunderstanding . If I take it to mean 'won't you do' rather than 'please do'. Then I can have "Won't you even watch TV?"
|
> {} **** {} ****
Easier item first -- Verb in -form +. The only thing this can express is a friendly request. No exceptions. "please do ~~"
Next, the not so easy -- . Here, it does not mean "even". It is used to give an example (as in suggesting an action) instead of making a clear statement as in an imperative or declarative. It simply means " **~~ or something** " rather than "this or that". Please know that this usage of is _**very**_ common.
**** ("How about grabbing a coffee or something?")
{}{} **** (If you have spare time, why dontcha study Japanese particles or something?)
> means:
>
> "Why dontcha watch TV or something!" or "Please watch TV or something!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใงใ"
}
|
When do I use ใปใ with ใใ?
Take this sentence, for example: "" Up until now I've never seen without (still quite a beginner), so I'm wandering if "" is different in any way (maybe it explains it as a choice between German and Japanese)?
Next: "" Could I somehow say this without ? Or do I always use ? It is confusing because "" does not use after the verb.
As you can see, I'm a little confused as to when I do/do not use , and would appreciate your help.
|
and is the same meaning, but in this second instance I would say that you are slightly emphasizing the fact that "Japanese is more interesting".
You certainly could say this {}without the {}.
"It is cheaper to go by car than bus."
As for your other example,
"
You could word it like this.
{}{}"I would rather be at home than go on holiday."
I would say it is gets things across much more clearly when using {}as it is easier to use it when comparing. But, as long as you are getting the meaning across, you could use it or leave it out as you please.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใใ"
}
|
Why does this sentence mean what it means?
>
Means "I don't know what to say" but why does it mean that?
Is there an explanation into why this means that.
|
Firstly "I don't know"
then I don't know what?
""
"" could be directly translated into "how to say."
but this Japanese sntence "" menas "."
We Japanese understand "" not as "how to say" but "what to say."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
the meaning of ใใใใใ
My best translation of the following sentence is
{} Without sufficient interest, it's been neglected.
My guess is that can be written as (insufficient), but I'm not sure what the in should be. I can't find in my usual dictionaries. The closest I've come is from this site, but I didn't fully understand the explanation in Japanese:
<
> {}{}{}
>
>
>
> {}{}
>
> []
>
>
>
>
>
> []
|
I think You wrongly understand the original Japanese sentence.
wrong: ""+""+""
wrong: ""
correct: ""+""+"" menas "without interest"
< The original phrase is ""
""+""
"" could be typo.
It should be "".
"" of "" is "."
""or""+""
""examples:
"even the ignorant can understand", "kept absolutely quiet"
I've never heard "" for my 61 years life as a Japanese native speaker.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Understanding tense in ่ฆใใพใใพใ
> {} ****
> However, Fujiki vacantly looked at the sky.
Literally "...in a state where he looked at the sky".
I'm struggling to understand the difference between this sentence and the simpler .
1) Why add what nuances does this bring?
2) I'm confused over the mixture of tenses. I understood that relative clauses have a tense which is relative to that of the main clause. This suggests to me that the state he is in now is a state in which he had been looking at the sky, but is no longer doing so. I feel certain that this interpretation is wrong.
|
I'd translate as follows:
>
> However, Fujiki is still vacantly looking at the sky.
The "is" could be "was", depending on the context.
* * *
As you know, (== ) means that a certain state is being kept unchanged. So it adds the nuance of "still looking" in this case.
If you say , it means he looked at a sky for a while and then perhaps looked at another thing.
* * *
Next, your understanding of tenses seems correct. Here is a past tense and this is relative to the main verb . Actually, his action of directing his eyes to the sky happened in the past. He is keeping his line of sight to that direction, resulting in the current state where he is looking at the sky.
So here refers to just directing his eyes to the object, rather than the whole from-start-to-end action of looking at something.
You can rephrase it using present tense as follows:
> ****
> However, Fujiki is still vacantly looking at the sky.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, tense, aspect"
}
|
Are there any difference between N and the nominalization of Nใใ?
I am still confused with whether or not there is difference between A and B given below.
> A: There is no age limit for marriage.
>
> B:
Are there any difference between N and the nominalization of N?
The longer the sentence is, the politer it becomes, right?
|
I think there is no difference between them except the sentence is longer.
For example, , , are the same meaning.
By the way, I feel is more natural.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, nominalization"
}
|
What is the meaning of ่ด
ๆฒข in this sentence?
Context: the writer is talking about going to a cinema that has just opened near her house.
> โฆ ****
Why is going to the cinema early in the morning after staying up all night a luxury? Does have a different nuance here? Thank you for your help!
|
This means a luxury experience, and it seems to refer to watching the movie in the large theater alone as if she had rent the whole room.
As you suspect, the order of the sentences is a bit unnatural, and could have come right after the first sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, words, nuances"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.