INSTRUCTION
stringlengths
11
999
RESPONSE
stringlengths
0
999
SOURCE
stringlengths
16
38
METADATA
dict
Remembering when to use [ๅŽŸ]{ใ’ใ‚“} and when to use [ๆบ]{ใ’ใ‚“}? The kanji and seem to often have not only an identical pronunciation, but also a very similar meaning, and I'm having a lot of trouble remembering the spellings of several words: Using : * [[]{}[]{}]( \- cause, source, origin * [[]{}[]{}[]{}]( \- primitive; original Using : * [[]{}[]{}]( \- origin; beginning; rise * [[]{}[]{}]( \- fountainhead, source of a river I'm wondering if there's some shade of meaning that I am missing between these two characters, or maybe if there's some Japanese equivalent to the "i before e except after c" rule that would help me remember which is which. For the most part, it does not seem that the words containing have anything more to do with meadows than the words containing .
Putting etymology aside, in modern Japanese... means _resource_. When one can draw something useful from it, always use . Similarly, a place from which something is (radially) emitted is described using . * * means _cause_. When it's the cause for something, use . (incidentally English uses a similar-looking suffix `-gen`) * (pathogen) (allergen) also means _primitive_ or _fundamental_ : * also means _atomic/nuclear_ : * (short for ) (short for ) Unfortunately, these are still many difficult cases, especially when the word translates to "origin(al)" or "source". But you can use and interchangeably in some cases. * * * / * / * / /
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 11, "question_score": 8, "tags": "kanji, readings" }
what means ่€ณ้šœใ‚Šใฎใ„ใ„? This is a line of dialogue Psycho-pass movie: > what means ? It's a bit contradictory, I think
The author has mixed and . ("disturb") and ("touch") are totally different kanji, although they may look somewhat similar. and safely mean "feel, touch (e.g., of a blanket)," and they are used with . We don't say . > * > * > As for , both and exist. means "annoying to the ear, noisy" and this is the traditional and normal meaning of . is used by some people in the same way as /. So it means "feel (of a sound/word)". This word is now listed in some dictionaries, but I have seen people who say is confusing and thus should not be used. Personally, I tend to avoid using , too. Apparently, the author of this sentence was also confused and used in the place where is clearly the right choice of kanji. (IMEs usually show first, because it's far more common) See also - . This article even used BCCWJ Corpus and showed is a rather common misspelling. > > >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 5, "tags": "translation, meaning" }
What does ใŠใชใ‚Š mean in this sentence? What does mean in: > **** > ****
There is an honorific language pattern in which is a verb in a continuative form ( _ren'youkei_ , e.g. , ). The verb in this sentence is , thus its continuative form is . Altogether the phrase is equivalent to * except that in a polite form. Not sure what the context is (you are likely preparing for something that will happen in a month), but one of the following would probably fit: "If you feel like...", "If you make up your mind to...", "If you feel confident enough to..." *By coincidence the phrase and the fixed pattern use the same verb . This uses the verb (from ) and conditional form of the honorific expression (the other ).
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar" }
ใฃใฆใชใ‚‹ what does it mean? I often come across in informal contexts, but I don't exactly know how to understand it. I think it is like in casual speech but it doesn't really make sense in some sentences. For example : > I feel like it's pretty much the same as saying for example : > But in an informal way, but I would like it if someone can confirm
The sentence means **** . So this means something like "will come to feel like (because of something previously mentioned)". I don't know whether this usage is listed in serious dictionaries, but this kind of is fairly common in casual speech. Examples: > * **** > * **** It surprised me. / It turned me off. ( โ‰’ oh no) >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, meaning" }
What does ใ€Œ็คพไผšใซๅ‘ใ‘ใฆไฝœๅ“ใ‚’ๅ•ใ†ใ€ mean? I am currently translating course descriptions in to English as part of my job, and I came across this expression in a description for an Art class which I found completely baffling. As far as I know, means to ask, but to ask an art piece? What does this mean, and why is it said in this way? Thanks in advance for your answers! Edit: My apologies, I should have included the original sentence. Here it is!
This is not about asking a question, but about asking for a reputation/judgement from many people. What artists will get from the society is not answers but reputations. According to a dictionary, has the following meanings: > * **** > * **** > Perhaps "to test" is the closest single-word equivalent in English.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 5, "tags": "translation, words" }
Does every kanji come from a Chinese character? If so, where can I find the origins of a kanji? I know that kanji are borrowed from Chinese characters but are _all_ of them borrowed? As a Chinese native speaker, I am wondering the origins of modern kanjis. Most of them are exactly same as the Chinese counterpart, others are simplified versions of Chinese characters (like is a simplification of and a simplification of ) and I know that this is due to the reform after WWII. But there are some kanji that I just can't figure out which hanzi they originate from. For example, and . The former seems to come from or but I'm not sure. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Are and kanjis that native Japanese made up? Not based on a hanzi? But after seeing this post, this is not very possible. Is there a way I can find from which hanzis did these kanjis originate?
Yes, there are a few kanji that were invented purely by Japanese people. Examples are listed in . Some kanji were reverse-imported to Chinese (see: Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese). But I believe there are also many Chinese-origin kanji that are in use only in Japan because they have fallen out of use elsewhere. So not all kanji that are unfamiliar to you are Japanese-coined. Wiktionary has the information about the etymology of most kanji (although I don't know how much they are credible). * is a and is included in the above list. (Wiktionary) * is a simplified version of . (Wiktoinary)
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 19, "question_score": 19, "tags": "kanji, etymology" }
meaning of ~ใใ†ใ˜ใ‚ƒใชใ„ **Context:** A talks about B to C. A met B while out and about. B approached A and talked about a painting they where looking at. After describing B as a rather nervous/reserved person, A says to C: > Which I would understand as "It didn't seem like he came to talk." But he was the one who actively approached (he could have avoided the other person easily) and they talk for a bit afterwards. So, in this context this seems rather strange. **Question:** _Is there a different use for "~"_? Thank you for any pointers! :)
Judging from the context I think you have interpreted the sentence almost correctly. The sentence probably means , or "He is (usually) not a person who is likely to come to talk with me/others," although B actually came to speak to A in that day, which surprised A. Note that the present tense is used in this sentence. Maybe he was interested in the painting or A. Next time it would be helpful to give us a longer excerpt in Japanese, so that I can remove "probably" from my answer. * * * Depending on the intonation, can mean something like "He seems to be about to come and talk with us, doesn't he?" but I don't think it's the case. * โ‰’ (Because) It doesn't seem delicious! (โ‰’โ‰’, so-called "explanatory ") * (uncommon) โ‰’ It looks delicious, doesn't it?
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, translation, meaning" }
ใ€ŒๅŽŸๅ› {ใ’ใ‚“ใ„ใ‚“}ใ€ใฎ็†Ÿ่ชž{ใ˜ใ‚…ใใ”}ใฎๆˆใ‚Š็ซ‹ใกใฏ๏ผŸ [Remembering when to use []{} and when to use []{}?](
![enter image description here]( โ†’โ†’โ†’
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 2, "tags": "etymology" }
Ambiguous use of ใฏใชใ—ใฆ? The younger sister is holding on to the climbing frame, trapped by a wild dog. The older sister is rushing to the rescue: > > Sister, don't come over here. It's dangerous. > **** > You're my little sister, ??? I assume this is from = to release/to let go/to set free. I'm not familiar with the usage of this verb and I was a bit puzzled by the verb ending. I assume the meaning is "I will set you free (rescue you)" and that in ends in because the sentence is unfinished. Would I be correct that the full sentence is something like ? But I also thought that it might be an instruction to "let go (release grip)" of the climbing frame. Aside from the fact that letting go of the frame would seem like a poor idea, are both of these interpretations possible? In a situation of panic is this completely unambiguous?
I think the elder sister is yelling this either to the dog: > > _That_ is my sister! Release _her_! Or to someone else who is trying to stop her from helping her sister: > > _That_ is my sister! Release _me_!
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, ambiguity, giving and receiving" }
Meanings of ใƒžใ‚ธใงใใ‚‹ Yesterday, I was in a Japanese online game () forum and before a game started an opponent asked me: I only know as a colloquial way of emphasis, so I couldn't figure this out. Was he asking me if "I'm any good"? It also turned out that he was very bad at the game - to a degree where he probably didn't know the rules. Maybe he was asking me if I knew how to play? Can someone please explain how the fits in there?
This sentence is ambiguous, and can mean both of the followings. * Can you really play go? ( means _really_ (not lying), means _can play_ ) * Are you (in fact) a very good player? ( means _really_ (emphasis), means _competent/good_ ) Before you play, if an opponent doubt you know the rule, he may say this in the first sense. After you showed your good go skill, the same opponent may praise you using this phrase in the second sense. Well, if I were in the same situation, I might ask the meaning. --
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 1, "tags": "colloquial language" }
Meaning and use of ่บซๆŸ„ In this sentence (psycho-pass's line): > The can be omitted and thereby result: > I really wonder the use of and if it is really necessary.
and are set phrases that mean "to take someone into custody". I don't know the story, but in general you cannot omit . If the chairperson is cooperative enough, this can be achieved even without touching him. would mean "I will (physically) press the chairperson" or "I will pin the chairperson (e.g. to the ground)", which is very different.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, meaning" }
Difference between ใ—ใฆใŠใ‚‹ and ใ—ใฆใฏใŠใ‚‹ Source sentence: > **** For saying I humbly do something, I understand it's normal to say instead of . I read on this post that using a 'ha' basically makes it a conditional thing, which makes sense to me considering means doing (x) is forbidden/ if you do this, it's not good or you can't go (), but that doesn't make too much sense for me here. The sentence as a whole says: Although I'm aware my Japanese might not be quite good enough to be an employee we can discuss that if you contact me.. not IF I understand my japanese isn't good enough to be an employee, we can discuss it if you contact me. So can anyone explain why it's instead of ?
1) "" 2) "" Both sentences are interchangeable. If you really recongnize that you are not qualified for the job. You have two options. One is to give up for the job. The other is to keep working so that you can get the job. If you choose second option, it's tactically better for you to admit your inadequacy and to show enthusiasm for the job. Just one word "" of "" can convey the nuance "even though I admit my inadequancy but." PS: The usage of " of " is entierly different from " of ." "" = "" "" = "" The following sentences without "" are unnatural. "", "" "" here just make clear the object of "."
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": -1, "question_score": 2, "tags": "particle ใฏ" }
Does a small tsu double all consonants? In several sources it's mentioned that a SMALL TSU doubles consonants. My problem is, some websites give almost identical examples with: / + (S, T, C, K, G, B, P) But what about the others?: / + (M, N, V, W ...) When I use some online converter (Kana>Romaji), they double all of them. So, does a SMALL TSU double all consonants or not? And if not, in which cases?
A small tsu (sokuon) geminates (doubles) the following consonant. In native vocabulary, only unvoiced consonants can be geminated. This includes the , , , and rows. A double n as in is not really pronounced the same way as would be if it were a word. In loanwords that require gemination of other consonants, N tends to use , M uses or , W uses , and others use the -u form of their row. Some examples are: * homemade โ†’ * comma โ†’ * whistleblower โ†’ * role-playing game โ†’ Some loanwords do use the sokuon where native words would not, such as: * big โ†’ * badge โ†’ The important thing is that these are all loanwords. You generally won't see such examples written in hiragana, though the sokuon is used the same way in either writing system. You may also see the small tsu at the end of a word or sentence. There it represents a glottal stop, an abrupt ending.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 12, "question_score": 14, "tags": "katakana, hiragana, rลmaji" }
Difference between ใใ‚‰ใ„ and ใใ‚‰ใ„ใซ > ...., **** ... > she opened her eyes as wide as possible ... I don't understand what is doing here. I've seen plenty of examples where acts adverbially without needing . So why is it there, and what happens if I omit it? If it helps, my literal understanding is to parse it as "to the extent that there is nothing more than this she widley opened her eyes". I read this answer for particle but that doesn't seem to apply here since cannot (as far as I know) attach to . Aside: does have some cultural significance e.g. does it represent concentration for example? The subject is currently beating a dog with a broom. It says that she made a shape with her lips (seems like something you'd do if you were concentrating) and then the above sentence. I would normally associate wide eyes with fear (I don't think she's scared), but that would be passive. This sentence is active.
Both and can function adverbially, and I don't see a difference in meaning between: > **** and > **** Similar examples: > * **** / **** > * **** / **** > * **** / **** > * **** / **** > * **** / **** > * **** / **** > * * * > does have some cultural significance e.g. does it represent concentration for example? _can_ indicate concentration, but here in your example I think it shows (tenseness) and/or (agitation/excitement?) It can also be used to describe one's surprise, anger, fear, admiration, seriousness, etc. * * * (By the way, []{} typically represents surprise and/or admiration.)
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 6, "tags": "grammar, particle ใซ, particle ใใ‚‰ใ„" }
What is the subject of sentence with ใใ ใ•ใ„? For example, what is the subject of the following sentence? > The speaker or the opponent?
Hope I've understood you correctly: means 'to give'. > (You) give (me) the favour of making sure to come at 8 o'clock. = Please make sure to come at 8 o'clock The person doing the giving (you) is the opponent which is the **subject** of . The speaker (me) is the **indirect object**.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 2, "tags": "subsidiary verbs, subjects, giving and receiving, deixis" }
Meaning of ๅ–ใ‚Šๆถˆใ—ใฆใใ‚Œ in this sentence Earlier on, dad said that he might run away rather than protect his daughter. Circumstances have forced him to claim that he has changed his mind; > > Eh? Even I would do the right thing. > > > So, it's a retraction of what you said earlier? > > **** > ??? I will protect the family. I don't understand the part in bold. Why is it imperative? It sounds to me like he is instructing his daughter to retract what she just said. But I was expecting him just to admit that he had retracted his earlier statement.
It is indeed an instruction to his daughter to retract the previous statement. But he's referring to _his own_ previous statement. > > So, are you cancelling what you said earlier? > > > Um. Cancel it [for me], would you? I will protect my family. I'd like to translate it with "Are you taking back what you said earlier?" and "I take it back" but this is precisely confusing the literal meaning of , so I chose to translate it with "cancel" (= "take off the record") instead.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, reading comprehension, giving and receiving" }
Meaning of ใจ in ๅ‹่”ตใŒๅ‡บใŠใใ‚Œใพใ„ใจ่จ€ใ„ใใˆใŸ > > **** > "Me too" added Tomozou, not wanting to get a late start. So I eventually figured out that was negative volitional (I hope I'm right) then got stuck thinking that was quotative and couldn't make any sense of it. The context doesn't really fit with him **saying** that he won't get at late start I'm now thinking that is actually making the previous phrase adverbial, resulting in my above translation. Have I got this correct?
You can think of the as . โ‡’ "trying to~~" โ‡’ "trying not to~~" Examples: > * **** โ‡’ **** > * **** โ‡’ **** >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, particle ใจ" }
Difference between ใ‚ใ‚‰ใใ† and ใ‚ใ‚‰ใŒใ† Both seem to mean contest, resists. Is more about verbal protest? And related to action such as rebellion? Is there an overlap?
There is a slight difference. is to fight with, to compete for something, < is to oppose, to resist, to go against something < Simply put, you can for 1st place, but not . On the other hand, as a soldier, you can a direct order from your superior if you find it immoral, but its's not something you can . Either word can be carried out verbally or via action, so that wouldn't be the defining difference.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 4, "tags": "word choice, meaning" }
Meaning of more Kishi Bashi lyrics: ใ‘ใ‚„ ใ‘ใ‚„ ใใ‚Œใ‚„ ใฉใ†ใ›ใญ Kishi Bashi: "Bright Whites" Transliterating from the lyrics, (so I don't know which kanji is meant): > > > > and then a second verse with in place of . Specifically I'm curious about the meaning of the line > . Google translate does not seem to offer a consistent translation of this, and the term only translates as "things like hair". Plus the repetition seems significant. Also, what's the nuance of (as compared with by itself)? Anyway if all this is not "standard" Japanese, it's worth knowing.
Google seems to have interpreted the first line as ("hairs and hairs"), which is of course nonsense. AFAIK means nothing. In lyrics a meaningless word that just sounds nice can appear (e.g., "la la la", "du bi du bi du bi du du du", ""), so may be one of them. is a single word that means "anyway" or "no matter what is done", and it precedes something negative/unwanted (// in this case). ("how") is quite different.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "translation, idioms" }
ใ‚ˆใ†ใซ at the end of a relative clause In this sentence: > **** Is it saying that even in a cold stone, if something continues to fall/sit on top of it,in order to warm the stone you have to persevere in everything? I don't know how to interpret correctly in that position.
Technically, this is not in a relative clause because it does not modify a following noun. It's in an adverbial subordinate clause. For instance, "because I sing", "if I sing" and "until I sing" are adverbial subordinate clauses. can mean "in order to ", but it means something different here. This is "as (in) ", "like (in) " used to present an example or something that resembles. > [] > > means patience is important in everything, [just as even a cold stone can be warmed if someone keeps sitting on it for three years].
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 2, "tags": "meaning" }
What is 'ใงใฏโ€˜ and how is it used? I've been going on a Japanese course and I don't understand the grammar behind 'dewa'. I've seen it being used in and and I don't completely understand its use in grammar and definition. Is it the negative desu?
You are correct that is the negative form of . At this stage I think you should just understand it as a single unit rather than looking at and separately. But See this link. You will also see ( is a contraction of ) and ( is the informal form of ) with decreasing levels of formality. Note that it can be used to negate nouns and na-adjectives (as in your two examples), but **not** i-adjectives and verbs.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, usage, word usage" }
Using ่ฒดๆง˜ {ใใ•ใพ}โ€‹ as a joke? I already know that {} is a very rude, derogatory term in japanese, and is practically forbidden in real life situations. However, I came across a song called by Mukai Shuutoku, and it contains the following verses : > / Here is a link for a live version of the song : < So I wondered if it was meant to be sarcastic, or provocative or some form of artistic license?
Yes using can be a joke, but I believe it's not used as a joke here. Judging from the whole lyrics, I can say the lyricist used several "dirty words" intentionally for some reason. * * * So this is simply there to show the person's high pride or arrogant attitude. Such words frequently appear especially in heavy metal music. By the way used to be a respectful word in _archaic_ Japanese, but you can forget it in this case. It's clearly meant to be dirty in this song.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 3, "tags": "pronouns, music" }
"ๅŠๆ—ฅใฎใƒ„ใ‚ขใƒผใฏใ‚ใ‚Šใพใ™ใ‹ใ€‚" question When I am learning Japanese I encounter this sentence. I think that the particle should be always used, but was used instead. Could it be a typo? Or something I have not learned yet? In other words, should this sentence be : (Do you have any half-day tours?)
No. In this case, **** is better. The first thing you should learn is that the particle can also be used to indicate the subject. Try searching in this site and you will find many answers that describes the difference between and . This is the topic marker. The topic of this sentence should be (the existence of) a half-day tour, so fits here. On the other hand, is not appropriate because it sounds like introducing a certain half-day tour into the context, though the speaker is not sure it exists. So if we want to say "they have a half-day tour", **** is better than **** , becuase the former brings into a half-day tour that we already know into the conversation.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, particle ใฏ, particle ใŒ" }
Meaning of Myๆ‹…ๅฝ“ๆฐ I learnt from this answer that is a common Japanese expression to address someone working with/for you. Does the presence of `My` and `` add a more specific meaning? The context is a letter from a mangaka to her fans: > My Considering they are having a party alone and that she later says she received a heart-shaped cake as a present, it could be his boyfriend, but I don't think that's the meaning of My. Since the letter was handwritten, here's the original to check if I read the characters right. Thank you for your help!
is generally more formal (and thus less friendly) than , but in this case I don't feel she chose to show her respect or psychological distance. is just another common name suffix in this situation. This may or may not be related, but stereotyped hardcore otaku address everyone using and it actually is a friendly yet respectful suffix like / to them. The use of _My_ is hard to explain since it's not standard nor common at all. Maybe she just wanted to decorate with _My_ to make it a bit more eccentric, cute, or whatever. It does not alter the basic meaning of the sentence.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "tags": "meaning, words" }
Can ใใ‚‰ใ„ be used to replace ใ”ใ‚? A question from my N5 mock test book reads: > A {}{} {} > > B {} ( ) {} The answer was 1, but I've been taught that both and are interchangeable when talking about points in time (), like 7 or . Is really acceptable when should be used? (Note: I am of the impression that and mean the same, and so do and .)
> A โ€‹[โ€‹]{} โ€‹ โ€‹ {} โ€‹ > > B โ€‹ {} โ€‹ ( ) โ€‹ {} โ€‹ > > The only possible answer is 1) . Had the fourth choice been **** instead of just , it would also have been a correct answer. Not sure where you have been taught it was correct to say , because it is not. So, to say "to return home around 7-ish", you can use: , and . But you cannot use . In other words, can function adverbially to modify the verb without a . cannot; It needs a to function adverbially. The following usage of , however, is correct. > A > > B This is OK because there is no verb following in either line. You don't need an adverbial phrase here.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 7, "question_score": 7, "tags": "particles, time" }
What does the word ใ€Œใฝใ‚„ใฃใจใ€ mean? It is in a dialogue said by an old man to a young man during their fighting. > ****
, in this context, would mean " ** _absentmindedly_** ". It is in the form of ** _onomatopoeia + _** , which functions adverbially. {}, therefore, means " ** _Stop looking (at me) absentmindedly and ~~_**."
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 2, "tags": "colloquial language, manga, onomatopoeia" }
Use of ๆ–น (ใ‹ใŸ or ใปใ†?) in ใ“ใฎใบใƒผใƒ‘ใƒผใฎๆ–นใŒๅœงๅ€’็š„ใซๅคšใ„ใฎใงไฝ•่จ€ใฃใฆใ‚‹ใฎใ‹ๅˆ†ใ‹ใ‚‰ใชใ„ๆ–นใ‚‚ๅคšใ„ใจๆ€ใ„ใพใ™ใŒ **Context** (although probably not relevant): Last sentence of the preface to a short manga sidestory. The rest of the preface talks about how the mangaka ordered rubber coasters and they didn't turn out like she wanted them to, but people wanted to have them, so it's all good. In the following sentence is the used as '' or as '' > โ€ฆ I think the second part means something like _"...I think, there are many people who don't know what to say..."_ in which case would be read as . But I can't really make sense of the first part. Usually, I'd assume "" was being used to establish that something is more than something else, but there is nothing in the text to compare to.
> **** {}{}{}{} **** {}โ€ฆ Strictly speaking, you did not provide enough context. For instance, where does come from? What "paper" does it refer to? So, I am going to rely on my instinct. My hunch is that is the material for (many) coasters as opposed to the rubber ones that you mentioned as being part of the context. If that is indeed the case, then the first would be read for comparison and the second , for referring to people. > "Because there exist far more paper ones, many of you (many people) might not know what I am even talking about." What the author is talking about, of course, are the rubber coasters.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, meaning, comparative constructions" }
What is the recommended timing for ใ‚ใ‘ใŠใ‚ ใ“ใจใ‚ˆใ‚? Contrarily to the abbreviated informal (if not rude) version I used in the title, the usual greeting for the New Year is quite long: > Those are two sentences, and it seems that they are usually pronounced with a slight pause between them. The reply is usually the same sentences: I am wondering what timing I should use to reply politely. I have the impression than when communicating in Japan it is seen as more polite and respectful to take time when speaking (making longer greeting sentences), while on the opposite in some occidental cultures it feels more polite to not abuse of the interlocutor's time, and keep communications brief and efficient. Is it okay to start replying after the first sentence: > Interlocutor: > Me: > Interlocutor: > Me: Or can I wait until my interlocutor has finished saying their sentence, and take time to say mine too: > Interlocutor: > Me: And of course Happy New Year everyone!
Both is OK. When you feel your interlocutor put a pause, you can reply it. The following has no problem. Interlocutor: Me: Interlocutor:
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 4, "tags": "politeness, time, greetings" }
Is ใซ optional in this sentence? In this sentence: > Does the particle make "" an adverb?
Yes it's optional. The following sentences are both correct and feel exactly the same to me. > * > * > is not necessary in certain standalone adverbs, and it's optional in some adverbial phrases, too. is a phrase where is optional. E.g., (), (), (). You should remember when is optional to answer a question like this. See also: * Difference between and
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 2, "tags": "particle ใซ, adverbs" }
How to get the right meaning of particles Since Japanese is a left branching language, do you have trouble getting the right meaning of words or particles like the particle in the next sentence (which can indicate location of action and means of action too) > โ€œโ€ **** I assume that seeing it at first, you wouldn't know if it's talking about "being in/at the dictionary" or "because of the dictionary" (in this case "because it makes dictionaries/famous for its dictionaries")
I felt there is nothing confusing in this sentence. **** is a basic set phrase that directly corresponds to "being famous **for** ," and you should be able to interpret as "Sanseido, which is famous for dictionaries" instantly. Lots of examples here. If does not go well with something right after it, it may be modifying something distant. For example: > would almost certainly mean "I looked up in a dictionary the word that I heard", not "I looked up the word that I heard in the dictionary". modifies not but , and I can say that because doesn't make sense. In this case, and do not make much sense to me anyway, while is instantly understandable.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 2, "tags": "meaning, particles" }
JLPT N5 Test ใ€Œใˆใใ‹ใ‚‰ ใŸใ„ใ—ใ‹ใ‚“ใพใงใฎ๏ผˆX๏ผ‰ใ‚’ใ‹ใ„ใฆใใ ใ•ใ„ใ€‚ใ€ The question was to select which word would fill in the blank (x) below: > X The options to select as correct answers were: > I thought the answer was 4, with the translation being "Please buy a ticket from the Station to the Embassy. However, it seems the answer given in the booklet was 2. It seems to me that both answers are plausible, is there something in the translation that I'm missing?
As pointed out by @broken headphones, I was conjugating the wrong verbs. I was mistakenly thinking the verb was 'To Buy', when it was in fact 'To Write'. This means the sentence is actually 'Please write a (X) from the station to the embassy.', for which the only valid answer would be > 2. >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 1, "tags": "conjugations, jlpt" }
How to say "after thinking about it"? I want to say something like "After thinking about it, I decided not to take the class." Would be an accurate translation? Or is there a better one?
> _After thinking about it, I decided not to take the class._ The most concise and natural way to say it in Japanese IMO is: > The key point is that used with verbs meaning want/wish/decide etc., will become "on second thoughts". This definition is strangely missing from J-J dictionaries I've tried, but widely used in reality. If you want a more literal translation to your English, how about: > > would sound like you pledged to yourself never to break. It's not that serious situation, I guess. Also, would be more like saying "I thought about it, and then --" in English.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 2, "tags": "phrases, english to japanese" }
JLPT N3 Grammar - Passive form AND passive + te iru I picked up the book and I don't quite understand their explanation of passive. The book says that passive can be used when you mention a fact without a subject. However, in the example (below), to me the subject is the entrance ceremony. > > > Can anyone offer a clearer explanation of this and also the usage of the te-iru conjugation with passive?
What you have read in your textbook is equally true in English, too. > * > The entrance ceremony will be held in this hall ( _by us_ ). > * > In the past, it was thought ( _by people_ ) that the idea was correct. > The original (active) versions of these sentences are: > * (omitted subject = (we)) > _We_ will hold the entrance ceremony in this hall. > * (subject = (people)) > In the past, _people_ thought the idea was correct. > The book's explanation means you can omit the subject of the **original** (active) sentence once it has been turned to passive. See how "we (us)" and "people" can be omitted in the passive versions. () is simply the combination of passive and (e.g., = "I am being seen now."; CD = "The CD has already been released."). If you're not sure why you need in the second example, see the following questions. * / with third person subject? * Difference between volitional + and volitional+
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, passive voice" }
Nuance of request to replace ramen cups In an N2 mock paper, the following letter was given, with a very confusing sentence within (bolded below). The answer was 1, but several native Japanese people I asked were confident it was 2. * Which is correct? * What is the nuance of the bolded sentence - to change all 200 ramen cups (option 1) or only the defective ones (option 2)? > {}{}{} * * * > XX > > ABC > {}{}{}{} > > > {}{} **{}{}** > > > > {}{}{}{} * * * > {}{}{}{} > > > > {}{} > > {}{} > > Note: the alignment of the date and sign-off has been altered (from align right to align left).
It's indeed confusing even to native speakers. So if you received a letter like this, you should ask for clarification... But as a native speaker, logically thinking, I think the option 1 is the correct answer. refers to , that is the name of one of the three foods. So is equal to , and . ### EDIT The reason why I think the correct answer is 1 is totally by logical thinking. The key is in **** , and the letter says **** . So the in **** should refer to one of **** . To mean the answer 2, it should be **** . As is weird, it would be .
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 6, "tags": "nuances, reading comprehension" }
What is ใช role here? I cannot get what means in the following sentence. > **** Couldn't it be written ?
Because is not a verb, the of cannot directly follow it; acts to link the two.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "syntax, copula" }
The usage of ๅœŸๆ—ฅ, ้€ฑๆœซ and ไผ‘ๆ—ฅ I noticed this when I was listening to Momoiro Clover Z's , which had this line: . I understand that means + = weekend, i.e. . Thus, can and be used interchangeably, or are there different nuances in and ? There is also the term , which I understand as referring to "days off", i.e. weekends plus public holidays . However, can be used interchangeably with / as well? (Because I think I might have seen this usage in Japan, but I may be wrong.)
and are very similar, but vaguely refers to weekend, while is explicitly Saturday and Sunday. Friday nights are usually considered as part of , but not part of . While sounds like a nice coined phrase, sounds a bit too strict and funny to me. Travel magazines often have articles titled , but usually not . refers to days off. You don't necessarily have to have days off on Saturdays and Sundays, so is different from /.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 3, "tags": "word choice, usage" }
"Evaluation of practical experience (=internship) and it's contribution" > "Evaluation of practical experience (=internship) and it's contribution" I would use something like this: > I could be relatively satisfied (but just partly) with as for "practical experience" and as for "evaluation", but I feel uncomfortable by using as for "contribution". I haven't used before and haven't used yet any other alternative meaning for the word "contribution".
Contribution can be translated either as () and (). * : beneficial contribution from people (by money, labor, source code, etc) * : contribution of various inanimate factors (e.g., price, demand, temperature, ...). (can be positive or negative) * : value, degree If you are asking how much the "practical experience" has affected something, is probably the best choice. I don't know the context, but "practical experience" can be translated differently. Please make sure is the right translation in the context in question.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "english to japanese" }
What does ใชใ‚‰ mean in ใƒกใƒณใƒใƒผใ‚’๏ผ‘ไบบ็ดนไป‹ใ™ใ‚‹ใชใ‚‰๏ผŸ I was translating a text from my textbook and I can't understand the meaning of in these two phrases. > 1. > 2. > Can someone translate this for me, so I can understand it?
In general **** means "if", but can sometimes be loosely translated to mean "in the case that" when it is at the end of a sentence. `` _(What do you do/Who will you introduce) **in the case** that you are introducing a member?_ `` _(What do you do/Who will you introduce) **in the case** that you are instead introducing him/her to your older brother?_ Note that in both of these sentences you could also just say "If you're introducing one member?" "If you're introducing them to your brother?" I don't really know the context of the sentences but in this case means "If you are going to do" what proceeds before it in general can mean "if" but it differs from and in that it isn't purely conditional `` _"If you're going to Japan you should go to Yokohama / Yokohama is good"_ More literally put, "If it is that you are going to Japan / In the case that you're going to Japan, Yokohama is good"
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, translation, conditionals" }
what form ๆญปใญใŸใฎใซ is? I've come across this phrase > and I think it translates to something like: "if you had taken that attack obediently, you would have died in peace", but I can't really understand that : is it potential? a past of some sort? I can't really tell. And, moreover, isn't the form + conditional (the if clause), so it's probably wrong my translation in the past. Or is it some kind of future in the past? in the context she did just dodge an attack. I'm quite confused.
> {}{}{}{}{}{} This sentence is in a **_conversational/informal_** form of the English "If ~~ had ~~, ~~ would/could have ~~". That is why the tenses might look loose to someone who has studied with textbooks. This person has **_not_** died yet. here means = " ** _would/could have died_** " > "Had he received that one blow with no protection, he would have been able to die without pain."
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 3, "tags": "potential form, past" }
Confusing use of ใ‚ˆใ†ใซใชใ‚‹ A news article is describing the phenomenon of lucky-dip bags in Tokyo libraries: > **** **** > **It's reached the point where** you don't know what kind of books will be in them. It's expected that you will come to know authors you've never read and book types that you don't normally read, and it started last year. The usual translation of "reached the point that" for does not seem to work here. Why would we ever have known what was in a lucky-dip bag? So, what is the function of in this sentence. Also, is "expect" a valid translation of in this context? I struggled with that part.
> "to be (purposely) designed so that ~~", "to be designed in such a way that ~~", etc. The TL "reached the point that" does not apply here. Thus, > means: > > "It is (intentionally) designed in such a way that you will not know what books are in (the bag)." Finally, > Also, is "expect" a valid translation of in this context? Yes, it is. Here, it means " _ **to anticipate**_ ", " _ **to hope**_ ", etc.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 3, "tags": "grammar" }
What does ใพใŸ mean in this sentence? > The translation was "Let's play chess another time." But what does change in the sentence? I saw some translations for , however I couldn't get it.
First, "", "", "", "", all of these phrases mean "next time, another time." I guess you are focusing on the use of "", right? > When you finish playing chess, you can say > "" * * * > When you meet a person who is famous as the best chess player, and you also have strong confidence in playing chess. You want to play chess with him or her, but you have no time to play chess, then you can say, > "" = "Let's play chess another time." Off course, it's confusing to say "" = "Let's again play chess another time." I'm not sure what you are following, but I hope the above my advise could be helpfull for you. If I misunderstood your question, put your question here again.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 2, "tags": "words" }
I could not understand this sentence entirely I know the translation of the sentence, but I don't understand some structures. Is from a verb? And what does mean here? > ****
You are parsing it wrong. > In parts, `` means "when you drive a car" and explains in what circumstances the latter part of the sentence applies. = how much to / to what degree has two meanings. Either to warn someone or to be mindful of something. = -form of - this makes it a pattern **V** - "no matter how much". In this case, roughly "how careful you are" = is the stem of and is to do something too much. ~ = there is no such thing as ~. So for the whole: When driving a car, there is no such thing as being too careful. or When you're driving a car, you can never be too careful.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 1, "tags": "words, syntax" }
Nใงใ‚ใ‚‹็จ‹ๅบฆ โ€• the degree to which one is N Looking up on Weblio yields a lot of phrases like `X` \--> to the extent that something is X is this to be understood as **`X `** or **`X `** I don't know if this is a set phrase or not, but what is the function of the in this? Is it as in 's -form, or is it connected to If I wanted to say a phrase like > **The degree to which something is expensive is dependent on the market price** would I say > ****
is a common set phrase that means "to a certain extent/amount/degree", but it's not used in this sense in those examples on Weblio. They are `[Xโ†’]`. In general `(na-adjective) + ` can be translated as `the degree of ness`, but I think `(na-adjective) + ` is not common. I feel it's a bit roundabout. For example, we usually say , or even , instead of . I don't know why Weblio has this many examples of even though they are far from idiomatic. Likewise sounds weird to me, and I can't help seeing the set phrase in this sentence (i.e, "It's expensive, and is more or less based on the market price"). Why not simply say or even ?
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 3, "tags": "grammar, translation, set phrases" }
What is the antonym for ๅคฑๆ„? The dictionary says that the antonym for is . But at the same time, the antonym for is . Any idea?
The primary meaning of is _disappointment_ or _disappointed_. Dictionary says has several meanings, and there are several antonyms for for each meaning: 1. satisfied, content โ‡” **** , **** disappointed 2. proud, prideful โ‡” **** , **** embarrassed, ashamed 3. good at (e.g., tennis, math) โ‡” **** , **** bad at That said, the primary meaning of is now "be good at" in modern Japanese. The second meaning is usually expressed with (e.g. ), and the first meaning is almost dead IMO. So I don't feel is a good antonym for . (Judging from examples here, seems to have been used in the first sense until relatively recently (approx 100 years ago)). Perhaps more straightforward antonym for would be (satisfaction), (expectation), (hope), or such.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 2, "tags": "antonyms" }
What does ใฎใซ mean at the end of this sentence? > I understand this as: "You should forget about it" But what does do?
is a conjunction that corresponds to "even though " or "despite ". `(clause A)(clause B)` = `although A, B`. Unlike , it often (but not always) is followed by something regrettable/disappointing. Examples on JGram. The latter clause is often omitted, and it implies the reality is something regrettable and contrary to the Clause A. `` = `although , (something contrary)`, `A, but...`, `I wish `. So means "You could have left it (although, in reality, you recalled and mentioned it)". Examples: > * It's really delicious (and I wonder why you don't want to eat it)! > * You are such a smart boy (and I don't understand why you did such a silly thing)! > * You should have worked harder. > * I wish I could fly. > See also: * How and when to use (=noni) - Maggie Sensei * Meaning and level of
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 12, "question_score": 4, "tags": "grammar" }
How to say "Getting/experiencing through different situations"? I am writing about the language and I wish to say, that the language can be learnt best, when you can visit it's country, so you could master it by: > "getting through different situations" or "experiencing through different situations" I came up with **** , but I think there are much more natural ways of expressing this idea. Also, I am not sure, if the word as for "situation" fits well here... Thank you in advance!
Your attempt is good, but it can be improved a bit more. As []{} is a transitive verb, it's a little bit strange it doesn't have an object. You can say []{}[]{} to mean "gain experience" without mentioning what kind of experience they have. The resulting sentence **[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}** seems no problem to me. Another option is to say []{}[]{}[]{} which literally means "to experience different situations." * * * Lastly, your word choice of []{} is very good. Also, []{} is acceptable here.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 6, "tags": "translation" }
What is ๆฎบ่™ซๅ‰คใŸใ„ใŸใ‚‰? I have problem understanding the following sentence from the lower right panel: > {}{} **** {} is pesticide, but I don't know how to parse . My bad guess is that it's a conjugation of but I can't go further. There is no that seems to make sense in this context. Another question is --- I'm not quite sure how to translate this. "I can't be here"? ![OL Shinkaron](
The verb here is {} meaning "to burn" as in "to burn incense". The kind of insecticide we are talking about actually diffuses a ton of smoke. Watch this short video and you will know exactly why you could not stay in your house for at least a few hours after setting off some types of {}. < Luckily, the video title contains our verb in question -- {}. is the name of the insecticide.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 11, "question_score": 6, "tags": "grammar, translation, manga" }
What does ๅ…ฅใฃใฆใชใ‹ใฃใŸ mean? I couldn't understand **** , what verb is it after ? > ****
{} **** In informal speech, that is very often omitted. That is + + in the past tense **_state_** , not **_action_**. > "And then, when you returned home, your cellphone was not in your bag, right?"
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 1, "tags": "meaning, verbs" }
Question about consequential clause after conditional clause using ใ€ŒใŸใ‚‰ใ€ For my understanding, the consequential clause would be a complete sentence until I faced the following conditional sentence. > **** Can a consequential clause after a -clause be a noun clause? Or is this an exception?
fully qualifies as a main clause of this sentence. Its subject, which is omitted, is , vaguely referring to the situation previously mentioned. Subjects are omitted all the time in Japanese sentences, and there is nothing special in this case. Technically, the last half of this sentence is not a noun clause, because it has no nominalizer and ends with , a copula (aka linking _verb_ ). in this context is _end-of-life_ rather than _lifespan_. does not mean "It's a lifespan" here, but it means "is reaching / has reached the end of one's life," "is near one's end," "is dying a natural death," "is on one's last legs," etc. In other words, is sometimes used as a no-adjective, usually in combination with . > * > The watch has reached the end of its life (and thus not repairable). > * > It stopped again? That means the watch has reached the end of its life. > * > * a smartphone near the end of its life / on its last legs > See:
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 1, "tags": "grammar, conditionals" }
ๅนพไบบใ‚‚ or ไธ€ๆฏ? Kanji or hiragana? I am writing the following sentence: And I'd like to know if could be a more respectful/more natural replacement for , and whether I should be using kanji.
> **** This sentence is OK. The only thing I would change to make it more natural would be the . Using would make it far more natural. > And I'd like to know if {} could be a more respectful/more natural replacement for {}, and whether I should be using kanji. Using in this context would be a bad idea. Why? Because it only means "many" mostly when the number is a dozen or two **_at the most_**. Sรฃo Paulo has about a million Japanese and Japanese Brazilians, correct? That is definitely **_way_** too many to call . I would not worry about writing using kanji. Your sentence is already very informal with the use of and . is more informal than many J-learners seem to think.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "tags": "kanji, politeness, counters, idioms" }
Referring to someone's home in sonkeigo I know that _sonkeigo_ for someone's home is , but since the word has a quite negative connotation, I am worried that might not be appropriate, especially in spoken language (because there is no way to differentiate vs ). Hence, is there any alternative to , or do I have to use this word really carefully?
> I am worried that might not be appropriate, especially in spoken language (because there is no way to differentiate {} vs ). That is not true at all because people can always tell which one you meant from the context of the conversation. I could not think of a single example where there could be that kind of confusion because the difference in meaning is just huge between the two words. Besides {}, you can use {} or {}. All are good words to know. There exist bigger words such as {}, {}, etc., but those are rarely, if ever, used.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 2, "tags": "word choice, usage, connotation" }
SEOใƒ—ใƒฉใ‚ฐใ‚คใƒณใซใŠใ‘ใ‚‹locationใฏไฝ•ใ‚’ๆ„ๅ‘ณใ™ใ‚‹ใฎใงใ—ใ‚‡ใ†ใ‹๏ผŸ What does "location" mean within a SEO plugin SEOSEOYoast SEOโ†’56location!["Use my current location""Location logo"]( * * * I started using a SEO plug-in, called Yoast SEO, which is a tool to enhance the internal structure inside your or business homepage. Because the plug-in is ( was ) developed by Americans, however very popular, though the language fitness to Japanese is yet 56%, I started helping translation. However, I am not sure how I should translated the word "location", which you can see at the picture, could anyone have any idea what this could mean. ( I personally guessing this could be a "domain" ). Thank you and I know I am at the risk of this being busted.
Yoast SEO Local SEO GoogleSEO locationURL locationlocationlocation **** **** location
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 3, "tags": "english to japanese" }
ufotableใŒๆ›ธใไธŠใ’ใŸ่„šๆœฌใ‚’ใ€ๅฅˆ้ ˆใใฎใ“ใŒๅŽŸไฝœ่€…ใจใ—ใฆใƒชใƒฉใ‚คใƒˆใ—ใŸใฎใŒๆœฌ็จฟใงใ‚ใ‚‹ใ€‚ > ufotable My question is according to this sentence what happens to the written text of the film. I found another sentence from the author himself in his blog > #25
> ufotable{}{}{}{}{}{} Two different works are mentioned here: 1) ufotable ("the script written by Ufotable") 2) **** ("(what/the thing) Kinoko Nasu has rewritten as the (original) author") is a nominalizer. And please note that the subject of the sentence is 2) and that **_2) is based off of 1)_**. > "This is the manuscript where Kinoko Nasu, as its author, has rewritten based off of the script written by Ufotable."
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 3, "tags": "meaning" }
What does ใ—ใใฟใŸใ„ in ใŠใฐใ‘ใ‚„ใ—ใใฟใŸใ„ mean? I'm watching to Totoro and there is a line ****. The translation says, "It's like a haunted house." I understand that could be roughly "relating to monsters" and the dictionary thinks that might be a conjugation of shiku (to spread out, lay). I can't find a conjugation that would produce .
> ()() You're splitting it in the wrong place. means "haunted house". is a suffix that means "-like". You can break down further into = ghost and = residence.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, translation, conjugations" }
Why is a foreign person's middle initial written in romaji instead of katakana? Foreigner's names are written in katakana, but I noticed that the middle initial is always written in romaji. I see this on business cards and in newspaper articles, when a middle initial is used.
Simply, using Latin alphabet can clearly tell us it's the initial. Also it's shorter. * โ†’ Is this something like "Jay"? * J โ†’ It's meant to be the initial! Everyone knows how to read Latin alphabet, so there is very little drawback.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 9, "question_score": 4, "tags": "katakana, rลmaji" }
How to address someone in an email who referred to themselves as part of a department Recently I received an email from someone in the editing department of a literary magazine. Specifically, they ended their email with: [Magazine name] For when I write them a response, how should I address them? How about this?
Another **very** common way to do this is to write: > (Company/Publisher Name) > > (Magazine Name) {} > > {} It would look better with that last line than without. NOTE: You _**cannot**_ use in addressing mail -- snail or electronic.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 5, "tags": "business japanese" }
What is the meaning of ใง in this sentence I got very confused with the meaning of this sentence because of . What does it mean here? >
This is just connecting two statements. Your sentence is basically just contracting this > โ†’ Australia is a continent. It is also a country.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 5, "tags": "particles, copula" }
What does ๅพก็”จไบบ mean? I've been wanting to read but I can't figure out what means. Some translations translate it to "friend" but I think there's a deeper meaning to it?
is +, meaning "at the service of" and meaning person. It means that some character(s) are dedicated servants of some god(s).
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 0, "question_score": 1, "tags": "kanji" }
Is my Hiragana understandable? I don't wanna develop bad habits so I am asking at the beginning. Is my hiragana handwriting understandable? It was not meant to be some ornament artistic style but just the casual handwriting written at the same speed as when I am writing Latin alphabet. So here it is ![enter image description here](
All of your hiraganas are understandable. However, the shape of and seem a little strange to me.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 8, "question_score": 1, "tags": "hiragana, handwriting" }
Looking for some examples of ambiguous sentences with compound particles For writing a text book, I am looking for some ambiguous sentences with compound particles. As an illustration, consider my attempt as follows. Recall that when and are combined, it results in a new particle , so there is a possibility to make ambiguous sentences with . * can be used to nominalize clauses. For example: **** * N can also be needed for some expressions. For example: **** Now I have to find sentences with pattern XY such that they can be read in two ways: * XY --> Even though X, Y * XY > It can be interpreted in 2 ways: * Even though I don't smoke, I am interested in smoking. * I am interested in not smoking. (the speaker must be a smoker.) # Questions Could you give me other better examples?
I came up with the following: > **** > + + / + + > > **** > / + + > _(the former might seem uncommon but a GM of TRPG would say that)_ > > **** > + + / Or I'm not sure whether this famous example is what you want though: > **** > + + / + + +
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar" }
why it's needed a second ใซ in the sentence ๆฑไบฌใซ่กŒใใซใฏไฝ•ใง่กŒใใพใ™ใ‹? From the answer in another question of this board, translates as "About you going to Tokyo, how are you going?" . Why is the second "ni" needed in this sentence?
The second is for marking a purpose. The English equivalent is "(in order) to" as in "Click _to_ see it." The more literal translation would be " **To** go to Tokyo, by what do you go?" This is frequently used with (`go to + (verb)`). Japanese Particle _Ni_ -- Indicating Purpose < Examples: > * I went to Japan **to** eat real sushi. > * Come and see it! >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 1, "tags": "particle ใซ, particle ใฏ" }
ใ‚ขใƒ‘ใƒผใƒˆใฏๅคšๅฐ‘้ ใใฆใ‚‚ใ€ๅฎ‰ใ„ๆ–นใŒใ„ใ„ใ€‚ I don't understand "" here (especially "") I think it means something like "Even if the flat is somewhat far it's good that it's cheap" but it would be ""
In this case, is used to compare 2 options. The 2 options are assumed to be "expensive" and "cheap". So it basically emphasize that cheap is the better option.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 1, "tags": "meaning" }
What is the difference between ้ฆดๆŸ“ใ‚€ and ๆ…ฃใ‚Œใ‚‹? What is the difference between and ? Dictionaries say that both represent "to grow accustomed to". In what case cannot be replaced by or cannot be replaced by ?
A dictionary states that has three meanings. The first meaning is "get used to". I think it means "the thing becomes an usual thing for someone". The second is "familiarize with", "master". The third is "something like a tool is comfortable and easy to use for someone because he has used it for long". A dictionary states that has two meanings. The first meaning is "get used to" and it implies "familiar with the thing". The second is "fit in", "match up". For example, the difference between and is whether someone is familiar with it or not according to a dictionary. I think and have almost the same meaning. doesn't have the meaning of "match up" as the second meaning of , so you can say but you can't say doesn't have the second meaning of , so you can say but you can't say .
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 12, "tags": "word choice" }
is suki an adjective and a verb? I thought that "suki" was a verb which meant "to like". It is hard to me to make sense why it seems to be always used with "desu". Now in a webpage I read that suki is an adjective, which means something like "liked" like some sort of passive voice I guess? That's why it uses the verb desu almost always I supposed. But I also see in another webpage that suki is a verb with all its conjugations. The question is, is it suki an adjective, a verb, or both, and if it's also a verb, when it's used like a verb with its respective conjugations and without desu? (Assuming it can be used without desu.)
_suki_ is a difficult word. What is clear is that it derives from the verb _suku_ , which is still in use (most often in the passive voice: "to be liked"). However, like the _ren'yลkei_ " _masu_ -stem" of so many other verbs, it took on a life of its own, primarily as what is quite naturally analyzed as _keiyลdลshi_ " _na_ -adjective". Hence we have > 1. > _ga suki desu_ > cf. > > 2. **** > _suki **na**_ > cf. **** > > A literal translation might be "X is _likeable/nice_ ", which equates to "I like X". * * * Note that _kirai_ (from _kirau_ , also often seen in the passive ) works almost exactly the same.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 3, "tags": "grammar, verbs, adjectives, na adjectives, parts of speech" }
How to say "to take in" when in reference to people? I'm writing something to an old dorm manager I had - I want to ask if he's still taking in students from a particular school (as dorm residents). In English, I'd ask "Are you still taking in X school's students?" How would I translate the "taking in" part of the sentence in Japanese?
Most commonly, we would use: > {}{}{}{}{}, etc. You could say: > or {}[school name] {} + **** \+ > > {}[school name] + **** \+ , etc. I put those in fairly polite forms to be on the safe side. I did not use the super-polite forms, thinking that you would have difficulty saying the other things correctly on the same super-polite level.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "words, verbs" }
What is the meaning of ใ‚‚ใ† and ใ‚‚ใ˜? > **** What is the meaning of and ?
**** can mean different things depending on context like already/yet/anymore and **** () means a character. {} Assuming the preceding kanji, I would translate the sentence to "My daughter can **already** read **characters** ".
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "grammar, translation, word choice, meaning, words" }
#25ใฎๅˆถไฝœใฏใ€Œใปใผใ‚ชใƒชใ‚ธใƒŠใƒซใชใฎใงใ€ใพใšใฏๅŽŸไฝœใ‚ตใ‚คใƒ‰ใงๆ›ธใในใ—ใ€ใจๅง‹ใพใ‚Šใพใ—ใŸใ€‚ใใ—ใฆใงใใ‚ใŒใฃใŸใใฎใ“ใซใ‚ˆใ‚‹่„šๆœฌใƒขใƒ‰ใ‚ญใ‚’ๅ‰ใซ้ ญใ‚’ๆŠฑใˆใ‚‹ๅˆถไฝœ้™ฃ > #25(source) My translation: > I began by thinking that #25's script was "mostly original, so I should write this as a side story to the original [the VN] story." And so I, Kinoko, was at my wits end trying to write something approximating a screenplay. I'm particularly interested in the reference to the script and how it's supposed to be almost original. Any reference to that script (and where it comes from) I might have neglected is most welcome. Edit: My translation wasn't very literal. Another approach would be something like: > The production of episode 25 began with "since it's mostly original content, it should first be written by the original author". And then the production team clutching their heads at the completed so-called script by Kinoko.
According to Wikipedia: > Fate/stay night 2 > ufotableufotable > (โ€ป = ) So was both the original author and scenario supervisor of this anime series. With this background, the sentence in question is interpreted as follows: "I started creating Ep. 25, thinking I should firstly write as if I were just an original author (i.e., only from the original author's perspective)." It means he intentionally and temporarily forgot about his job as the scenario supervisor of the anime. While he wrote the story of #25, he did not care much about how it would look like as an anime episode. As a result, what he made looked like a long ordinary novel, and it was not directly usable as the screenplay. That's why other staff were at a loss and had to trim much of what he wrote. Note that this does not mean a side story, but something like "'s standpoint/perspective". is an original author. is "pseudo ", "wannabe ", "mock ", "-oid", etc.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "meaning" }
General expression for the age of something I'm looking for a general way in Japanese to express the following: > X is Y years old. I know for human age we use and I have seen other expressions for buildings and trees (don't remember them off hand). At least speaking about inanimate objects, is there a generic way to express age? Here is my guess (probably awkward): > This car is 20 years old. >
It is not nearly as simple as in English or many other languages. You could say: > X + + Y + {} > > X + + Y + > > X + + Y + **** โ† here can be replaced by a verb in the passsive voice form such as {},{}, etc. For buildings and trees, however, we have common set expressions. Buildings: {}Y Trees: {}Y For food and liquor items where aging is an important part of their values, we often use the expression **Y** . Unless used sarcastically, that expression generally carries a positive connotation with it. We say: , etc. Finally, we would _**never**_ say: > **** to mean "This car is 20 years old." The only times when we use **** is when we say "A is Y years older than B." and emphasize that Y is a _**large**_ number - "A is much older than B". The is for emphasis and it is often used in combination with . You can say: > BMW **** ****
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 8, "question_score": 11, "tags": "english to japanese" }
What is ๆ€ใ† doing in this sentence? What does the first , right after , mean here? > ****
It's part of the phrase , which means "to one's heart's content'. The refers the amount/share of something () that you _think_ you want to do/have such that you are satisfied. Alternatively, you could just leave it out and put a before .
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 3, "tags": "verbs, set phrases" }
ichi-gatsu vs hitotsuki Can some help me by explaining what the difference between these two is?
[]{} is "January". []{} (or []{}) is "one month". * * * Compare: []{}[]{}[]{}... = January, February, March... []{}[]{}[]{}... (or []{}[]{}[]{}...) = one month, two months, three months...
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 2, "tags": "word choice, counters" }
What does ใŸใพใ‚‹ mean when it is connected to ใฆ? I looked up the meaning of and the meaning is accumulate. But sometimes I see in the end of a sentence (e.g. It seems like accumulate does not quite make sense in this sentence. Can anyone tell me what does that mean in this sentence. If you can provide some more examples sentence it would be great.
It's a different verb: {}, used here in a set phrase meaning roughly "is it at all possible?" or "there's no way it is so" \- being more of a rhetorical question. > > > That can't be! No way! The verb is also used in meaning "to bear", "to withstand" also to indicate something irresistible, like: > > > I can't resist cakes.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 2, "tags": "subsidiary verbs" }
Meaning of "verb phrase-ใจใ“ใ‚ใŒใ€person-ใซใฏใ‚ใ‚‹" > **** > It is indeed absurd _but/and_ Maruo has reached the point where he wants to say so. I can't understand the structure of this sentence. Nor am I sure I've translated it correctly. It's the part in bold that's confusing me (I think). In particular the function of . To me this reads as "the point where ... is at Maruo" rather than "Maruo is at the point where..."
That is a place marker (="in/at"). has many abstract meanings, and in this case it can be understood as "trait" or "characteristic". The subject of is the speaker (="I"). See: Meaning of in > > (lit.) In Maruo-kun, there is a trait [because of] which I want to say so. > โ‰’ Maruo is the kind of person who makes me feel like saying such an (absurd) thing.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, particle ใซ, reading comprehension" }
What is the difference between ไผš็คพ and ็คพ when referring to a company? Both terms refer to a company. I want to know if there are differences on when one term would be preferred over the other.
_kaisha_ is an independent **word** meaning "company" or "corporation". In compounds it describes a _type of_ company (and is always pronounced **** _gaisha_ ) > * _kลซkล gaisha_ airline company > * _shลken gaisha_ brokerage firm > * _kabushiki gaisha_ stock company > * * * _may_ be used independently as an abbreviation of , but is far more standard as an independent word. In compounds, can be thought of an abbreviation of , e.g. > * _shachล_ (company) director > * _shaoku_ company office building > Most often, however, is used as a **suffix** , e.g. * similarly to above > * _shuppansha_ publishing company > * _shinbunsha_ newspaper company * after the name of a _particular_ company > Kลdansha * as a counter word for companies (or "shrines"), giving (apart from the usual 20 "20 companies") words like > * "several companies" > * "this company" or "head office" > * "this company" > > cf.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 8, "question_score": 2, "tags": "meaning, word choice, suffixes, nouns" }
Japanese idiom for don't let it get to your head? In the sense of "don't be arrogant".
You can say: * * * * If you need an _idiom_ , you can also say (lit. "Don't become a _tengu_ "). According to Wikipedia: > The tengu of this period were often conceived of as the ghosts of the arrogant, and as a result the creatures have become strongly associated with vanity and pride. Today the Japanese expression _tengu ni naru_ ("becoming a tengu") is still used to describe a conceited person.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 4, "tags": "idioms, english to japanese" }
"As in" in japanese Just a quick question here, but somehow hard to find: How could I say "as in" in japanese ? For example : > I learned the kanji as in today. Here is my attempt, sorry for the lousy japanase : >
You can simply use : > * > * BD > * >
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 19, "question_score": 9, "tags": "syntax, phrases" }
How to parse ใซใŸใ‚ใซใชใ‚‹ How can I parse this sentence: > So that it means: > In comparison to appearance, reality is better Edit: The complete paragraph is: > Whereis a proverb being defined
> {}{} From your question title "How to parse ", it is clear that you are already parsing the middle part of the phrase incorrectly. It is + . โ‡’ ("beneficial in a practical sense") It is not + . โ‡’ Makes little sense. The phrase in question is making a comparison between two things: 1) โ‡’ "the appearnace" โ‡’ **_flower viewing_** 2) โ‡’ "the beneficial thing in a practical sense" โ‡’ **_eating dango_** and **it is saying that 2) is better than 1)**. Thus, this sums up the meaning of the well-known saying {}{}. should be remembered as it is used **_very_** often. It basically means "good-fo-ya".
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 3, "tags": "meaning, parsing" }
ใ‚ใ‚Šใพใ›ใ‚“ใจ - possible interpretations My understanding of is that it is an abbreviated form of (//), but the formal throws me off. I was under the impression that the formal part should be always the last one, so it should be (//). Is it possible that abbreviation moves the formality before ? Are the following interpretations possible? > ... must be > > ... must have something
It would help to know the context, and I'm not confident with this answer, but here goes. You may know that , , and are often used as shorthand for et cetera. In , basically acts as shorthand for - being explicitly polite while still cutting off the ending. Also, you really should know this, but the negative of is simply , not or anything.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 0, "tags": "meaning, expressions" }
Grammar explanation of ใปใŠใฃใฆใŠใ„ใฆ In the Waeijiro databese I found the sentence . It is translated as "Let it be", but I don't understand its grammar. I get that comes from , but where does come from? Is it an adverb or a verb? I tried to look for // but I couldn't find anything.
**** is just the **_very_** common colloquial pronunciation of **** . Thus, one might call it the "pronunciation-based spelling". So, try looking up {} in a better dictionary. People say to mean " ** _Leave me alone!_** " all the time. The shorter form will be even heard more often. Note: I said "a better dictionary" because I answered the same question some years ago elsewhere, and the questioner told me that his/her small bilingual dictionary only gave the definition "to throw". A bigger dictionary should also give "to neglect".
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, words, verbs, adverbs" }
Trying to ID a printed character that looks like a script M I am reading a movie scenario magazine and came across this character: ![enter image description here]( Here is an example with some context: ![enter image description here]( I can't tell if it is a Japanese character or a typographical mark or something else. What could it be?
is called {}. It is a typographic mark that has traditionally been used to indicate that what follows it is (a part of) a poem, song, etc. It is also said to be the origin of the modern Japanese quotation marks . {}, by itself, means a "little hut with a thatched roof" in case someone thought indeed looked like a roof. < There is no English page for this Wiki article.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 11, "question_score": 9, "tags": "words" }
The usage of noun+ใ™ใ‚‹ใ“ใจ If my understanding is correct, the pattern verb+ is used to "noun-ify" a verb, similar to the to-infinitive in English. For example, to translate "My dream is **to become** a programmer", I would say **** . However, I see expressions like "to study" and "to debut", but aren't and already nouns? Thus, is basically the same as ?
You're right. For example, (as a verb) essentially has the same meaning as (as a noun), and they are pretty much used interchangeably. If you want to get technical, the first one is 'to study' while the second is 'to do studying'. The same applies to your question. Both addingand not adding it are valid. That is because some verbs already pass as nouns. more accurately means the 'action of studying', and by itself is like simply 'studying'. They both work, but perhaps just using the noun on its own is less awkward, as long as you know it's already a noun.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 1, "tags": "grammar, verbs" }
What is the meaning of ใคใ„ใ‚ฏใ‚ป in this sentence? I cannot find a translation of the word (or phrase) in the following sentence. > My best guess would be that comes from and is so that the word could mean "acquired bad habit". Also, I am not entirely sure what the and the are doing in this sentence. My attempt at a translation would be the following: > After I moved here, I got into the bad habit of looking at the weather forecast for the region around Tokyo. Is this somewhat close?
and are two words. * is an adverb, meaning "against one's better judgement" or "unintentional" (although these are very wordy in comparison with the original Japanese) * is indeed "(bad) habit" and means "out of habit" The two adverbs are independent. (You could delete either one, or both, from the sentence and still have a grammatical sentence.) > > After moving here, out of habit I still end up watching even the weather forecast for Tokyo. * works like "even" here, since he is watching Tokyo's weather forecast even though he lives somewhere else. It corresponds * is used for emphasis ("up to and including") The translation still reads like a bumpy ride, but I tried to stick to a literal translation as much as possible.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 1, "tags": "translation, meaning, adverbs" }
Can ็งใฎๆ‰‹ไผใ„ใ‚’ใ™ใ‚‹ใฎ mean "the help I do"? I found an example from an online dictionary as follows. > > > He showed a great reluctance to help me. Because in the relative clause can be replaced by , so > can mean "the help I do". # Question Can mean "the help I do"? In other words, can the original sentence > be translated as follows? > He showed a great reluctance to receive my help.
One exception of so-called " _ga_ - _no_ conversion" is that you cannot use in place of if there is . Such will be taken not as the subject but as a modifier of the object marked with . According to this answer, > But you can't replace with if there's a direct object marked with : > >> > * (ungrammatical) > The store where John bought the book As mentioned in the comment in the link, will be taken as "the store where someone bought John's book". can mean not only "my help" but also "help for me" depending on the context. Therefore: 1. **** **** โ†’ He did not want to help me. 2. **** **** โ†’ He did not want me to help him. 3. **** โ†’ He did not want me to help him. 4. **** โ†’ He did not want me to help him. 1 โ‰  2 = 3 = 4.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 4, "tags": "grammar, translation, relative clauses, nominalization" }
What is the difference between ๅผ•ใๆธกใ— and ๅ—ใ‘ๆธกใ—? I'm having trouble understanding which one to use when, as they appear to have overlapping definitions (EDICT both have the translation "delivery"). For instance, which one do you use to describe an estate agent delivering an apartment key from the owner to a renter?
They are often interchangeable, but there are differences, too. tends to refer to a relatively casual action. often refers to a legally/politically important action. You may think is closer to "to hand" or "to communicate", and is closer to "to transfer (ownership, right, etc)" or "to delegate." If you are objectively explaining how web servers and browsers work, is probably preferred. If you are buying a secret piece of important information from a agent for a million yen, would be preferred. * is preferred: , , * is preferred: , , In your example, both and sound okay to me. Both the estate agent and the resident can say either or .
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 2, "tags": "word choice" }
Is there any difference between ไฝฟใฃใฆใฟใพใ—ใ‚‡ใ† and ไฝฟใ„ใพใ—ใ‚‡ใ†๏ผŸ and Do they mean the same thing?
They are the forms of two different verbs. is the polite variant of . The root verb is (), which means "to try using" is the polite variant of which is the volitional form of () which means "to use" The places where you use these two are different. For instance, = let's use the refrigerator -- we know it works and we are going to use it. whereas = let's try to use the refrigerator -- we are going to test out the fridge somewhere we have not been for a while (like a cabin) and hope that it works for what we want.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 1, "tags": "usage" }
Why are most Japanese newspapers, magazines and books read from back to front? In my experience, the above listed reading materials are all read from left cover to right cover, page one is the last page from a western perspective. I have been unable to find a reason for this publishing style. In contrast, my Japanese dictionaries all have the first page on the left-hand side and the last on the right-hand side. In the west, _everything_ is read from left cover to right cover, whilst in Japan there is variation.
Japanese can be written in two directions. 1. in columns * each column is written from top to bottom * columns are arranged from right to left 2. in rows [as in English] * each row is written from left to right * rows are arranged from top to bottom The first is used for most newspapers, books (incl. manga), etc. Individual pages are thus bound on the right and thus, from a Western perspective appear to be read from the "back". (By the way, I also have a that is typeset in columns, thus bound on the right, and thus read "back to front".)
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 8, "question_score": -3, "tags": "culture, typesetting, publishing" }
ใ“ใจใซใ™ใ‚‹ versus ใ‚ˆใ†ใซใ™ใ‚‹ > A: **** > > B: **** Both literally mean > I make a rule to remember 10 kanji characters everyday. So what is the difference?
> A: **** > > B: **** I am going to say that the difference between the two is fairly subtle. In real life, some people would actually use them interchangeably. Strictly speaking (at the risk of sounding slightly nitpicky), however, using **** would often make it sound like the speaker is more serious and more firmly determined about learning 10 kanji a day than when using **** . It would be like saying " _ **I make it a rule**_ " vs. " _ **I have been trying**_ ". could sound slightly less strict about the goal, but again not by much.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 11, "question_score": 9, "tags": "grammar, volitional form" }
When can ใซ be used instead of ใง and vice-versa? > 1. > > 2. > > Why can be used in 2 and when can be used instead of ?
> **** -- "I bought a house **[when I was] in** Tokyo." marks the place where an action takes place. The action of buying a house occurred in Tokyo. > **** -- "I bought a house **[which is located] in** Tokyo." marks the direction toward which the result of an action occurs. Now you have a house in Tokyo. * * * Another example: > **** -- "I bought a TV in Akihabara." You use here, since the action of buying a TV took place in Akihabara. > **** -- "I bought a TV in/for my bedroom." You use here. The TV has been (or will be) placed in your bedroom.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 5, "question_score": 2, "tags": "particles" }
What is the difference between ็ซ‹ใค and ่ตทใค? What is the difference between and ?
one of the rare readings found mainly in novels and other aesthetic writings. Specifically, is occasionally used to mean _to rise up_ (in revolt), _to stand up_ (e.g., for a captive princess), etc. Some people may use it to refer to something else according to their preference and creative sense. In serious news articles and such, we use , or for this meaning. The usage of is not something we learn at school, and you don't need to use unless you're interested in creative writings.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 0, "tags": "word choice" }
Etymology of ๆ–นๅฟŒใฟ I have read about the types of during the Heian period, but now I am wondering about the origin of the word . I know what is. > "directional taboo" which is the belief that certain directions and points on the compass should be avoided in certain situations. I also know that may have possibly existed before the Heian period.
* means _direction_. In modern Japanese, its Sino-Japanese equivalent is more commonly used. * is the continuous form (, aka masu-stem) of , which is a verb meaning _to hate and evade_ , _to avoid cursed/bad things_. The inflection is used to turn this verb into noun (i.e., _evade_ โ†’ _evasion_ ) So it's straightforwardly "directional evasion". Or do you want the origins of and themselves? Unfortunately they are very old words (Yamato kotoba) and I could not find their origin. Lastly, please keep in mind that is a very rare word. I believe most Japanese native speakers have not seen this word, and even a middle-sized archaic-Japanese dictionary does not have this word.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "tags": "etymology" }
What does ใฎ mean in this sentence? I cannot understand what , right after , is doing here. Could I rewrite this sentence without it? > ****
You can rewite it as good: gpood: accseptable: unnatural: The word "" requires "(place)" before it and "(action)" after it. Thus, "(place) (action)." So "" is usually used the following situation. > "" Where did you know that I'm going to get married? > "" I heard it at the school. > > "" My car had gone down. "" Where are you gong to repair it? "" I'll repair it at the repair plant on the national route. The verb phrase of an action after "" is natural. On the other hand, the noun phrase of an action after "" is natural. > "" > "" Precisely, "" means that I go to somewhere and study something there. Then not just "" but "" is natural. "" or "" "" is natural but "" is a little bit unnatural, because "" requires two contries, one is country of departure and the other is destination. "" requires just the plase where you do something. > So "" and "" are properly used > ""
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 1, "question_score": 3, "tags": "particles" }
What is the difference between ้…ใ‚Œๆฐ—ๅ‘ณ and ้…ใ‚ŒใŒใก? I know that means "tend to..", while means "to have the feeling, to be a little..". Like , tend to get sick, and , have / feeling like having a slight cold. But how about this: . Does it means the clock is a little late? Because if the clock tends to be late, it should be , right? Thank you!
Both sentences are correct, but have different meanings. simply means the clock is currently a little slow. You can just adjust it to the correct time, and the problem is solved. But depending on the context, I feel it may mean the same thing as described below. only means the clock tends to be slow, i.e., even after adjusting it. Perhaps you need to replace a battery, or you want to buy a new clock. Apparently you already know why.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 7, "question_score": 2, "tags": "grammar, expressions" }
ๆ“{ใฟใ•ใŠ} : too many translations to be true I am a bit confused regarding the translations of the word in my book (Kanji et Kana of Hadamitzky, Durmous and Mochizuki), as they give : chastity, purity, innocence, constancy, fidelity and honour! So I wanted to know which ones were closer to the actual usage of this word, as most of these translations have already well-known equivalents.
If you need to be strict in meaning, let's use those well-known equivalents :-) Honestly speaking, I find it hard to explain how it is actually used, because it's rarely used. Everyone has heard this word, typically sung in enka and Japanese folk songs (for example see ). But the concept of is almost never used in today's education, discussions, essays, and so on. If I understand correctly, is basically an old-fashioned word which is close to (chastity). It does not necessarily mean being a (virgin), and can probably be used with a married woman. I tend to associate with a stereotype of strong-minded, determined woman who is faithful to her husband or master. When I was writing this, Joan of Arc came up to my mind...although she's not even a Japanese!
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "tags": "translation, kanji" }
Reading numbers in Japanese numeral-by-numeral instead of as a number I was taught that generally numbers in Japanese should be read as: 123 => However, I was wonder if there is any case where the numbers are read one-by-one, like: 123 => I was thinking maybe for license plate numbers and room numbers, but I am not sure which method would be appropriate. If both are used, is there a connotation to using one pronunciation over the other?
The first case is generally used for numbers representing quantity or amount like: price, age, weight, distance, time The second case is generally used for numbers representing identifier like: phone numbers, license plate, room numbers The difference between two cases is importance of number of digits, I think so. Rarely, the second case is used for informing any numbers that is **very** important. For example, military affairs.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 3, "question_score": 1, "tags": "readings, numbers" }
In conversation can you just say "ไธ‡ๅ††ใงใ™" or must you say "ไธ€ไธ‡ๅ††ใงใ™"? I'm pretty sure it's natural to say "{}" as a casual abbreviation of "{}" in a conversation. Same with "{}" vs. "{}". This is similar in English conversation where it is ok to say "a/uh hundred yen" instead of "one-hundred yen". But what about "" and ""? Do both of those also sound natural, or should you only say "{}" and "{}"?
You must say {} and {} using the number /1. It is just a custom we have and adhere to and those customs die hard in any culture. Saying those two phrases without using /1 will make one sound **_very_** unnatural. If I heard by itself without any context, I would definitely think of the word {} ("spread", "prevail", etc.). I would not think of "10,000 yen" at all. In business, however, we often say {} to mean "1,000 yen", so that should probably be remembered. Note that is pronounced , and not here.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 10, "question_score": 10, "tags": "numbers" }
Is this a wrong translation of the negative? I found this sentence from Death Note with it's translation: > "" > "Now I canโ€™t kill you and the police can only recover the Death Note from you." Why is translated as "can recover" and not "can't recover" since it's in the negative form? Does it have something to do with ?
The translation is not wrong. The key of your question is **** and " **only** ". The usage of combined with negatives (here, in ) translates into "only". Here, as is plus , is equivalent to something like only . So its translation would be "police can recover the Death Note _only_ from you," which is equivalent to the original translation. * * * is translated to "Now" in your sentence and has nothing to do with your question. The literal interpretation of is "if this"; or "if _the situation is like_ this". In this context the situation is already determined to " _this_ ", so the interpretation is more like " _Now that_ the situation is like _this_ ", which is condensed into "Now" in your sentence.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 6, "question_score": 2, "tags": "meaning, particle ใ—ใ‹" }
Are ้ ‚ใใพใ™ and ใ”้ฆณ่ตฐใ•ใพ used when eating in public? I have heard these words used when dining in a person's home, but I am not sure if it's appropriate to use them in a restaurant.
is a way of honouring the food you are about to eat, as well as everything that made it possible for you to eat this food (the nature that provided it, the person preparing it, etc.). It is _never_ inappropriate to say before eating or drinking something, no matter the place or occasion. is only slightly different. Its origins lie in thanking whoever prepared the food (e.g. see [About []{}: two โ€œrunsโ€ would give you โ€œa feastโ€?]( and Etymology of ). Of course, this makes it extremely appropriate for the restaurant situation and you will hear it from people thanking the chef, kitchen staff or waiters for the meal. Still, I would say that many people treat it in fact as a counterpart to , with the same sentiment of thanking not only the cook, but everything that made it possible for you to have this meal, making it also _never_ inappropriate to say , even if you prepared the food yourself.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 7, "question_score": 3, "tags": "usage, expressions, culture, food, word usage" }
Meaning of ใฆใ• after ใฆ form I could not find anything about it. What does it mean? > ****
> {} + **** \+ + **** \+ (form of the progressive ) is very often contracted to in informal speech. We say , etc. You just cannot speak natural informal Japanese without using this -to- contraction dozens of times a day. Next, the sentence-ending particle . is used to make a light and casual (and sometimes careless) kind of declaration. This sentence-ender does not have a clear meaning of its own. It is the kind of sentence-ender that some people use quite heavily out of a habit while others rarely do. Without exaggeration, some actually use it at the end of every phrase (or even word) like: > {}{} In the real Japanese-speaking world, there is such thing as "one's go-to sentence-ender". Some go to , some to , some to , etc. What type are you? Here is an extremely famous children's song for you. Lyrics by a -type person. <
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 7, "question_score": 2, "tags": "words, ใฆ form, contractions, sentence final particles" }
How do I apologise for my bad kanji/for using hiragana? I am new to Japanese Language stack exchange and a beginner at learning Japanese too. I have recently gotten a Japanese penpal who is lovely. I want to send her a message but I am having trouble getting across my meaning with these sentences: What I am trying to do here is apologise for mostly writing to her in hiragana. But it looks like I'm just apologising for the existence of hiragana, or something... How can I explain that I'm sorry about using my hiragana in my penpal messages? This is the next sentence: I'm trying to say my skills at kanji are not good, but again I don't think I'm getting the right meaning across here. How would I say this? I would really appreciate it if you could include romaji in your answer.
Add the on the end and your sentence makes sense and is appropriate: If you want to say "sorry for writing in hiragana only", you're close: (Literally, "because I'm writing in hiragana, sorry [about that]".) Putting the two together makes things clearest, I think: Have fun writing and learning!
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 2, "tags": "meaning, phrases" }
Why does ใ€Œใงใ‚‚ใ€make question words mean 'any'? etc. are all question words. However, etc, all mean 'Any ___'. What's making this happen? Is it just a special exception that evolved over time, or is there some reason for this considerable shift in meaning? I ask as while I'm still not 100% when it comes to the particles and , I still don't get what's going on here.
I'm sure that someone can give a more specific etymological answer but as a particle is appended to the form of , sort of like , so it _isn't_ two particles and . You're dealing with ~ in this case. Basically means "no matter what," which has the same functional meaning as "anything" in a lot sentences > > > (if it's Chinese food, no matter what it is, I'll eat it / **anything** is fine) no matter when <\--> anytime , no matter how <\--> anyhow You get the picture.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 4, "question_score": 5, "tags": "meaning, particle ใงใ‚‚" }
Is ใ‹ใใ‚„ๅงซ pronounced "Ka-gu-ya" or "Kag'-ya"? Just a quick question. Is 's name pronounced "Kaguya" or "Kag'ya"? aka. Is the dropped or not? Just curious as I haven't found a definitive answer for this yet.
My Japanese teacher taught me a trick which now I use as a rule of thumb (there may be exceptions but it works most of the time). Just say it both ways and look at the phonics of the following consonant. _Kag-ya_ , or _Ka-gya_ (when dropping the vowel, is more like /) has a very different pronunciation to _ka-gu-ya_ Specifically, _-ya_ leads from a _e_ (the shape you mouth makes when it starts to say _e_ ). Therefore it shouldn't (cannot) be dropped. In my experience, one never has to drop the vowel in proper nouns (e.g. names) unless it's a nuance of the name. Japanese names, in particular, tend to favour enunciation of each syllable. One last thing to remember is that, in a particular dialect, contraction may happen but more often than not, there is nothing wrong with enunciating each syllable.
stackexchange-japanese
{ "answer_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "tags": "pronunciation" }