INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
〜んだった to express regret?
I was surprised to see this Tumblr post describe used to mark regret. I can only assume it's true, but I'm not sure (1) how much of a colloquial expression/slang is it? (2) what does it come from, grammatically?
I'm familiar with → , but that doesn't seem like the past form (past+) so is it maybe some kind of abbreviation of It doesn't really make sense though... and I couldn't really find anything anywhere else!
|
According to :
> -
>
>
>
* * *
> (1) how much of a colloquial expression/slang is it?
It is a colloquial expression, but I don't think it's slang.
> (2) what does it come from, grammatically?
> is it maybe some kind of abbreviation of
No, it is not the abbreviation of . I think is similar in meaning and construct to **** . ( indicates )
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, expressions"
}
|
Pronouncing ichigo
I would like to know how ichigo is pronounced. I have listened but I cannot catch it. I would love to understand the rules for this pronunciation.
|
It's pronounced as it's spelled. I-chi-go .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, hiragana"
}
|
Text explanation
I'm studying by my textbook (N3) and faced this exercise. The correct answer is 1 and 5. But I don't understand why the answer 4 is incorrect. Apparently, I'm missing something, but I read this text many times and still don't understand.
![](
|
In general implies you were in the proximity of that thing. In this case they didn't come close to the pharmacy, so you wouldn't normally use .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "reading comprehension"
}
|
Difference between 彼はかなり英語が上手です and 彼の英語はかなり上手です
Now I have been self studying Japanese for 1 and a half year now. Today I came across this sentence:
>
> He is pretty good at English.
I have always been taught that I should construct sentence like these like:
>
> His English is pretty good.
I just wanted to know if there is some kind of different message being transferred with the first one. Maybe it's more fluent?
All help/criticism is welcome.
|
I don't see any difference in terms of fluency.
It is really hard for me to tell the differences. They are almost the same. But, after self-observation for a while, I came up with this.
limits scope of a topic. A Bsuggests that "I am talking only about A but not other things."
So, for example, suppose someone asks ("We have three candidates. Any ideas?").
(I am talking only about him not other candidates.)
(I am talking only about his English skill.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "particle は, particle の"
}
|
When can AはBです mean 'A has B'
>
> The ministry, together with cities and prefectures that have ports, has a plan to build wharfs for cruise ships.
If I strip the example sentence to the important parts I have
>
> The ministry **is** a plan
I keep seeing sentences of the form AB which seem to mean 'A **has** B' rather than 'A **is** B'.
When and why is this possible? Is it incorrect to say:
>
What is the difference?
|
You can say/write (a bit less colloquially):
> XX
> XX
> XX
to mean
> XX ~~ is planning to do XX
> XX ~~ is planning/scheduled to do XX
> XX/ ~~ is thinking of doing XX / intend to do XX
respectively.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, copula"
}
|
What is the difference between 発行する and 作成する when talking about documents?
What would be the difference between **** and **** when talking about documents? I will use both of them in the next sentence, could you please tell me if there is any difference?
> ****
>
> ****
Great thanks is advance!
|
Compare these two definitions:
> ****
> — - goo
>
> ****
> — - goo
is more explicit in saying that the document is not just _created_ but also _made effective_ , often in an official or somewhat irrevocable way.
In actual use, can **imply** that the document was also made effective, but you can't be sure without additional context.
In terms of , a simple distinction would be:
1. **** = _create_ a return slip
2. **** = _issue_ a return slip
For example, I can imagine an app where you click the button to create a new slip, and when you're done filling it out, click the button to print/send it. (But of course, since includes the notion of , there could also be an app where a single button both creates and prints the new slip.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Japanese term for backwards
It is easy to find **inside out** in a dictionary: {}, but I have difficulty translating **backwards** in the expression
> to put a T-shirt on backwards
|
I believe you can use for "backwards" or "front-to-back". For example,
> T
_Edit._ People in chat also point out that there is also "back-to-front", so
> ↔ "front to back"
> ↔ "back to front"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "english to japanese"
}
|
What does 美味しい mean when referring to a person?
What does mean when referring to a person? In particular, in this sentence I found, it is used together with :
> ...
Context: a guy is talking about another guy's bad behaviour. I think the meaning in this case is that the person in question doesn't have any positive feature in his personality. Is my guess correct? Thank you for your help!
|
>
had been an **_extremely_** popular phrase for several years until about a decade ago but it is not very 'cool' anymore. Though its novelty has worn out, it is still heard often enough.
It basically means " ** _to steal the show_** ", " ** _to take a big bite_** " or " ** _to take the best part_** ".
For this "new" meaning, should be written in kana. Using would look out of place as one is **_not_** talking about food.
If you said or did something with only a minimum amount of effort but it was received well (like getting a huge laugh in comedy), people around you would say that phrase about your "achievement".
Furthermore, does not refer to the person. It refers to what he said or did that ended up a "success".
Literally,
> "That guy takes away the (most) delicious part!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 19,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, words, nuances"
}
|
Tally Marks in Japanese?
In English, if we're tallying something on a piece of paper, etc., we usually write a vertical line to count 1, and then when you reach four of them, you cross it with a horizontal line to mean 5, and repeat. I saw a Japanese paper that seemed to be a similar concept, but the kanji seemed to be used for 1, and the kanji seemed to be used for 5 (there weren't any other numbers shown). What's the whole system in Japanese?
|
The conventional Japanese tally follows the stroke order for . So if the total were 8, it'd look like [], and if it were 20, it'd be []
This link shows an animation for the stroke order: <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "orthography"
}
|
Meaning of に in アルバイトの人などに売る数
From here:
> ****
> Convenince store managers say that they are told how much they must sell by the company, and (there are even stores that say the amount to sell **to** part-time workers) / (there are even stores that say the amount **for** part time workers to sell).
The article is talking about how student workers are complaining about sales targets for .
I'm not sure about the last part. What does mean here? Does mean **to** or **for**? Does the shop have a quota for selling **to** its workers. Or is it a quota **for** the workers to sell? How can I know?
|
You're not parsing it correctly, I'm afraid. It's parsed:
> **** ****
The in **** means "to".
_lit._ There are stores that **tell** the amount to sell **to** their part-time workers.
⇒ Some stores tell their part-time workers how many () they should sell.
* * *
Btw, the whole sentence is parsed:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
}
|
What does 「コロリ、コロリと」 mean?
It's my first time asking a question in this website so I hope I'll be as clear as possible.
I'm new at learning Japanese and I'm reading a book containing the phrase . It is impossible for me to understand. I tried looking it up on google but I couldn't find any proper explanation about it.
Could someone please explain it to me? Here's the entire sentence
> ****
|
Native Japanese speaking. It sounds weird to me because we use in a situation like
> ("He was killed easily.")
or something like that.
And we don't use this word too much. You don't have to care about this because this usage is incorrect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "onomatopoeia"
}
|
What does と after volitional form mean?
What does right after mean in the following sentence?
> ****
|
**Theory 1 -**
According to the Daijirin dictionary defintion [] can be a compound-case-marking-particle used to express surprise, anger, depth of emotion.
**Theory 2 -** It could also be viewed as a contraction of
or
(
with the part in brackets () omitted.
I am unsure whether these two theories are congruent or incongruent.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "syntax"
}
|
What does ってさ mean?
What does mean in this situation:
So **** ... in your example means **** ... "People like that are / A person like this is ..." or **** ... "People like that are (generally) ...". is quite colloquial and informal.
* * *
The () is an interjectory particle (), or a filler. You could refer to this dictionary entry (See 2⃣), or see these threads: What does (saa) mean? as an interjection
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
"No ga" .... -- what's this grammar rule?
What are the grammar rules here?
> ****
>
> _Nani wo suru **no ga** suki desu ka?_
Why "no ga"? Why before "suki"? Where can I read about this?
|
If N is a noun then `N` means "I like N".
* means "What thing do you like?"
* in makes the a noun. So means "What thing do you like to do?"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, nominalization"
}
|
Why does the person who wants to cancel an appointment say キャンセルさせてください to his/her partner?
Assume A has a partner named B. Last week both made an appointment to have dinner (dating). For a certain reason, A cannot come for the appointment and calls B by phone saying
> Please make me cancel ...
## Question
A wants to cancel the appointment, but why does A ask B to make A cancel it as if the source of problem is on B's side? I think A should say
> Please cancel ...
|
It works like "Please let me", so
> = Please let me cancel [our appointment]
(It wouldn't be interpreted as "Please make me cancel [our appointment]".)
You could also say
> = Please cancel [our appointment]
but it is a lot more direct (and thus less polite).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, politeness"
}
|
Ordering food at a restaurant with 私は何々がいい
Quite some time ago, I came across the phrase
>
in the sense of "I'd like to have (dish)" when ordering food in a restaurant. However, due to the long time elapsed since then, I can't say for sure anymore whether this was really the way it was phrased. So, I'd like to know if this is the correct phrasing and what its connotations are. I remember it to be fairly nonchalant, if I'm not mistaken.
|
I wouldn't recommend saying XX when ordering food at a restaurant; it might sound like a little kid saying "I want this!"
The most natural and common phrases for ordering food or drinks at a restaurant, cafe, bar etc., would be like:
> * XX[]{} -- "I'd like to have XX, please." (polite)
> * XX[]{} -- "I'd like to have two XXs, please." (polite)
> * XX -- "I'll have XX."
> * XX[]{} -- "I'll have three XXs."
> * XX -- "Can I have XX?"
> * XX[]{} -- "One XX, please." (casual)
> * XX[]{} -- "Two XXs, please." (casual)
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, phrases"
}
|
Can 奪う be a synonym of 殺す?
In the following dialogue, and in general, is a synonym of ? Maybe a more 'poetical' one?
> Character A:
>
> Character B: …
Thank you for your help!
|
1. Yes, in the dialogue, this is a synonym of , although the focus is on "we lost him" rather than plain "he is dead".
2. In general, means "to take [sth] away" or "to steal". _to take life away_ always means _to kill_. I'd say this usage is "[]" _to take [somebody] (away)_ , which can mean different things depending on the context:
* would mean to _kidnap_ her. (or when she's already kidnapped, to rescue her from the rogue)
* would usually mean to steal his/her love.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, words, nuances, synonyms"
}
|
What does この度は mean?
What does mean? I couldn't translate this in this sentence:
> ****
Can you help me to translate this phrase (not a full sentence)?
|
is "this", []{} is "occasion" here, and is a topic marker "regarding ..." Thus, the literal interpretation of is " **regarding this occasion**."
This is actually a set phrase used when saying gratitude, or apologizing etc. It may mean that the speaker is focusing on _this_ occasion (but not other ones), but may not always have any intentional meaning.
* * *
So in this case, your sentence is saying "thank you for you taking this book **this time**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
The use of "ている"
I'm a bit confused by the use of ****. I thought **~** is similar to **-ing** in English, but I'm not sure about the examples below.
1. ****
2. ****
|
In English, we use the simple present tense (or sometimes simple past tense in the case of an auxiliary phrase) to describe conditions which are permanent, as opposed to temporary or transitory. E.g.,
The is inside the
They investigated the inside() of the which is/was inside() the .
"The possibility that it is emitting strong radiation." (OK in English, but possibly more likely to use the present simple tense and say "the possibility that it is highly radioactive").
They knew there was a possibility that it is/was emitting strong radiation.
They knew there was a possibility that it is/was highly radioactive.
In contrast, Japanese will use the present continuous tense, as in your examples, to describe conditions which are permanent.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is おばあちゃん子?
I attempted to find the meaning of
>
but it seems that it does not exist in the dictionary.
What does it mean?
|
It is a child who grew up liking and spending lots of time with his/her grandma.
Even after that child has fully grown up, s/he is still often referred to as {}.
Naturally, we also say {}{}, etc. as well.
Nothing to do with blood family, but we also say to describe a kid/person who grew up watching a lot of TV. There is as well, but it is used less often than .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Understanding 場合、断っています
Regarding the foreigners that Trump doesn't like:
>
> Because of this, from the 30th of last month and are refusing cases in which it is clear that people from these countries are planning on getting on a plane going to America.
I think I might be mistranslating this. I'm unclear on what is being refused with . Why is there a comma where I'd expect to see ? And what exactly does "rejecting cases in which ..." mean? Are they stopping them at the point of boarding the plane or what?
|
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
As far as grammar, the object of the verb phrase ("to have been denying") is **not** ("the cases"). It is the " **implied** " {} ("the boarding of "). In Japanese, the object of a verb does not have to be explicitly mentioned.
Your translation is good; It is just not a literal one.
Why the comma? It is mostly because there are so many words used between the subject () and the verb (). The comma helps the reader keep track of the sentence structure.
It does not say because, as I stated above, is not the object of the verb . ( is not said in any kind of situation in the first place.) here simply means "in cases where ~~".
From this sentence alone, we could not tell where or how the two airlines are stopping the passengers. I am just imagining it would be when reservations are made and/or at the airport counter.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How do Japanese people infer if a verb is a ichidan verb or a godan ending in ru?
In Japan, if a Japanese person sees a new verb ending in ru, what would they do to try and infer if it's a ichidan or godan verb before just looking it up or asking someone?
|
When native Japanese speakers encounter or coin new verbs, such verbs are **assumed to be godan verbs** , despite the fact that many ordinary verbs that end with -i-ru/-e-ru are ichidan-verbs. Here I'm talking about native Japanese adults who can conjugate common verbs like /// without thinking. And native speakers don't usually think about verb types; verb types are something we learn at middle school, but most people forget about that soon after they graduate.
For example, when you present an imaginary verb to a native speaker and tell them to conjugate it in various ways, the response would be rather than . Likewise, the conjugation of an imaginary verb would be rather than .
This I think is because all verbs that were recently coined from loanwords are godan-verbs. is an example of godan verbs that may look like ichidan at first (We say but not ).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, godan verbs, ichidan verbs"
}
|
how to complement the させる＋くれる
I'm struggling trying to complement sentences using /.
In my studies it was said that meant "to let someone do" kind of, so the following sentence:
The teacher let (someone) ask lots of questions.
Now how can I specify who the teacher let to ask the questions?
If I want to say "The teacher let the students ask lots of questions.", how do I say that?
My try:
thanks in advance.
|
Your attempt is grammatically correct. To specify the target of , we use the particle.
But your sentence can be improved a little more, so let me describe it.
First, **** is a little bit unnatural. We say **** far more often. We use with concrete question phrases, for example: (ask where you are).
Then your sentence would be ****
Secondly, this sentence is ambiguous because there are two patterns in which modifies different verbs; one is "let" and the other is "ask."
The two possible interpretations of the sentence are:
> The teacher let the students ask lots of questions.
> The teacher let (someone) ask the students lots of questions.
One way to avoid this is:
> []{}
> The teacher gave the students a lot of opportunities to ask questions.
In this case modifies but not , because we don't say to mean "the questions to the students" but say .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "causation"
}
|
Function of であって
Is a - form of the copula and used for chaining, or it has a special meaning in the following examples?
> {}{}It doesn't matter where he is from.
>
> {}{}{}I wish her happiness.
|
> (where he is from)(even though)(it doesn't matter)
>
> = = even though XXX is true.
It doesn't matter wherever he is from.
> (she is happy){}(that){}(I hope)
>
> = (We say "," but don't say "")
I'm entirely not sure whether she is happy or not. (She is still one of my best friends, so) I strongly hope that she is happy.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "syntax, て form, copula"
}
|
Why is -ng transcribed as ング?
Why are English words ending with -ing often transcribed with ? For example, timing = , morning = , and diving = . My guess is that is formally pronounced with , i.e. pronounced like /ŋu/. Therefore, is this the case?
|
You're on the right track, but a little off.
When a language borrows a word from another language, it has two choices: drop the sounds that don't exist in their language, or add sounds to preserve the original pronunciation.
Japanese is a language that tends to try to preserve the pronunciation.
So, will not be pronounced as /ŋu/. However, /n/ becomes /ŋ/ before /g/. But since /g/ in isolation isn't possible in Japanese, they employ /gu/ (), in order to force the /ŋ/ pronunciation of .
So the phonemic /n.gu/ is rendered phonetically as /ŋ.gu/.
This sound cluster also exists outside of English borrowings:
/ten.maŋ.gu/
/maŋ.ga/
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, phonetics"
}
|
Why can だって have so many meanings?
According to jisho.org, has these meanings:
1. after all; because
2. but
3. even
4. too; as well; also
5. they say; I hear; you mean
In my opinion, "because" and "but", and "as well" are completely different things. I understand that the actual meaning of is inferred by context, but having so many distinct meanings is kind of weird.
I know that is short for , which means roughly "[some pronoun] say". That is the meaning number 5 of .
How does "[some pronoun] say" turn into "because", "but" and "even" etc?
|
1 and 2 are conjunctive used at the beginning of a sentence.
> *
> I didn't buy it. [After all / Because] it was expensive.
> *
> "Didn't I tell you to buy it?" "But it was expensive!"
>
This kind of is used to argue back, or to provide further explanation to convince someone. It's translated as "but" or "because" depending on the previous context. If you're not sure, something like "you know" or "well" should work.
3 and 4 are mid-sentence used after a noun to emphasize it.
> * Even you can do it. / You can do it, too.
> * You saw it, too, didn't you?
>
Definition 5 describes sentence-end . Sometimes it can sound mildly accusatory. In this case is just a colloquial variant of the quotative .
> [They say / I heard] it will rain tomorrow.
I don't know how is related to the verb etymologically. is short enough and I don't feel it's worth analyzing this word too much.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, colloquial language"
}
|
What does どうも mean in this sentence?
I can't get why is in the following sentence. What is its role in it?
> ****
|
This means _somehow_. It modifies at the end of the sentence (i.e., "I somehow feel that ...").
It's the fourth definition of the entry on jisho.org and the second definition of the entry on .
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Why can't だ be used after an I-adjective?
I have been constantly told that can not be placed after an I-adjective. Why is that?
|
is the plain-form copula (the "is; to be" word). In the plain form, adjectives already form a complete predicate (the piece of a sentence or clause that can complete that sentence or clause). In translation, it's like the adjective already includes the "is" meaning -- so would be "[it] _is_ fast", not just "fast".
Since is only used to provide a way of finalizing plain-form clauses, it's redundant in cases where the plain-form clause is already a complete predicate -- such as when it ends in an adjective. Saying might be like saying "[it] is is fast" in English -- the meaning is clear, but it's grammatically wrong and it sounds wrong.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 24,
"question_score": 19,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, i adjectives, copula, register"
}
|
When to use which one ? かもしれない、たぶん、もしかしたら
As I know All 3 words mean possibly/perhaps. They differ in % of possibility (My Japanese friend said so). But I am confused when to use which one properly?
|
they all have different uses.
is used at the end of a sentence to say "it might" or "maybe" (20-40%)
>
>
> **He might go to the baseball game.**
is used as a prefix to say "probably," or "maybe" (75% or above)
>
>
>
>
> **Are you going to go the baseball game?**
>
> **Yeah, probably.**
is closer to "if" than maybe, but also "perhaps" and the closest translation I could think of is "if by some chance." Don't think it is associated with a percentage, but is sometimes even used in combination with .
>
>
> **Because by chance they might be selling baseball cards at the game, would you mind buying me a pack?**
EDIT: From some suggested edits, I think it's worth it to note that even I slightly misunderstand It really is three parts, (Q) and where itself means if, and itself means perhaps or maybe, "in case." The at the end roughly makes it into like "if perhaps it is the case," in which case in my original example, saying twice was redundant to the meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "usage, modality"
}
|
The meaning of the particles in "Yume no naka futari de ita yo ne"
The phrase
> Yume no naka futari de ita yo ne
is translated in a page as
> In my dreams, we were together
I don't understand the meaning of the particles here, plus where the 'together' comes from. _Yume no naka_ is 'inside of my dreams' I suppose, _futari_ would be 'the two of us' and _ita_ the past of _iru_ which would be 'were' but where is the 'together'? What does the _yo ne_ adds here? And _de_ is supposed to be a particle that indicates the place where an action happens, but here is after 'the two of us'?
|
The particle "de" doesn't just mark the location where something happens. It's also used to mark the _means_ by which something happens. Which can include more direct things like "the tool by which an action was performed" (e.g. I went to Tokyo _by bullet train_ \- _densha de_ Tokyo ni itta) but can also mark more abstract ideas. So "futari de" means "by way of the two of us", or in other words "[do it] together". Since the verb here is just "ita", it's "we were together".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, particle で, particle ね, particle よ"
}
|
Meaning of 自分で呼んどいて
Context: two guys have just finished discussing a matter.
> Character A: (pushing character B)
>
> Character B: (looking irritated, then goes away)
I understand that is a contraction of , but I still don't understand the meaning of the second sentence.
Since it finishes in - form, I suppose Character B is telling Character A to do something, but the meaning of is not clear to me here. Is it being used with the meaning of "to tell" rather than "to call"? Not being able to understand the meaning of , I don't understand the value of either.
Judging from the context, could the translation be something like "Mind yor own business" or "You don't need to tell me that"? Thank you for your help!
|
As you stated, is a colloquial contraction of .
> {} + Verb in te-from +
is a common expression meaning:
> "I/you/(s)he am/are/is the one who (verb + ed), **but (now)** ~~~~"
>
> "It was I/you/(s)he who (verb + ed), **but (now)** ~~~~"
_**The entire main clause (the ~~~~ part) is sometimes left unsaid**_ and that is the key factor to this expression.
Also of importance is the fact that who refers to depends entirely on the context.
> {}
thus means in that context:
> " _ **It was you who called me over (, but you are now telling me to go home)**_."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, verbs"
}
|
The meaning of いずれ in this context
When reading a post about a game, I came across this sentence:
>
The person who posted this wanted to enter that room, but for some reason or another he couldn't.
When I looked up the meaning of , I wasn't sure if it translated along the lines of:
" **When** will I be able to enter here?" or "Will I **somehow** be able to enter here?"
|
In this context, means " ** _eventually_** ", " ** _one of these days_** ", " ** _sooner or later_** ", etc.
> "Will we eventually be able to enter this room?"
The larger context will reveal what the best TL would be.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
How useful is furigana for most adults and teenagers?
If I am going to print some text to give to backpackers, is adding furigana worthwhile? It's important to avoid misunderstanding, but I would think people coming from Japan to Spain would be fairly literate.
|
Furigana is basically not necessary because backpackers are not elementary school kids. Adding furigana to easy words can even be disturbing. Ordinary news articles written in Japanese have almost zero furigana. There are many difficult words which native speakers cannot read without furigana, but simple guidance text should not contain such difficult words in the first place. One exception is uncommon kanji proper nouns which can be very difficult. But since your text seems to be about Spain, this should not be relevant.
At any rate, I recommend you have that text proofread by a native speaker :)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "furigana"
}
|
Meaning of って in this sentence
I was watching Tatami Galaxy and one of the characters said the following sentence:
I know the other uses of but I'm confused here. Going by context I can tell the sentence means ''Anyhow, no matter what decision you may take, you'll still end up like this/in this situation.'' I'm just following my gut feeling though, and I'm still not sure of what that is doing there.
|
In that sentence, is a conjunctive particle meaning " ** _even if_** ". Your translation is actually very good. (It is difficult to use "even if" in the translation.)
, in that context, is synonymous to , but sounds much more informal than .
> Phrase A + + Phrase B
expresses that the content of Phrase B would be the **_unexpected result_** of what the content of Phrase A might apparently suggest.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
}
|
Difference between 類推する and 推測する
As the title of this question suggests, I was wondering about the difference between the two verbs and , in this context specifically:
> **** ****
I am used to seeing the former, but just today I came across the latter. From what I know about the meanings of the verbs I would guess that there is a slight nuance, in that implies that more of an effort is being made (in this context to deduce the meaning from context), whereas does not specify that one is actively engaged in a thinking process to come to a conclusion. Rather, the reader might just have relied on intuition. But I am not at all sure.
For clarity's sake, the full sentence this verb appeared in was:
>
Is there really a difference between ? Thanks in advance from someone currently struggling with small differences between the words , , , and the like...
|
Your guess is fairly correct.
The meaning of taken from this dictionary entry is:
>
In short, is to deduce from similar things.
For example, if you don't know the meaning of but know the words **** (== similar) and **** (== guess), then you might get the meaning of (== guess from similar things). This is .
On the other hand, is simply to guess. It still somehow implies a reasonable thinking process. It rarely is totally an intuition.
* * *
Short comments for other words: has strong nuance of reasonable (but uncertain) deduction. is similar; it is often translated as "to infer."
* * *
By the way, in your question, **** (or **** ) is strange in terms of grammar. It should be **** .
In your full sentence is used instead of , influenced by in .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
}
|
Meaning of さすれば as a verb
In the passage,
>
> ****
what is the meaning of ? Is it the kana for ?
In this context, I would have expected to be written instead.
|
is (="if you do so", "then") said in an archaic fashion. And yes, here is , an archaic word that means in modern Japanese. This is almost dead now, but is found in a few set phrases like , in modern Japanese.
() happens to make sense in this context, but it's not relevant.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, verbs, archaic language"
}
|
止める vs 止める(とめる and やめる) + 息
A very nice vocaloid song called "Rolling Girl" has a very strong sense of lyrics. As I know, both and mean "to stop/to quit". However there are 2 sentences in the lyric that offers completely different meaning from each other.
> which means "to hold my breath"
Even though I thought it suppose to mean "to stop breathing". And then the last lyric said :
> which means "to stop breathing"
So I want to really know the differences especially since that both are labeled transitive verbs.
|
Yes, the basic idea of these two is "to stop."
When we say , it implies that we give it up and it will not resume soon, or even never.
For example, when we are playing outside and are to stop playing and go back home, we tend to say **** but not **** , because playing is not likely to restart in the same day.
Another example is, when we say **** (which is given another kanji []{}), it usually means "to quit job" or equivalently "to leave position."
Compared to that, does not imply such a future intention.
Also, usually means to stop something ongoing (but not something that will happen). For example, when someone is planning to do a bad thing and we want him to stop it, we can say but not .
* * *
In this case of the song, sounds like to stop breathing for a fairly long time which leads health problems. On the other hand, is to stop breathing for a while, as we do when we dive into water. Although one can keep stopping forever, does not at all imply such a future.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, song lyrics"
}
|
How to properly express my happiness - しあわせになりました。
So pardon for this being quite a specific question, but I'm trying to communicate this idea in a letter:
> Looks like you had fun, so I'm glad.
Actually I'm finding it difficult to get my Japanese right in expressing this. This is what I have so far:
> Emily
I'm unsure of whether it would be or . In fact, I'm unsure of the sentence in general - the part is important because I don't want to say 'you definitely had fun!', but I'm a little confused about how to structure it. Does it sound unnatural?
|
is used for long-lasting happiness or a state of happiness that continues. A better word could be .
So your sentence could be:
> Emily
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, verbs"
}
|
What is the Japanese equivalent for words like 'go' in 'go team!'?
Here's something I just realized I didn't know how to say in Japanese. What is the Japanese equivalent for words and set phrases used to express excitement for what someone is doing, while also cheering them on and actively encouraging them to keep it up?
|
Common ones heard during many types of games are:
*
*
*
People often say these repeatedly (""). Other verbs are also used when appropriate ("", "").
There are longer phrases usually used to cheer someone up before a game. Dedicated cheerleaders have their own ways of cheering.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, set phrases"
}
|
How do I really say "I study in the United States"?
What I came up with is or "I study abroad in America", which is probably the safest option. However, can I express the same without using explicitly?
"I study in the US" sounds very strange to me. What about "I entered a university in the US"?
|
How about . I suggest it
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, word choice"
}
|
Is it correct to use verb stem + desu?
I heard announcements (at the station in Tokyo):
> /
>
(not sure, did I hear correctly?)
English version of the above:
> This train is bound for Sakuragichō.
So, I am asserting that we can use `verb stem + desu`. Is my assertion correct? Please explain.
|
No.
In your example, that is actually a nounified() version of the verb stem of.
translates to "One that goes to Sakuragichou" or "Sakuragichou-bound".
The is not required for the nounification. That applies for any other instance of verb-stem nounification. (i.e. - fake crying, - sand play)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, verbs"
}
|
How to say ,"Stand up for yourself" and "take advantage of"
I have a younger friend that I want to use these kind of expressions with, but don't know how to say it in Japanese. I want them to do their best and not have people take advantage of them. I feel they might be the kind of person, that would take negative things from other people to their detriment. So, I want to say something like, you have to stand up for yourself sometimes. If you don't people will take advantage of you. Any ideas?
|
> You have to stand up for yourself sometimes. If you don't, people will take advantage of you.
>
> You should stand up for yourself and not have people take advantage of you.
How about...
[]{}
[]{}[]{}
or maybe...
[]{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "phrase requests"
}
|
how to make clear that your japanese is bad?
When I travelled Japan I always started off talking to Japanese people with the following sentence:
>
This would always get the typical "oh" and nodding heads in answer and then they would start to blabber in their normal speed and difficulty. Of course absolutely incomprehensible to me as a Japanese language beginner.
As it seems a typical construct (maybe as a form of politeness) to have little excusing introductions in Japanese. I thought it might be so custom to a Japanese person. That they just "overhear" what I'm actually saying and just listen to the fact that I'm talking Japanese. Maybe similar to "sorry for interrupting...".
Anyway, what do you think is a good way to actually make clear to a Japanese person. That you really can't speak Japanese well and they have to talk slowly and in simple sentences?
|
> You: …
> : {}
If you can't follow the full sentence, say the sentence to the point where you can understand following "" with a troubled face.
> You: (pause)
Then the Japanese can understand your hearing ability, and say slowly again
>
Or at the beginning you can say
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "english to japanese, greetings"
}
|
Asking a group of people about something
I want to know if this is even near to being correct. Basically I'm making a question to people who like pizza despite not knowing much about it. (You can replace pizza with anything)
> :
I assumed to used "" since it's a plural suffix. "" is how this group of people label themselves. The question sentence I used, specially the structure, is the first that i could thinked of.
|
Your sentence is unnatural. When we speak to strangers, we usually omit the pronoun and say or , etc.
I correct your sentence as ? ()?
However they obviously seem to be younger than you, you can use or like (), ? ()?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, syntax, word order"
}
|
Meaning of 認める and how to use it
From this article (for those keeping up it's the same as my previous question):
> **** After this the fisheries agency are planning to _accept that_ it's okay to export katsuobushi to EU countries from this factory.
I'm struggling with the meaning of the verb and I can't work out whether is quotative or conditional.
Reading the whole article I couldn't work out if was making the decision that it was okay to export the fish or whether the use of somehow suggested that they were checking with an EU authority.
|
{} here means " **to permit** ", " **to allow** ", etc. and nothing else. {} would be the synonym.
in front of it indicates the result of an action or state. {} is the result or the final decision (of the **_implied_** series of discussions and research).
So, the Fisheries Agency (after all the implied preparations) is now scheduled to allow the export of katsuobushi from this factory to EU.
This could **not** be labeled either as quotative or conditional.
You mentioned "to check with" as a possible meaning of , but it could not mean that in any context. You may have been thinking of {}, which means exactly "to check with".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, particle と"
}
|
Different ways to say to like?
On one self-teaching site, I learned to say "to not like" in a format like this: But in a self-teaching _book_ it said to format it like this: I know there are many different ways to say everything in Japanese, but I just want to make sure that both of these are correct! What's the difference between the two? Is one more formal than the other? Are there certain situations in which one is more appropriate than the other?
|
> {}{}
is a casual colloquial expression.
> {}{}
is also a casual colloquial expression, even a little bit polite.
You can say and write the expression with "" in your e-mail to your friends and family members.
> {}{}
is a polite expression.
Anyway conversation topics of "likes-dislikes" are personal affirs, so you have many occasions to say "=" with your friends.
> example: ""
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, politeness"
}
|
Is it permitted to use kanji beyond the jinmeiyō kanji for names?
Wikipedia says:
> [The jinmeiyō kanji] are a supplementary list of characters that can legally be used in registered personal names in Japan, despite not being in the official list of "commonly used characters" (jōyō kanji).
Is this to say it's actually illegal to use hyōgai kanji for names?
|
Strictly speaking, it's still legal to use hyogai kanji in a person name if:
1. You already have a kanji name that existed before the relevant law took effect. Actually there are still great many young native Japanese people who have hyogai kanji as part of their official family names (take and for instance). People who were born in Japan before 1951 may have given names with very rare hyogai kanji, too.
2. You are from another country that uses kanji (e.g., China) and have applied to be naturalized as a new Japanese citizen. If you have a hyogai kanji as part of your family name, that kanji can be legally registered. For example is a relatively common Chinese family name but it's still not in the jinmeiyo/joyo kanji list.
See Also: Use of in Japanese names
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "names"
}
|
Are these sake and strawberry flavored Kit Kats?
I want to say (as a caption to a picture "are these sake and strawberry flavored Kit Kats? Yes, they are!" The picture has two small Kit Kats, one of each flavor, if that matters.
I've come up with
The "sake and strawberry flavored Kit Kat" is mostly a literal translation from English, so I'm fairly sure I'm missing some nuances there. It seems like there's also a few different ways to say flavor, so I picked one that looked like it fit best from Jisho.org.
|
sounds more natural, if you use this phrase as a caption to a picture.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, adjectives"
}
|
What does ホーム mean and why is it written in Katakana?
I heard announcements in the train (Hibiya Line):
(or not sure)
The English version of the above:
This train is bound for Nakameguro via Roppongi.
So, does (or ) mean "via" here?
And why is used here instead of using Japanese word to mean "via" or "through"?
|
I assume you are taking the Tokyo Metro Hibiya Line.
What you are actually hearing is
Google this phrase, and you can find youtube videos of the announcement uploaded by train enthusiasts.
(), pronounced "ho-men", means "direction". So, the train pulling in to the station moves in the Roppongi direction and is Nakameguro bound (as opposed to the , or Kitasenju direction, which would take you in the opposite direction).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
}
|
Difference between かくえき(各駅) and ふつう(普通)
Announcement in the train:
(or not sure)
And Sometimes () is used instead of ().
What is the difference in meaning and usage and when one should be preferred over other?
|
Most of the time, they are the same, but there is sometimes a difference.
= normal
= every stations
They are both "no extra charge" trains. Compared to which stops only at big stations and charge extra for getting to your destination faster.
will obviously stop at every single station. But might not stop at very small stations which usually don't have their own platforms.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, word usage"
}
|
How should I interpret the function of these words in this phrase 今日は雨だ。?
Suppose you want to make a literal translation of the phrase (and not adapt it to the language to sound natural)
How would you do it? "Today there is rain" or "Today it's rainy"
My question (if possible to answer) it is , is the "da" verb here which works like "there is" or is the "ame" noun here which works like the adjetive "rainy"
Usually I make these questions (which might sound annoying/picky) because I try to have guidelines or rules to understand what is a valid sentence and what's not in japanese, and what could be exceptions. Otherwise everything seems to be a valid sentence. Though I understand that most part of a language is learnt by experience and you can't have a rule for everything (even when software translators try to but they mess big time sometimes or many times)
|
The key idea is that your sentence has its subject omitted. So it is inferred by a listener. Actually is not the subject but the topic specified by here.
In the case of , ( _ame_ ) is close in meaning to "the rainy weather." Thus the subject is inferred to be "the weather (today)." So the most (and excessively) literal translation would be " **The weather is the rainy one today.** "
This kind of implicit subjects is not due to " _da_ " nor " _ame_ ," but due to the omission of the subject. For example, the same applies to the following sentence which does not use " _da_ " nor " _ame_."
> []{} / kyō wa samui.
> (It's) cold today.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How to say "To clarify, ...?" in Japanese?
How do I say, for example, the following sentence/question: "To clarify, breakfast is at 7:00am?"
I know that and both have the meaning "to clarify". But I do not know if there is a more natural set phrase to use.
Also, I actually do not know how I would use the vocabulary to translate my sentence anyway. As of now, the translation I would do has multiple sentences:
|
The dictionary definitions {} and {} would sound way too serious for stating/asking about breakfast times.
The most natural phrases I could think of right now would be along the lines of:
Statement: {}{}{}7{}
Question: {}{}7 **** Use a rising intonation at the end.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "phrases"
}
|
How is suicide bombing justified by a divine breeze?
The word for 'suicide bombing via crashing your plane into something'(which most people will use in a broader sense that drops the plane from the equation) as seen done by the Japanese during WWII is , who's kanji translates to 'Divine/God's wind'.
Could someone explain the etymology of this to me. What exactly does 'Divine wind' refer to? How was it meant to help justify this suicide mission to the men who did it? And is it connected to the State-Shinto they had at the time?
|
There were two typhoons that saved Japan) from mongol invasions under Kublai Khan in the 13th century, and were thus named "divine wind" (). The pilots in WWII were supposed to be "divine wind", similar to the typhoon, saving Japan from other invading enemies.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, etymology"
}
|
History and etymology of Japanese onomatopoeia
I've been wondering about the patterns of Japanese onomatopoeia and their etymologies. Perhaps you could help me figure it out or link me to a useful bibliography that might.
The first of these onomatopoeia follow the following pattern: **__** , like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The second example of Japanese onomatopoeia repeats the preceding component, often adding a _dakuten_ () in the latter part, i.e.:
>
>
>
>
>
The third type of onomatopoeia seems to take the sound that things make and adds to it:
>
>
>
>
>
Another question would be, why do some of these onomatopoeia take the particle, while some use the particle?
|
These adverb classes are all related. At their root is the singular form, usually two morae in length, such as the in and , or the in and , or the in and . Some of these singular forms also comprise the roots of other words, or are cognate with those roots, such as also appearing in {}, {}, etc., or also appearing in {}, {}, etc.
There is some more information about the derivation of __ adverbs in this other thread.
( **Note:** I cannot find any examples of these classes of adverbs taking ; they all appear either to modify verbs directly, as in , or to take instead, as in .)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology, history, onomatopoeia, rendaku"
}
|
Can the particle か have an exhortative value?
>
Judging from the exclamation mark and from the context (a battle immediately starts after the commander of an army says this), I think that in the sentence above could have an exhortative value. Is it correct? If so, is it a common thing or only a manga/anime thing? Thank you for your help!
|
I am going to say yes here even though "exhortative" may slightly be too strong a word for it.
The sentence-final can certainly express inducement, solicitation, invitation, etc. and it is widely used in real life, not just in manga/anime.
The exclamation mark, however, is completely optional. It is just used more often in manga than in real life for the majority of native speakers.
> "Let's start a war!"
>
> "Let's go to a war!"
The final adds a " **shall we?** " kind of nuance to the statement.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle か"
}
|
How to introduce oneself in relation to ones husband?
I know there are a few ways to essentially say "wife" (). Can they be used by a speaker to refer to themselves?
Examples I thought of:
> A
>
>
I have a feeling one can't use , , because of the . I've almost never heard or used in real life, either.
**How does one introduce oneself in relation to ones husband?**
Related: How to introduce myself in relation to my wife?
|
> +
> / /
> / /
> +
>
> /(1)
> (2)
(1)
(2)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, formality"
}
|
What is the relationship between "Fuchs du hast die Gans gestohlen" and 「こぎつねこんこん」?
There is a German children's song named "Fuchs du hast die Gans gestohlen" about a fox stealing a goose. According to Wikipedia the melody comes from another song named "Wer eine Gans gestohlen hat" which is about geese but not about foxes.
There is a Japanese children's song named (judging by the YouTube title) with a very similar melody that is also about foxes. I found a Wikipedia article that may or may not be about the song. (I don't speak Japanese.)
What is the relationship between the two versions?
|
The German _Fuchs, Du hast die Gans gestohlen_ is the original song. (The modern version is due to Ernst Anschütz (1824).)
The Japanese (or ) is a version by _Yoshio Katsu_ , first listed in the textbook "Music for the third grade" published in 1947 by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
The song is still contained in the ministry-approved textbooks (now for second grade), listed as:
>
which translates to
> _Title:_ , _Lyrics:_ Yoshio Katsu (Japanese lyrics), _Music:_ German folk song
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "song lyrics, music"
}
|
エリンを中盤に来て削ってどうするの。
What does mean in this sentence?
> ****
The sentence is someone who is angry about a character being removed from the spotlight of a show, but I am especially puzzled by the usage of .
|
> {}{}{}
>
You should **not** be looking at as a phrase on its own. Rather, it is + .
means " **(when the show/story) is getting into full swing** ". here means "(the show) approaching or coming near the good part" if that makes sense.
means the same as .
> "What the heck are they thinking, putting out of the show just when it's getting into full swing!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, verbs"
}
|
Difference between 注意する and 気をつける
Usage and difference in meaning.
As I know they both mean **to be careful**. For example :
> ~
> ~
Both mean **be careful about car (~while crossing the road)**
From this question __ means to warn.
|
Just as in English, there are many ways to say the same thing.
And in most cases, you could assume they mean the same.
is more like an expression and can usually just be used as such.
is more flexible and used in other ways.
-> Be careful of the cars
-> Pay attention to the cars
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, nuances, word usage"
}
|
Meaning of ように in this sentence
> ****
> Yoshinoya say that "It's not an advert that we put out". And, they are saying it **so that** you don't send mail to the address that is written in the fake advert.
I'm sure I must have mis-translated here because my translation sounds like a very strange thing to say. The only other translation of I know is 'like'/'in a way that' etc. which seems to make even less sense.
|
> (Verb Phrase) + {}
means:
> "to tell (someone) to (verb phrase)"
Thus,
{} means:
" **is/has been telling (us/everyone) not to send mail** "
This is **_extremely useful_** because, besides , you can use it with any verbs that express requests, orders, recommendations, suggestions, advice, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of を in 東京都庁をスタートする
> ****
> The Tokyo Marathon is a popular race that runs through tourist areas like Ginza and Asakusa and starts **at** the government office.
Clearly this is not the object particle (the race isn't starting the office). I know that can also mean 'through' like the second time it appears above. But I'm sure the race doesn't start **through** the office either.
So must have another meaning I don't know, or it's a typo for . I assume the former.
|
This is a slightly exceptional (and very important) usage of **** employed with **_motion verbs_** that actually are **intransitive** verbs.
{} **** = "(the marathon) starts **_at_** the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building and"
{}{}{} **** {} = "(it) runs **_through_** the sight-seeing spots such as Ginza and Asakusa"
Both and are intransitive verbs here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle を"
}
|
What does アタマ mean in reference to food/portion sizes?
!enter image description here
I came across this at a Yoshinoya and I've never seen this before on a menu. I can't figure out what this is supposed to mean; all I can infer from the pricing is that maybe it's a size in between and .
|
In {} ("beef bowl"), refers to the toppings that are placed over the rice. In other words, it refers to the stewed beef and onion.
Here, refers to the particular size of gyudon consisting of regular-size rice and large toppings, resulting in a "size" between {}(regular) and {}(large) in the total amount of food served. This should explain the pricing for in the photo above.
Please also note that the "official" size name used at Yoshinoya is **** .
Hope all this makes sense. It is a fairly popular gyudon size now as it gives you extra beef without all that extra rice to go with it like does.
" **Big head (= extra toppings) on top of the regular-size rice** ", so to speak.
Yoshinoya sold 5 million bowls of in no time.
!enter image description here
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
What is the grammatical form of 待たされていました?
Section 2-1: Inflecting example **** contradicts the causative formula
In the book causative defined as +/+.
is a verb, so its causative form should be , and of this should be , therefore the verb should be **** .
Am I missing something here?
Can someone evaluate the explanation of this verb form. Is it correct or not?
|
= Made (someone) wait.
= (someone)Was made to wait.
When the verb becomes causative,
->
When the verb changes to passive mode,
->
When a verb becomes causative and then make it passive,
-> ->
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
}
|
How to say to my boss "Please don't hurry and take your time."?
My boss writes me, that he will arrive later to the place we are supposed to meet. I wish to answer him
> Please don't hurry and take your time. I will wait as much as it will be necessary.
What would be the best way to express this English sentence in Japanese? I tried my luck and have said the next sentence:
>
And for the second sentence, I was not sure, so I decided to express it in a little bit another way:
>
How would you express this English sentence in Japanese? And I also know, I have mistakes in my sentences, could you please point out, what is exactly wrong in them...?
|
I'd like to show you one of the typical expressions for the situation. This is not the direct translation of your English.
> Please don't hurry and take your time.
> "{}{}{}{}{}{}"
> Please don't hurry. You can come at your convenience. (If you actually want to have your boss come on time or ASAP, you cannot use this expression.)
>
> I will wait as much as it will be necessary.
> "{}{}{}{}"
> I'll wait for you the place of appointment.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "expressions"
}
|
Meaning of 最も多い in this sentence
> ****
> Every year in Japan ??? more than 36,000 people run.
I can't understand at all what does in this sentence. Literally it means 'most numerous' right? I can't understand it's meaning in this context or even how it fits in grammatically. Presumably it modifies since that's the only available noun. But thereafter, I'm lost.
|
In this context, the following could safely be inferred.
{}{}{}{}{}
What is is the number of participants in the marathon.
> "Every year, over 36,000 people, which is the largest scale in Japan, run/participate."
A literal translation would be close to impossible, which is why I used "the largest scale". A slightly more literal TL would be:
> "Every year, over 36,000 people, which is the most in Japan, run/participate (in this marathon)."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
When asking what a certain building within sight is, would "あれ" or "あの" be used?
If I were to point to a building and ask what it was, would it be appropriate to say " ", " ", both, or something completely different?
|
Both are perfectly correct and natural-sounding.
Another word we also often use in these situations is , which means "that place". You can say:
To speak more informally, we say:
or even:
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
why this sentence has this grammatical structure? 話し手も相手も共通に知っている場合
The phrase "" was translated in this board as "When both the speaker and listener know the subject"
I dont understand 2 things about this sentence. What's the use of ni in this phrase. It doesnt seem to match with any of the uses of "ni" I know. Isnt the topic of the sentence and should be marked with "". And why "the subject" isnt before the verb and it isnt marked with ?
|
I understand "" can be correspoond to "both."
"" = "When both the speaker and listener know the subject()"
"" = "When both the speaker and listener know the subject"
"" = "When the speaker and listener know the subject"
The nuance of difference is quite week.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle に, particle は, particle を"
}
|
What does 血路 mean in this passage? Is it actually Blood Road?
What does mean in this passage?
From here:)
>
>
> Terashidasu ketsuro ni yubisaki wo karameteku
>
> In the shining path out, we entwine our fingers
Did the translation just remove the and translate only ?
|
The literal meaning is indeed "blood road". However, this term is used idiomatically.
Per the etymology note in Shogakukan's {} entry:
>
> (In hunting, from the way an injured beast will leave drops of blood along its escape route)
So in usage, this term refers more metaphorically to "escape route away from an enemy".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
Causative せる/させる vs. す/さす
How wide is the usage of causative () **/** comparatively to **/**?
|
Historically, / is older than /.
Just like many other pairs of older and newer words/phrases with the same meanings, the older forms are used more often and actively in Western Japan than in Eastern Japan. (That is if you know anything about Japanese history.)
To say " **What are you making me say?** ", for instance,
Tokyoites would tend to say:
> {}{} ****
while Osakans would be likely to say:
> ****
In schools, however, regardless of what part of the country we are from, we all basically learn to use / in "Standard" Japanese. You would rarely, if not ever, see or hear / used in the media these days.
Thus, both forms may be used equally often " _ **at homes**_ " across the country, but in school, business, media, etc., / would be the dominant form.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "conjugations, causation"
}
|
Is my understanding correct? "84 If you are a man who'd drop me for this; 85 won't you fall in love with me first?"
![enter image description here](
This is how I understand the sentence:
> 84 If you are a man who'd drop me for this
> 85 won't you fall in love with me first?
But it's such a weird thing to say. Something like "...you couldn't have liked me much to begin with." would make more sense to me, but it's not written. I think.
Context: It's a BL manga and one of the guys grew suddenly taller than the other and is now worried that his boyfriend doesn't want him anymore.
|
>
>
To show the hidden personal pronouns:
>
>
It means...
> If you were a man who'd {dump me / give me up} {for this / because of that},
> I wouldn't have fallen in love with you, to begin with.
is the subject for (or, is the one who does the action) .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, manga"
}
|
Is アリ in そんなのアリかよ⁉︎ some type of slang?
This is a line from a sports manga (soccer), after a rather unusual shoot, but I can't seem to make sense of it:
!?
I have no idea what the "ari" in here refers to? Is this some slang? Some short form of an idiom? It certainly doesn't seem to be related to any ant...
Thanks in advance!!
|
is a pretty old style of the flexion of a transitive verb,,meaning “be,” “exist” and “lie.” means “There is (stands) a plum tree near the pond.” means “There is a certain reason (for doing that)”
You’ll seedisplayed in a store front quite often at supermarkets, department stores and most of retail stores, which means the products with a certain defect such as a small scar, stain, scratch on the suface of a product, or a product nearing the pull date.in this case means there IS a certain reason for selling the product for very low price.
When you're driving in resort places like the Izu Peninsula and the Hokone highlands, you'll see a lot of signs reading "" in front of hotels and B&Bs, which means "Rooms available."
Also is a very popular wording, which means "Anything is possible / Anything will do."
means “Yikes, Can it be possible?” Again, here denotes “IS it possible, (acceptable, allowable, permissible) on the earth?”
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "slang, idioms"
}
|
What いく supposed to mean here?
I came across this sentence:![enter image description here](
I know that could mean 'to go' or 'to move' but I don't think it means something like that here.
|
here is a subsidiary verb, which is why it is written in kana. It is attached to the "main" verb {} to form .
What does as a subsidiary verb is to express the **increasing and/or continuing tendency** of the action described by the main verb.
"to keep on (main verb)ing"
"to (main verb) more and more"
> "(It turns into a) shapeless malice and continuously eats/ruins a human body from the inside."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What's the meaning of にもin その話は前にも聞いたよ。?
>
is translated as
> "I heard that story before"
I assume that the subject is implicit, "that story" is the topic, is "before" and is the past of hear. What about ? Why is marked with these particles?
|
> ****
The means "too; also; as well". means "(something happened) before, _too_ (as well as now)". So you'd say when something that happened before is happening again now. Compare:
> * **** I heard that before, too. / This is not the first time you've told me the story. / This is the second time you're telling me that.
> * **** I heard that before. / I know the story.
>
Another example:
> * **** I went to that park before, too. / This is the second time for me to go to that park.
> * **** I've been to that park.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, particles, particle に, particle も"
}
|
Meaning of ここで引くなどご法度
>
I've read several articles on _nado_ , and have found that it can mean 'whatnot, and such, etc.' but to me that doesn't make sense here. Can anyone help with this?
|
> **** ≂ ****
The in your example is definition #- in :
>
>
> **** ****
It's a belittling / derogatory suffix, close in meaning and usage to .
When attached to the end-form of (conjugatable words) and used with a quoted remark or an expression of thoughts, it indicates the feeling/emotion of opposing, rejecting or denying the preceding part.
[]{} means "(strictly) forbidden; banned; taboo", or "out of the question".
The here is like "withdraw; retreat; back out; back down".
is literally "here" or "in this situation", but it can mean "after coming this far" "now that it's come to this" or "now that we've reached a point of no return".
Put together, can mean "Now that it's come to this, I'm/you're never allowed to withdraw" / "I/You can't possibly back down after coming this far", or more concisely, "I/You can't back down now."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, usage, particle など"
}
|
How do you say "Are you sure?"
Lets say you ask someone , and they reply , but their facial expression and body language says somethings wrong. In this scenario what would the Japanese equivalent be to asking "Are you sure?" or "Is something bothering you?"?
Also, someone told me Japanese speakers would respond in a less contextually generic way to things like this, with things like physical injury, romantic injury, etc. getting a different response. Is this true? And if so, could someone elaborate on it for me?
|
> In this scenario what would the Japanese equivalent be to asking "Are you sure?" or "Is something bothering you?"?
I would say:
> (Are you sure? / Really?)
> (Are you sure you're okay?)
> (Is something bothering you? / Is there something wrong?)
> (What's wrong?)
* * *
> Japanese speakers would respond in a less contextually generic way to things like this, with things like physical injury, romantic injury, etc. getting a different response. Is this true?
I would respond the same way (like ()() ) in either situation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "phrase requests, conversational"
}
|
How to say "There is (A) in (B)(Location)."
How do you say that there is a thing (e.g.: Restaurant ) in a certain place (e.g.: My town)? Is there a formula for this?
If someone were to ask me if there was a restaurant in my city they would say
They would use the particle but in my answer do I use ? And does that have to be in the beginning of the phrase or can I put it after the location ( particle)?
|
For "There is a Japanese restaurant in my city", I'd say:
> **** []{} ****
PlaceThing
("Japanese restaurant" can also be []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}, etc.)
For "Is there a Japanese restaurant in your town?", I'd say:
> **** ****
PlaceThing
* * *
Addressing this comment:
When asked (What's in your town?), you'd reply:
> **** ****
PlaceThing
This is literally like "As for my town, a Japanese restaurant is there."
Use the topical for old/known/given information, and for new/important information.
When asked (Where's a Japanese restaurant?), you'd reply:
> **** ****
ThingPlace
This is literally like "As for a Japanese restaurant, there's one in my town."
Use the topical for old/known/given information.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, syntax, particle は, particle が"
}
|
Saying "some seconds"
I want to qualify something that lasts some seconds.
I am aware of {}, {}{} and so on, but I am in a situation where something explicitly lasts a certain amount of seconds, like, between 1 and 10 seconds.
Is {}{} valid?
For instance, can I say:
> {}{}
>
> A few-second video
Usually, this construction works, like {}{}, but I could not find examples for seconds...
|
You might want to consider using.
> ()
It basically mean several seconds.
You can also use etc...
It might not explicitly say between 1 and 10 seconds, but it does somewhat point out that it won't take over 1 minute.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, word requests"
}
|
How should I begin learning the letters and what they sound like?
I am new to Japanese and started learning only like 3 days ago , I was told I should start with the radicals (human,legs,ten,etc.) but how should I start to actually learn how to pronounce and read the japanese letters?
|
My personal opinion is that you should learn the proper pronunciation at the very beginning. Like it or not, when you start to learn to read, your brain will make its own interpretations of the sound, and every time you read a character, it will reinforce that possibly wrong interpretation. The longer you wait to learn the pronunciation, the harder it will be to unlearn the wrong interpretations your brain made and reprogram it with the new ones(aka you will have a strong foreigner accent).
Listening to a lot of helpful audio and having a Japanese friend to practice can be tremendously helpful.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": -1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "readings, spelling"
}
|
What's the canonical transliteration of "Give me chocolate" into katakana?
What's the canonical transliteration of "Give me chocolate" into katakana? Not as in the Babymetal song Gimme Chocolate!!, but in the phrase that's described as being used by Japanese kids during occupation-era Japan (though the latter may have influenced the former). Is it ?
|
It is exactly as you say: .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "loanwords"
}
|
は vs が in 私は言うように書いてください。
I have the following sentence in my anki app:
> Please write it down as I tell you.
> ****
However my instincts tell me this should not be but . Am I correct?
|
**You are correct**.
In the sentence:
> {} {}{}
The only particle that can be placed in the parentheses above is **** . is not an option at all. Use a there and you will sound weirder than you ever want to sound. It is _that_ important.
Why? That is because the only possible subject-marking particle in **subordinate clauses and relative clauses** (and any phrases that play subordinate roles in sentences) is .
In the sentence above, the main part is because the sentence as a whole is an imperative. The imperative part of an imperative sentence must be the main part.
In comparison, functions subordinately in the sentence as it only describes how the listener should write.
Had the sentence been " ** _Smith wrote as I told him to_**.", the Japanese counterpart would have been:
> ( **** )( **** )
That way, one could have seen both and used correctly in a very short sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "particles, particle は, particle が, は and が"
}
|
Where does the な used in な-adjectives come from?
-adjectives are derived from nouns. This is similar to how can be used to 'Adjective-ize' a noun. But while it's clear how -adjectives work, and why the is appended, what is the story for -adjectives? How are they derived? Why is the appended?
|
_(I was surprised to see that I cannot find another thread that discusses this. Perhaps my search-fu is weak...)_
The used for adjectives has a clear historical derivation. This started as , the adverbial particle, + , the classical terminal (sentence-ending) form of modern . + then contracted to for the terminal form. If a adjective came at the end of a sentence, in classical Japanese, it would end with , as in You might still encounter this form from time to time in poetry.
Classical terminal had an attributive form (when modifying another noun) of . So + contracted to , as in . Again, this form still appears in poetry, especially if the author is trying to evoke an old-fashioned or traditional feel.
As time passed, the terminal form disappeared, replaced with the modern , and the attributive form contracted even further into just .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, etymology, na adjectives"
}
|
ご堪能 usage and meaning
According to a dictionary, _tannou_ can be used as an adjective or a verb (to enjoy, be satisfied, to be skilled, ect.) But I don't understand it here.
>
>
> I know
>
This is the full line, which might help you with the context. It’s from a song I was translating. I don’t need help with the lines below it, and I just didn’t want to get deleted if someone thought I was asking for a bulk translation (because I'm not).
|
here is clearly used as a suru-verb because it has a direct object (). Its meaning here is "to enjoy to one's heart's content." is omitted because it's from lyrics, and it's intended to rhyme with two lines after it.
Judging from the whole lyrics, this is a song about double down of blackjack, which is a symbol of a make-or-break, sink-or-swim situation. So this figuratively refers to the excitement of a person placed in such a situation.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, usage, song lyrics"
}
|
っぱち suffix - meaning and addition of さ suffix
There are several words I've found that end in . **Does the suffix have any special meaning, like ?**
It also seems that these are na-adjectives, and it is possible to add (for at least some of them) to turn them into nouns. **Is this addition possible for all adjectives?**
|
There is no special meaning. As one of the linked entries says:
> ※
I guess these might be originally coined as a wordplay so that it sounds like a person's name. / () was a typical male name-suffix in the Edo period (eg , ). Since ancient times Japanese people often created meaningless phrases just because they sound nice (examples).
I don't think ("forehead") can serve as a na-adjective. For and , it's technically possible to add , but it's not common because they already have intense meanings (you don't hear often, either).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, suffixes"
}
|
What form of imperative is this? 是非この機会お見逃しなく！
The following statement seems like an imperative but does not have the structure of the imperative:
> {}{}{} **** Make sure not to miss this opportunity!
1. Is **** of ****? If yes, how can a sentence end on ?
2. Is **** implied after ****?
|
> / + Verb in {} (continuative form) +
should be learned as a set phrase meaning " ** _Please do not (verb)._** " The grammar used here is sort of special. One might say a phrase like {} is implied or left unsaid at the end.
This is an **honorific form of a polite request rather than a plain imperative**. The honorific / at the beginning alone should already suggest that.
If you translated into " **Don't miss it!** " (, which is a reasonable translation) , it might look like an imperative. However, it is just the translation that is an imperative, not the original Japanese. "Don't miss it!" is not honorific speech by any standard, is it?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "negation, imperatives, て form"
}
|
Long O — when is it OU and when OO?
I am learning hiragana and I've encountered a minor problem. The thing is that my book did mention how to deal with a long "O": just by adding another "O" or "U". However it doesn't explain in which cases I should use which.
As you can see I've made a mistake trying to put "O" in 7th case. In which cases of double "O" should I use "O" or "U"?
 readings use , while kun'yomi (native Japanese) readings use , but there may be exceptions. A note: if is a verb ending, will not be pronounced but as and separately, as in and . A lot of what I've said also applies to and .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "hiragana, spelling, rōmaji, long vowels"
}
|
終わらなさそうだ versus 終わりそうもない
What is the difference between the following fragments?
> A:
>
> B:
It seems to me, both means "it does not look like it will finish".
If they are different, how to use each?
|
Sentence A is closer to your translation. Sentence B is more emphatic and it sounds like you will be nowhere near the goal by the deadline.
` + ` indicates a strong negation (≒"never", "even"). See: function of the particle in ~
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the difference between V-あげる and V-たて
Both of grammar are the same meaning: something has “just” finished/done?
|
`-` attaches to some verbs and forms so-called a no-adjective (noun).
> *
> *
> *
>
Note that this refers to the quality of the described object; the object itself has to be new or fresh. You can say but usually not , because the book itself does not have to be new in the latter case.
* * *
`-` that appears in many compound verbs means either _thoroughly_ or _to upper direction_ , both of which roughly correspond to "up". But it does not mean _just_ per se, while it tends to be used with another phrase that means _just_.
> * I finished writing a novel.
> * I just finished writing the novel.
> * I looked up to the sun.
>
* * *
There are other expressions that enable you to say "I have just [verb]." See: Verbs + / Verbs + / Verbs +
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How do you use の as a de-facto が particle?
Apparently can be used as a de-facto particle. Now this sorta makes sense as in Japanese the line between something defining scope (A / B), and some defining association (A B), is vary thin.
That said, could someone explain to me when exactly you can use in place of , like it explains on Jisho.org, as I'm far to curious.
|
and are interchangeable at least in the following two cases:
* In a relative clause, works as a subject marker just like . This is fairly common and we hear this every day. See: How does the work in ?
* In archaic Japanese, worked like that describes possession/belonging. There are still some fixed expressions and place names (such as ) that still use for this purpose. You may hear used in this way in samurai dramas, too. You should not freely construct a phrase using this . See: vs with possessives
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle の, particle が"
}
|
An expression that means "speaking of X" or "while we're on this topic..."
I've been looking a way to introduce a topic when I think of something without just blurting out a new subject.
Say you're having a conversation about Oreos and how there used to be gingerbread Oreos (a real conversation topic I just had) and you wanted to say "speaking of things that are made with gingerbread, have you ever heard of X / there's this other thing."
Maybe "speaking of X" is a little different (I'm not entirely sure) like someone having a conversation about Donald Trump and you want to say "speaking of Donald Trump, have you heard about his scandal?" But maybe they're functionally the same.
Either way, is there an expression for this? `X`?
|
I think you're looking for "" - I have definitely heard it used in situations like you mentioned, it it is usually translated as "Speaking of" or something similar. The most recent time I saw it, a women was talking about how the guy she liked was dragged to her house by her dad. Her friend jokingly asked if that meant she had parental approval, and then the first girl said "Speaking of, I was proposed to by (a different guy)." The phrase she used was
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What's the difference between these two sentences?
Here are the two sentences:
>
>
>
My guess is that the first is
> Please say to your friend "Do not write in my book"
and the second is
> Please tell your friend to not write in my book.
The second is more asking the person to explain it in their own words. The first is asking them to just say that quote.
Is this guess correct?
|
Your guess is mostly correct.
>
This sentence sounds like you are reporting direct speech, because is a rather casual way to say _don’t write_. To convey what your friend should be told without actually quoting anyone, you may use the negative imperative V+ form (which is not rude in this construction) or .
>
>
> Please tell your friend not to write in my book.
>
>
>
> Please tell your friend he is not allowed to write in my book.
Your second sentence is also acceptable. An extreme literal translation of this sentence could be ‘tell your friend what you should tell him so that he does not write in my book’.
By the way, doesn’t seem very natural to me (but it is gramatically correct for sure).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Writing a named building/place
Does one write:
Smith toshokan or Toshokan no Smith
Apologies for not using kana, the Windows' Japanese keyboard is taking forever to install.
|
When I lived in Japan, all the libraries I came across were Name+Library. For instance, or "Kyoto Prefecture Library."
"no" indicates possession. Toshokan no Smith would mean "The Library's Smith." Smith no toshokan would be awkward (and I think incorrect, at least based on my experience) but would mean Smith's Library, which at least makes sense.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle の"
}
|
How to translate ‘the least + adjective’
The idea of superlative is easy to convey with , or even , , etc. But I have been wondering for a long time how to express the opposite idea: _the least_ something. I often lack in ways to express this when I’m talking in Japanese.
For instance, how would one translate things like _the least risky agreement_ , _the least bad option_ , _the least important clue_?
Obviously it is possible to replace _least bad_ with _best_ in most cases but the meaning is not really the same. So translating _least bad_ by and _least risky_ by , while it’s basically what I’m doing right now, would not be the kind of answer I expect.
|
Unfortunately the Japanese language lacks this feature. Even if you don't like, you have to rephrase it. For example, to say _the least risky agreement_ ,
*
*
* (using to express reluctance)
* [?] (clumsy and ambiguous)
* [x] **** (this usually means "not the most dangerous", i.e., not necessarily the safest but at least not the worst)
As you can see, using can result in ambiguous expressions and should be avoided IMHO.
The same thing can be said for `less + (adjective)`. For example _less important clue_ would be:
*
*
*
*
*
FWIW, this page describes this English construction (`less/least + (adjective)`) for Japanese people who learn English. (Note that some Japanese translations in this page are "literal" in a sense, but ambiguous. usually means "He's not the most important" rather than "He's the least important".)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, adjectives"
}
|
What does "子役の闇" mean?
a few days ago I find out that the term "" exist, but I can't quite understand its meaning. I have seen it used on places like twitter and 2ch but it seems there's no English equivalent for this. I guess a literal translation would be something like "The desperation of the child actor" or something along those lines but I'm not sure about it and I don't think it makes much sense in English.
Can someone help me out?
Thanks
|
{} is often colloquially used to mean "deep, dark secrets"."unknown, unseen side (negative)" or "the dark side".
So in your example, {}{} means the "the dark side of child actors". People would use that when discussing bad things happening in the child actor industry.
There is also a term [N]{}{}, meaning [N] has some dark secret, or sometimes just that there is something doesn't seems quite right (and therefore there must be some deep, dark secret somewhere).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words, usage"
}
|
The uses of おはよう, こんばんわ and おやすみ
How should I use _ohayō_ , _konbanwa_ and _oyasumi_? As a greeting or as a goodbye?
|
* _ohayō (gozaimasu)_ is used like "Good morning" as a greeting
* _konbanwa_ is used like "Good evening", also as a greeting
* _oyasumi(nasai)_ is used like "Good night", said when parting with someone and either party is heading for bed (or back home)
It is completely parallel to the standard usage of the phrases in English. (It is not possible to use _konbanwa_ like the "old-fashioned" "Good day (to you, sir!)" or "Good evening" as a form of saying goodbye.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, culture, greetings"
}
|
How to say 1-to-1 correspondence without causing any ambiguities?
Consider the following mathematics question,
> Each of integers from 1 to N is written on a separate piece of card.
It means that there are N cards, each with a distinct number.
Is it understandable if I say as follows in Japanese?
> N
|
In math questions, you would usually say like this:
> NN
> NN
> or NN
It's also common to say like this:
> NN
> NN
> or NN
I think you could also say like this:
> NN
> NN
> or NN
or maybe like this, but this might be a bit wordy:
> NN
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How to interpret the comma in this sentece?
This is a line of Ghost in the Shell´s dialogue:
>
how it is interpreted the comma with ""?
|
> {}{}
is to avoid the wordiness and redundancy of
> **** (/) ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
What does ては mean in this sentence?
> {}{} **** {}
My translation: Netarou was living by heedlessly looking the sky.
What does mean in this sentence?
|
> Verb A in **/** -form + **** \+ Verb B
means:
> "to do A and B repeatedly as in a pair"
So, your translation looks good.
By far the most common and "famous" phrase using this structure would be {}{}, which is the colloquial pronunciation of ( or ). That means "someone just eats and sleeps all day".
!enter image description here
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, て form, particle は"
}
|
Why do they use the 連用形 instead of the て form here?
I know that the form can be used to connect verbs together, like the English "and":
>
>
> I eat and sleep every day.
And I know the can be used to connect verbs as well, but it kind of combines the meanings of the two verbs, like .
But I am confused by this sentence which appears a lot in TV shows and anime:
>
Why is conjugated to here? I can understand everything else but this. I have never seen a not followed by any other word at the end of a sentence. It is clearly saying that 'This show is a fiction _and_ characters, organization and other stuff is not related to things IRL whatsoever".
Why isn't the form used here?
>
Can s be used as forms, like this?
>
Surely not, right?
|
Your logic is actually upside down. It's that connects clauses, so it's just natural that … means "eat and sleep". And the point is, te forms are another (of or etc). That's why te forms can connect clauses.
Incidentally, there's no semantic difference between normal and te forms in modern grammar.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, て form, renyōkei"
}
|
Is "to" optional in this line?
Japanese: Omae o tadashi katta (to) ukeireteita.
English: I did admit that you was right.
It's correct without "to"? Omae o tadashi katta ukeireteita.
Thanks!
|
Syntactically, without the this sentence wouldn't be correct. Without the , this sentence would have two predicates ( and ), and is clearly not syntactical. A sentence should has exactly one predicate.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, words, particles, focus particles"
}
|
Usage of ようとしない
Why <> can't be used in the second option?
Is it so because the cap is inanimate object?
B)
C)
D)
* * *
First of all, there is no usage as in Japanese. The choices C & D are incorrect.
Second, the lid is no human (or even it does not have a life, just a object). So the lid does not have own consciousness. means "someone does not want to open". But object does not have own consciousness. That's why is incorrect.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.