INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
How do I say group conformity?
I want to use the word group conformity in the following sentence. The Japanese value group conformity in society. was listed in EOW/ALT but I want to know if there is a difference between them. Thank you.
|
Those are not incorrect, but they look and sound very "translated" and overly technical.
The far more common (like a few hundred times as common) terms would be:
> {} and {}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words"
}
|
What does ～くて mean in this sentence?
I've been taught that is used when linking adjectives, but as I was reading I ran into this sentence :
>
What is exactly the meaning of in this sentence ? Why isn't it simply ?
|
There are two things that play into this
1. You can think of it as some sort of ellipsis (omission):
>
2. is often used to make a _positive_ statement
>
> _literally_ Is that not a lie?
> _actual meaning_ That's a lie. / That's not true.
So (2) would be a stronger statement than (1). In particular, saying (2) makes you sound you believe the statement to be false whereas saying (1) you are simply wondering whether it could really be true.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
}
|
What is the difference between 納入 and 支払?
My water bill reads is due, but the credit card bill says . What is the difference between these two terms?
|
In this situation, {} and {} practically mean the same thing -- the " ** _payment_** ".
is more Bureaucratese than Japanese. It is exclusively used to refer to payments in the public sector. Schools, public or private, also tend to use the term in their poor attempt to not sound "commercial" when asking for tuition payments.
is used widely in the private sector where it would not matter if that term sounded "commercial". Everyone knows credit card companies make mega-yen.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pragmatics"
}
|
Missing clause conjunction (...結果、...)
During reading a book in Japanese I stumbled upon a sentence impossible for me to translate
>
I fully understand the second part, but I just don't get the grammatical connection between and the second part of the sentence. I also don't understand the phrase at all.
|
Take a look at how is used here:
> ****
>
> I am sure that more flags were burned **as a result of** Congress passing that law than had ever been burned before.
Although the English translation of that example sentence has an awkward word order, your sentence would basically mean "as a result of A, B" where B is the part that you understood.
**** means "to work towards a goal **by means of something** ". In that part the comes from so would be literally "to attach means".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
いろいろな便利な - In some case, two na-adjectives linked not using で?
With my Japanese teacher, we study some text about Doraemon.
> {} **{}** {}
I was thinking **{}** had to be **{}**.
|
Yes, two ordinary na-adjectives are connected with :
> * (×)
> * (×)
>
Nevertheless, I feel is far more natural than . is okay but I feel this is still slightly odd.
I could not find an article which clearly explains why. But is unlike normal na-adjectives in some ways:
* It works as an adverb without . It even takes .
* Its attributive usage (i.e, modifying a following noun) is common, but its predicative usage is relatively uncommon and literary. We say but sounds stiff. (If I understand correctly the English adjective _various_ is not used predicatively, either. "×The books are various." I don't know if it's a coincidence.)
* It has a lexicalized version, namely , which is frozen and never conjugates. (× is incorrect)
So perhaps you can think of this as a special case where is always used even when coupled with another adjective.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, particles, na adjectives"
}
|
How do you translate this phrase 「ボルシアは秋にイブラこと」? (see sentence for context)
The full sentence is
The general parsing I have right now is
1. The topic is (a German football team)
2. - something pertaining to Ibra in the fall (this is tripping me up)
3. It seems that a player named Isak was acquired in Ecuador.
The only way I can get a translation to make sense in my head is to ignore (2) and go with "It seems that Borussia acquired a player called Isak", but obviously without (2) I'll be missing necessary content. Any insight into what I'm missing here?
|
The key words in Japanese sentences are often very short and are written in hiragana. In this case, it is .
> One's nickname + + Original Name
means:
> [Original name] also known as [nickname]
**** , thus means " **Isak a.k.a. Ibra** "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, nominalization"
}
|
Why does 近年 refer to the past, but 近日 refer to the future?
I'm hoping there's a reason, because I keep forgetting which goes which way.
|
I'm quite curious too, on why "some day" always means future while "the other day" past in English, but that's another matter.
Actually, it's not prohibited to use for future and for past in theory, but also customary to mean the other way, as overwhelmingly supported by actual usage. Similar words like or usually stand for recent past, so is some kind of one odd out among them.
According to Yamagiwa (2014):
> * 1910
> _The "recent" sense of came into common use on ca. 1910._
> *
> _The period when the past sense of declined and the "recent" sense of came into use is mostly overlapping._
>
He thus argues there is a correlation between the meaning shifts of and ; it is either the rise of made specific to future, or 's loss of past sense was made up by a new definition of .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "words, etymology, definitions"
}
|
Problems with -て 来る
> A:
> B: ****
I only know of as an indicator that someone goes to do something and then returns, for example:
>
But recently my textbook has used this construction in several sentences where this semantics doesn't seem to fit perfectly. I don't know, what would you make out of this sentence above? It doesn't seem to make sense to me to say that someone "returns and then returns".
|
=> They came here.
=> They returned to somewhere
)
=> They returned to somewhere and the place is here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, て form, subsidiary verbs"
}
|
What does かけまいと mean here?
From what I can understand from this is probably
"You aren't doing anything unreasonable right?"
How does the (worry) fit in here ?
I understand that Verb dictionary form + = denial/negative
However this is not a dictionary form so how does is work here
|
> {}{} **** {}
means .
> I understand that Verb dictionary form + = denial/negative.
Your understanding is only half-correct. The verb form that can precede depends on the type of verb.
> Type I: _**Dictionary form**_ of a verb & subsidiary verb
>
> Type II: _**Imperfective form**_ of a verb & subsidiary verbs and .
is a verb, so you need to use its imperfective form to attach to it.
> " **You're not overstraining yourself, trying not to cause me to worry, are you?** "
Other examples:
Type I:
Type II:
NOTE: "Type I" and "Type II" are the names I just created for the purpose of answering this question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
だろうと how can I translate it?
I am reading _The Little Prince_ in Japanese and I am not sure about how to translate in the following sentence:
> ****
I don't know how to literally translate it, even if I understand the meaning of the sentence...
|
This is the quotative-. `volition/inference + ` can be used without any explicit following verb, and it means "thinking ...", "trying ...", "hoping ..." or such. is part of the "quote."
>
> = ****
> = ..., thinking/hoping (adults) will understand (the picture) this time, ...
Similar questions:
* [Volitional + in [...]](
* Meaning of in
* Embedded question followed by
* What does mean here?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle と, volitional form"
}
|
Who does this sentence refer to? お前、あたしたちのこと、認めてくれたんだよな？
> ――…
>
>
>
> …
My translation:
> This is fine, right Sakura...?
>
> You've already acknowledged us, right?
>
> So, you won't have a problem with this, right...?
Regarding the second sentence to whom does it refer? Who is being acknowledged? Is my translation accurate?
Context: It is a monologue from Susan. Sakura told Susan to be best friends. Both Susan and Sakura are in love with the same guy and Susan starts going out with that boy. Sakura had accepted it.
|
I'd say - "the thing about us" - refers to the relationship between Susan, the speaker, and the boy she and Sakura are both in love with, and here is best translated as "accept". Susan is asking Sakura to reassure her that she's resigned to the fact that the young man they both like prefers Susan. How about something like:
You're OK with this, right, Sakura?
You've accepted that X and I are together now, right?
So there won't be a problem or anything, right?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
What is this というのに?
> ****
What exactly is this ?
If context is needed, some people were making fun of her story and therefore she decided not to talk about it anymore.
|
{}{}{}means the same thing as {}{} You may not know this, but on its own can sound somewhat colloquial. is a less colloquial synonym. Judging by the pronoun {}, I would guess that the speaker is probably some noblewoman or ancient demoness from a work of fiction, who would naturally speak less colloquially than ordinary people.
used on its own like this suggests someone is lamenting a fact.
Also, this particular use of {} means 'It doesn't matter'. The dictionary I use gives this as one definition: {}
So the sentence means 'My story doesn't matter any more!'
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, expressions"
}
|
How do you say "(noun) is more/less (adj) to (person A) than to (person B)"?
For example "That movie was less scary to me than it was to you."
The best I can manage is something like "” but it feels off, and checking with Google doesn't seem to turn up any such constructions. Any help?
|
This construction in English does not work well in Japanese. A direct translation will not sound very natural even though it might successfully convey the idea. Native speakers might say:
> {}{}{}{}{}
>
> /
>
>
>
> []{}
Expressing this idea by using twice (just because "to" is used twice in English) would make it sound pretty wordy (or at least wordier than J-learners might think). If you wanted to use , you could use it just once and say:
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
Who is it referring to in this sentence? お前のこと護ろうとして、余計に傷つけて
> …
> I broke Suzuki... Nevertheless, in an effort to protect you
The second sentence, who does it refer to?
Context: A girl (Lisa) says those lines to her boyfriend. Previously she had been talking with his ex-girlfriend (Susuki), who had entered into a deep depression because the boy had chosen Lisa. Lisa tries to comfort Suzuki but ends up hurting her more. At the same time Lisa was worried because Suzuki kept saying that she will win him back, to which Lisa says that she will always be with the boy, so that's impossible.
My question: In the second sentence who was Lisa protecting? The boy (making it clear he's hers) or Susuki (who she wanted to console and make amends with her). She's talking to the boy when she says that.
|
If Lisa is saying these lines to the boy, then must be referring to that boy. It's simply because is always a second-person pronoun (="you"). The third line also seems to be saying "I ended up hurting _you_ (=the boy)".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Grammar まるで - ようだ
I have been taught that to use , you must put or in the sentence. However, in the following sentence :
>
The "" part is missing, why is that ?
|
doesn't necessarily have to be used with . Saying ` + noun + /` is totally fine. The following sentences are all valid and mean roughly the same thing.
*
*
*
*
*
is a literary word that works in the same way. (e.g., )
Additionally, means "at all" if used with a _negative_ expression:
*
*
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does this inserted clause mean? 文法だけなくて
>
It is saying that: evidently, the way of thinking in English and Japanese is extremely different.
What does the ? (Grammar only ...?) I always get confused when appears in a sentence. It is as if i am bracing for some contradiction or negative.
Is their a general phrase pattern for ~
|
The sentence should be:
> **** ****
XXYYor XXYYXXYYXXYYetc.) means "Not only XX but also YY".
So it literally means:
"As for Japanese and English, it seems / they say that not only their grammars but also their ways of thinking are quite different."
→ "It seems / they say that Japanese and English are quite different not only in grammar but also in way of thinking."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "negation"
}
|
What does "manga" truly mean in Japanese?
In English the word "manga" is used to refer to Japanese comics. I would like to know if this word is similar to "anime", where westerns use it only for "Japanese" animation (in a broad sense since several "Japanese" animations are produced in Japan but animated on Korea or other country) or does it mean comics in general? Is a fanfic japanese comic a "manga" or does it have to be paid and officially released to be "manga"?
|
/ in Japanese is close to _comic_ in English. It's a generic term that safely includes, for example, _Peanuts_ and _Spider-Man_. It doesn't have to be released commercially, and even a 10-year-old boy can draw . It usually consists of many pages and frames (), but when a picture has a balloon and a "story", people sometimes call it a (1).
also is a word that includes foreign cartoons such as Disney's movies.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, definitions"
}
|
Breaking down "いんや, まだずらよ"?
I understand that `, ` means something along the lines of "No, not yet". At least, in the context I'm seeing it in (the question "Has Person A arrived yet?"). However, I'm having difficultly understanding how the parts of this give this meaning.
`` I can see as being "Still"/"Yet". And the `` is surely just adding emphasis. But where are the `` and `` parts coming from? Do they have meaning on their own and how does that meaning come together to create the full sentence meaning above? Thanks!
|
is an emphatic form of meaning "no". is already an informal form of . I explained this here recently.
is a dictionary word meaning . Currently, it is used mainly around Nagano and Shizuoka.
> "Nope, not yet, I'd say."
Obviously, I do not know of the whole context these words appeared in, but it might be used as "role language" to indicate that the speaker is from the country side rather than as part of a real dialect.
Role language is extremely common in Japanese fiction and it is often incorrectly explained here as actual dialectal words and expressions from a particular area when the author's intention is just making a character sound "country" and/or old.
"Would that be O.K. legally?", says this character.
!enter image description here
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, role language"
}
|
Are "papa" and "mama" also used in Japanese as father and mother?
I often hear "papa" and "mama" in animes, in situations where they seem to mean father and mother. Is that so? Are these words borrowed from the Spanish words "papá" and "mamá", which mean father and mother? Which kanjis do they use since father for example is also and I don't think they use the same kanjis, do they?
|
Pa and Ma are very international.
I see many families in Japan who prefer Papa/Mama to /
> papa = mama =
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation, meaning, usage, kanji, etymology"
}
|
Meaning of ~タガとして
What is the meaning of in this sentence?
> **** ...
|
> {}{}{}{}{}...
originally means "hoops". There is a kanji for it ,{}, but that is not taught in Japanese schools, so feel free to write it in kana.
/ are what keep all the wood pieces of a barrel together. Without them, you only have separate pieces of wood that will not function as a tool.
In the sentence in question, is used figuratively to mean " _ **controlling power over another**_ ".
> "The progressive forces function as the controlling power in greatly restricting the conservative camp."
= "as the hoops" → "as the (inconspicuous) controlling power"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Do possessive pronouns exist at all in Japanese or the only way to refer to possession is through the "no" particle?
In English or Spanish there are possessive pronouns like my, your, her, his, mi, tu, su, etc. that you can use to show possession. For example, my car. But in Japanese the only way I've seen (or that I remember right now) for a phrase like that is with the use of the particle "no". . Is that the only way there is?
|
is almost recognized in modern Japanese as a fixed single word that means _my_. was a possession marker like in old Japanese, but this meaning has dropped out of use. Modern dictionaries usually list this as a distinct entry (as a ). is similar.
* vs with possessives
Besides these, I don't think there are common possessive personal pronouns.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle の, possession"
}
|
Is there a hidden meaning?
If someone tells you
(your name), ...
what are they trying to say?
|
It's just
> (Name), you ...
> _or_
> (Name), you are such a ...
with the remaining part left unsaid. There is no common or known hidden meaning in such an expression, and you have to guess her feeling purely from the context. The sentence can imply "You're genius", "You're such a kind person", "You're an idiot" or whatever.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Does "kaze" also mean "a cold" in Japanese?
I know the word "kaze" means "wind", but recently I was watching a Dragon Ball Super episode and the character 18 after sneezing says something that sounds like "kaze ka" when talking to herself. Does "kaze" also mean "a cold" or something like that in Japanese? When I look to translate "cold" to Japanese it translates it as "" which sounds like an adaptation of that English word but it doesn't translate to "kaze". Also, does it have another meaning besides these possible 2?
|
[]{} is wind, however when talking about a cold, while it still is pronounced as , it is written as . When talking about catching a cold, you would say []{}[]{}.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
hontou nano ka , is "na" here part of the question marker or is it something else?
I know that you can use ka, no, and noka as question markers. But what is "na" in "hontou na no ka" . is it another form of question marker altogether or what does it mean the "na" in that sentence?
|
is not part of the question marker because the same can appear in non-question sentences. This is an attributive form of the copula . (Chart: Conjugations of the Japanese Copula)
here is a special "noun" known as _explanatory_ . Thus before it needs to be turned into to modify a noun. As you can see in the link, all predicative expressions in their attributive form can precede .
> * Is it that it's red? (i-adjective)
> * Is it that it's easy? (na-adjective)
> * It it that it moves? (verb)
> * Is it that it's a book? (noun + copula)
>
is a noun which is also categorized as a no-adjective, but we always say , not .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, questions, copula"
}
|
Can the declarative of だ、です、etc, be used with adverbs?
Can you use adverbs with declarative clauses? You know, when you complete a clause with -adjective or a noun and or particle? Can they take adverbs?
Examples:
(He's quite lively, isn't he?)
(She's vary cute.)
Are adverbs allowed in these cases? Or are they limited to being used in clauses who's copula is based on a proper verb?
|
and make perfect sense, as well as or . (Use instead of !)
For 'noun + copula' sentences like , using doesn't make sense. Still, you can use many other adverbs:
> * **** He is _definitely_ a student.
> * **** It will _certainly_ rain tomorrow.
> * **** **** She is _sometimes_ an office worker and _sometimes_ a student.
> * **** My father is _always_ at work. (see this)
> * **** Spring is coming.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "adverbs"
}
|
Is ペンキ塗り立て a common expression for "Wet Paint"?
Is a common expression? If not, what will be a typical sign warning of **wet paint**?
|
Yes it's the most common expression on Japanese "wet paint" signs. You can buy stickers and tapes with .
![enter image description here](
Related:
* What kind of verbs can the suffix attach to?
* What is the in +?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "pragmatics"
}
|
all the readings of 父
I know that means father and it's readed "chichi". I thought the other reading of it was "tou" since I've heard many times o tou san to refer to a father. But according to this list < the readings of are "fu" and "chichi". Is that list incomplete or does tou of o-tou-san written with other kanji?
|
Yes that list on Wikipedia is incomplete. The article says:
> The readings presented here are those noted in the official Jōyō table. [2]
And [2] refers to this official Joyo kanji list (PDF).
This PDF actually lists many special and/or jukujikun readings in the notes () and the appendix, but those special readings are not included in the article on English Wikipedia.
 column is omitted.
is a reading which is both very common and "official", but there are actually many other readings not listed in the official joyo kanji list. See this question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Is 神を more "correct" than 神?
I'm not sure how much I can trust Google Translate, but I recently noticed a feature, a little shield next to the translation that reads "This translation has been verified. ...". I assume it means a number of people have personally agreed that the given translation is correct. Alright.
The weird thing is `[]{}` translates to "God, deity" normally, but `[]{}` translates to just "God", with the "verified" icon. Is the second one more respectful or something like that? What is the difference in meaning?
What exactly is the purpose of the particle? I know about the use of `` _before_ words like in `[]{}`, but it's the first time I see that kind of use of ``.
|
is an object marker and is not used like the to change a word in anyway.
To put it simply is not a word, but an incomplete sentence.
If you want more info on how to use the particle, you can read the following page.
<
Also, no matter how many little verified shields they use. I wouldn't touch Google translate with a ten foot pole as far as Japanese-English translation goes.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
Taking blame though I'm not at fault
Got transferred to Tokyo by my company, and the trains are late almost everyday. When trains are late in the morning we send an email stating that we'll be late.
Customarily we end the mail with ""
Writing it like this feels like I'm taking the blame for something totally out of my control.
Can I place the blame where it actually belongs, ending with something like "JR"?
|
Japanese people say and even when they are not to blame. As long as you adequately describe the situation, no one will think you are to blame. Likewise, when a Japanese person says , , or _I'm sorry_ , you should not take it for granted that they admitted a fault. Saying JR in this situation sounds funny at least.
After all, JR East is saying all the time even when the company is not to blame at all. If heavy snow stopped a train, a conductor usually says . If someone jumped in front of a train, the company says . That's what JR East is expected to say as a reliable company, and that's also what you are expected to say as a responsible businessperson.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
How do I parse this sentence?
>
I understand all the words I think but don't understand the grammar. What does do here? Does it mean "The part of you that is cute"? Does mean be calm or be at peace here? I can only understand it now as
> Because the cute things about you dont change, be at peace.
|
Here is how I would go about it.
> You are cute
> The thing/fact
> Does not change
> Don't worry.
> The fact that you are cute is not gonna change so don't worry.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
お世話になってます vs お疲れ様です
I work in Company A, and mailing within Company A usually starts with:
>
>
>
We have a joint dev team with Company B, and mailing to Company B starts with:
> _or_
>
> _or_
An employee of Company C is on loan to our Company A. Which greeting should I use when mailing to Company C employee?
|
Both are possible. To put it simply, looks less respectful but more friendly, whereas looks more formal and respectful. Which to use would depend on your character/preference, the custom of your company, and the actual relationship between you and the person in Company C. Which describes the person C better, your colleague, or your client?
If you're unsure, it's always safe to get away with .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, business japanese"
}
|
What is the difference between 開発者 & 技術者?
Using Google Translate I found the literal meaning of to be "Developer" and to be "Engineer", but in daily conversations within my company they seem to be interchangeable.
Example:
> Person A: ?
> Person B:
Is there a difference or are they interchangeable? How exactly would you define them?
|
refers to people who make new products (e.g., by programming). refers to not only developers but also engineers who do not create new products. These include operating engineers, testing engineers, infrastructure engineers and so on. Therefore, is a subset of .
That said, in many smaller companies, there may not be full-time testing engineers and so on. In that case, all in a company can be also .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "definitions, word usage"
}
|
Why does だけ come before は?
In a song I was listening to, there was the sentence:
>
With the given translation:
> I will only take the E-Tank at the very last moment.
I don't understand why comes before , since seems to apply to . It seems strange to me, I would expect: , i.e. _I'm going to say something about _. Which is the case in the song. But with it seems like something is said about "only E-can". i.e. "I will take only the E-can at the end", instead of "I will take the E-can only at the end". Where the thing that "only" applies to changes.
Why does come between and the noun? Is this perhaps something that is done to make the song sound better?
|
>
means:
> I'll spare at least E-Tanks until the last moment.
> I will use anything but E-Tanks before the last moment.
This refers to E-Tanks, not "at the last moment" part. means "to spare / keep", not "to take / bring".
To be clear, he's not saying he's going to throw away items other than E-Tanks. Obviously it doesn't make sense :)
and are different:
> * Read only this. (Don't read others.)
> * Read at least this.
> * I only want this game. (I'm not interested in other games)
> * At least I want this game. (although I also want others)
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, word order"
}
|
Using 「～さん」 when referring to both oneself and others: precedence?
In this question ("When shouldn't I use when referring to a third person?"), the consensus seems to be that one should avoid referring to one's own boss, coworker, etc. in an elevating manner by using .
Nevertheless, referring to other people's relatives in general still calls for a respectful manner of address with . It intrigues me what happens when these two "guidelines" overlap; for example, when your boss happens to be the husband of the person you are talking to, or when you are talking to your coworker's wife about him.
My gut feeling says using and being respectful has precedence in those cases; would that be correct?
|
First, when you talk to a person who is not involved in the company, i.e. not a customer etc., you basically don't regard your boss or coworker as one who belongs to your own group in relation to the listener unless you have particular reason to do so (for example, the listener is enough close to you).
Second, in general, bond among a family is considered tighter than that of a company. So, a coworker you are referring to belongs to the listener's side unless the situation is strictly official, where being family member is not an important factor.
So, you usually use honorifics, as you say.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "honorifics"
}
|
what kind/conjugation of verb is used in this pattern?
In this pattern: V. (literally, it would be good if you ~).
What conjugation of verb should I use here?
Is this correct: ?
|
Good for use of ""! "" is not for eating, stands for breakfast, lunch, dinner ... and Japanese will says as follows "" is something.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations"
}
|
ただ、５年前の…今と同じくらい、ううん、それ以上の大きな幸せに包まれる
> …
I would translate it as
> five years ago ... Just as much as now, no, it will be wrapped in big happiness even beyond that
I would like to know if this translation truly conveys the meaning of this sentence. It starts with the past, then the present and the future last? I missed something relevant in my translation?
|
I was born and living over 40 years in Japan. Your translation:
`five years ago ... Just as much as now, no, It will be wrapped in big happiness even beyond that`
will be good. Implicitly 5 and points "", compares "".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
「Xの原始として,Y」の意味 (What does the phrase Xの原始としてのY mean?)
# Japanese
> XY
YXYXXY
# English
Recently, I've been engaged in some collaborative research with several Japanese researchers. I'm a philosopher by trade. One of our collaborators made a presentation which included the phrase:
> XY
As a non-native speaker, I thought this means that Y is X's origin or principle. Is that correct? Rewording it, is this saying that X is Y's principle or Y is X's principle? Or does it mean something different from either of those?
|
> X{}Y
> = Y
>
> ≠ X
**** YXXY
> XY
>
> X/Y
XY
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, academic japanese"
}
|
what is the meaning of いくわけだ
From a passage saying that it's hard for people to visualize or grasp the scale of things when they're in expressed in units they can't easily relate to- but that if something people can relate to is used people can get an idea more easily. The sentence I'm unsure about is:
'For example. if it's written that Tokyo Dome is the equivalent of 5.7 glasses(??), then people can get an idea of the scale, thinking 'ooh its that big is it'. - Is my understanding of that.
I understand 'wake' and 'iku' seperately as reasoning, and go respectively. However, when they're together here, does it basically mean, 'goes the reasoning'? Or is there a different nuance going on here?
|
is a set phrase that means:
1. makes sense; sounds convincing; one is satisfied by
>
>
2. is satisfied (by an explanation); is convinced (by something)
>
>
This usage of is described as the tenth definition of this entry, but practically you'll have to memorize this rather than analyze this.
means _reason_. means "it's natural to think ", "no wonder ", "therefore ", "as a natural consequence, ", etc.
>
> (saying it) will naturally make sense to you -- "Ah, it's that much!"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
Usage of 私的, 私用 and 私情
In mails these are usually written when it's a personal/private matter.
But is there any difference in usage? Like in Case X you should use or in Case Y use .
What would be the proper usage for each term?
|
is a no-adjective, is a na-adjective, and is a simple noun.
* means private/personal mails only in the sense of "unrelated to the business".
* also refers to the same thing, but it tends to have a connotation of "sensitive/secret".
* [×] / [×] doesn't make sense.
* /: a subjective mail that is biased by someone's personal feelings; a (business) mail which is interfered by one's personal feelings
When a manager of a company says "Don't send private emails when you are at work", they can say both and interchangeably.
You cannot use in sentences like .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, usage, word usage"
}
|
やっぱりお前はさぁ…っ、こんなにも、こんなにもさぁ…
> ……
My translation: After all you are...., so much, so much
What was this guy trying to say? Or is it incomplete on purpose? Even with context I don't get it. I would like to know if there's something I haven't seen and that's the reason my translation is bad and everything actually makes sense.
|
Yes it's an incomplete sentence similar to "You... what a ..." or "You're such a ...". This is not an idiomatic expression with a hidden meaning that would surprise you. is an adverbial expression similar to _this_ as in _this big_ , and thus some adjective is missing after it.
The unsaid part purely depends on the context. I don't know why the guy is so deeply impressed by . If you also don't know why, that probably means you are not following the story correctly.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What is the difference between 「しております」and 「しています」?
I came across the 2 phrases from Nintendo 3DS' instruction manual. They are written adjacently.
> ****
> LC ****
If they are different in terms of humbleness, I think the first line should be written in the form of as well. I don't think they are different in continuation too.
|
Technically speaking, is the humble form of , as you pointed out. It would have been better to use the consistent expression.
However, among the various Japanese humble expressions, is one of the mildest, and in some dialects is just another plain verb used instead of . Some people even say , which is technically a strange mixture of humble and honorific expressions, but is considered acceptable by some.
Practically, these and don't look much different, and very few would care. This difference in expression doesn't mean Nintendo is treating the two companies differently.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "grammar, keigo"
}
|
Are 何でもない and 別に interchangeable?
The way I understand it, {} and {} are both ways of saying "It's not important", "It's nothing" i.e. brushing off the question being asked. Does this mean that they are interchangeable? Or are there certain contexts where is used and cannot be and vice versa?
For example, in episode 19 of Revolutionary Girl Utena, the character Wakaba is asked by another character "Why do you keep accusing me of [being a player]?" to which she starts to reply, but then decides against it, saying "..." and turns away. In this context, she uses both, which makes me think that she uses both as a way of reinforcing "It's not important", which makes me think that both expressions have similar meaning and are therefore interchangeable.
|
is an adverb and is an adjective expression. They can both be used on their own to mean something that an English speaker understands from "it's not important".
They are not interchangeable though, first of all for their part of speech difference and their meaning also changes with context. **** means "it's okay" and **** means "not perfect or anything".
In … their meaning can reinforce each other, but it depends on intonation and pauses what was actually meant. In the meaning of something not being important is only implied, so it is possible that confirms the implication.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, expressions"
}
|
Should I use で or に in 「最近新しい医学の論文をアメリカの雑誌 で/に 読みました」?
I'm not sure if should use or in this sentence
> /
I would go with , do you agree?
|
> {}{}{}{}{} / {}
That should be for nearly all occasions today.
Using there would make it sound unnecessarily "literary" and/or "quaint". Unless you can write the whole composition, essay, etc. in that style, I would not recommend writing only one of the sentences like that.
Do the whole piece in your particular style and your readers will recognize (and appreciate) it as a style. Do it sporadically and they will only think you made mistakes. The difference is huge.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, particle で"
}
|
Japanese equivalent to ASAP
What would the Japanese equivalent to ASAP be?
Wouldbe appropriate? just don't seem right.
|
If you are looking for a slang term used in business that actually **feels like "ASAP"** , we have:
> {}
which is short for . You can say:
> {}
or just
>
!enter image description here
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "expressions, english to japanese"
}
|
Employee turnover in Japanese
When looking up the terms "Employee retention" and "Employee turnover" on Google Translate I get the following:
Employee retention:
Employee turnover:
I'm fairly certain that the translation for "employee turnover" is not what I'm looking for. So what would be the correct term/phrase to use?
Like how would the following statement be said in Japanese: Company X's high turnover rate could imply they have a problem with employee retention.
|
The primary translation for _retention_ is indeed , but this word is not used with humans. Better words used in the human resource or marketing field would be ()(), (), , etc. A katakana word is also used in this sense.
Turnover is // when you want a technical term. is also common although this sounds less formal/technical.
> Company X's high turnover rate could imply they have a problem with employee retention.
> X
Casually, you can say: X
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, english to japanese"
}
|
Standard/Conventions in Japanese
Looking up the words "standard" and "conventions" in Google Translate gives me multiple translations (as both words do have multiple meanings I pretty much expected that).
Using the following definitions of standard and convention, what kanji(s) are used:
Standard: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example
Convention: a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity.
How would you say/write "coding standard" or "coding conventions"? (Am aware "coding" is just "". lol)
|
The primary word for _standard_ is and the primary word for _convention_ is . But there are many possible expressions.
* : This refers to established, widely-known, authoritative and named standards. is a word that sounds highly technical. HTML Standard is HTML.
* : The same as . In the programming field it's often best to leave many words untranslated, you know :)
* : This can include more local ones like "Coding Style of XYZ Project/Company". Still this sounds you have to consider it a rule.
* : Sounds less strict than ; it's not a rule but a guideline. How strictly you have to follow the guideline depends on the project.
* : Coding convention, which may even be undocumented.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, phrases, english to japanese"
}
|
Closest meaning of Soulmate, 運命の人 or 心の友?
Just a simple question, which one has the closest meaning of soulmate, **** or ****? Are they interchangeable in Japanese?
|
is used exclusively to refer to a romantic partner or (future) spouse with a lifelong bond with you. is used to refer to a close friend, typically of the same sex, as the kanji suggests. They are not interchangeable at all in Japanese.
is a relatively common phrase. On the other hand, is rare except that a manga character uses this often. When I hear , I can't help recalling the character, and I believe many native Japanese speakers are like me. See image search results for . Some online glossaries define this as a ("Jaian-ese") term.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "english to japanese"
}
|
「ボーダー」... What border?
My gf loves me wearing striped shirts, as I'm not a skinny person (Japanese standard skinny, stateside I'm skin and bone) they naturally make me look fat!
She always says "" and I always think "No, I hate the the (Mexican/Canadian/Any border! ...Tijuana is dope though!)
Why Why not or something?
|
vs.
=
Vertical Stripes vs. Horizontal Stripes
![](
Until about two decades ago, both were called . Then, the fashion industry people invented the name to refer to "horizontal stripes" as a buzzword to make it popular and did they ever succeed!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "english to japanese, connotation"
}
|
Is there a native Japanese word for upgrading a document to a new format?
I have a document in an old version of a template, and I'm moving the contents into a newer version of the template. I typically describe this process as "upgrading" the document.
Jisho suggests ``, but I'm hoping to find a native term, something that's not technology-specific but rather describes the more general process of moving content from an old format to a new format, which I assume is an action that would have been defined in Japanese bureaucracy long before the introduction of digital word processing.
|
Usually, {} is used to mean _update/upgrade_.
Following l'électeur's remark you might be interested in {} which is not sino-loanword but a native Japanese word as far as I know.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, loanwords, word requests"
}
|
Why は instead of で？
My friend correct one of my essay sentences from:
> JLPT1
to
> JLPT1
What is the difference between them and why is better? Is it used for emphasis and if so why?
|
In the first sentence, is not marked with , which means that part is a new information or the focus of the remark, in other words, it's like an answer to question "when do you go back to Japan and study for JPT1?". If you explicit it, you can express it as "it's after I graduate from my college that I go back to Japan and study for JPT1".
In the second sentence, is marked with *, which means it's a shared information or a precondition for the new information (…), and you can think of it as a kind of answer to a question "what will you do after graduating from your college?".
*. More accurately, the point is it being the topic of the sentence. Being marked with is only one of several ways to express that.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
A phrase similar to "...is the mother of all f##k ups!"
So I was fixing some code (because someone thought they were smart enough to start using multiple inheritance and I guess "Kernighan's lever" came into effect) and I want to add a comment "Remember kids multiple inheritance is the mother of all f##k ups!" (I know it's usually "Assumption is the mother of all f##k ups!")
Is there a similar phrase in Japanese? If not; how would I write this to convey the same connotation?
|
, a very common phrase (but without any profanity), is fairly close to "mother of all xxxx-ups" both in meaning and feeling. Thus, you could say:
> Noun + +
"Multiple inheritance" would be {}.
"Assumption" would be {}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "english to japanese, connotation"
}
|
What is the kanji for いもうと?
I don’t remember that. Thanks in advance.
|
Is that word ""?
That's mean younger sister.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": -4,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
}
|
Referring to Chinese Characters that are not used in Japanese
I was reading the internet today and noticed someone said that the kanji `` does not exist.
This character is very commonly used in Chinese and can be found in the Unicode CJK Unified Ideographs (Han) block at code point U+83B7.
The statement that the kanji didn't exist got me wondering, in Japanese, how would one refer to a Chinese Character that isn't used in the Japanese language? Would it not still be referred to as kanji?
|
They're still kanji, for _kanji_ is the Japanese reading of "Chinese character". The same reason we call comics from everywhere _manga_ , unlike in English.
> _how would one refer to a Chinese Character that isn't used in the Japanese language?_
There are two scenarios:
* the kanji is theoretically usable, or historically attested in Japan, but rarely used in Japanese due to linguistic differences or whatever reason
We can call them:
>
>
* Japan and other countries have different standards for the kanji, so that (the specific form of) it never occurred in Japanese writing
We can call them:
> _or_ [country name]
>
In your case, is the Simplified form in PRC corresponding to and in Japanese orthography.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Difference between 上げる and 与える
I have some notes from many years back when I began to do Japanese. As you might expect, I am suspicious of my understanding at the time and of what I've written.
I have two verbs for "to give" and would like to check what the differences are.
give
give
I also have
do a favour (not 'I' but 'they')
but I don't know what I meant by my english explanation. Does anybody recognise as "doing a favour"?
|
is used generally and it is also polite. If you want to say the same meaning in not polite way, you say . is used only when the upper rank person gives something to the lower one/ones. For example, a king gives something to the vassal/retainer.
used in is used in doing somebody a favor in doing something. I'll show you some examples; I would help you take out the garbage. I would hear your hard-luck stories.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
year before last - いっさくねん or おととし
I'm confused. When I look at jisho.org it seems to give the kanji for this as:
but it has two hiragana versions.
Can someone explain to me what Kanji would normally be used for this and why are there two different hiragana.
Thanks
|
Both readings are correct even though it is perfectly valid to write in hiragana.
is less formal and is used heavily in our daily lives.
is more formal and business-like; therefore, it is used less often than is.
is the original Japanese word (if you could tell from its "softer" kun'yomi sounds) and is the "Chinese-like" reading of the word. , and are all on'yomi.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, words"
}
|
What does 二系列の交叉点 mean?
I’m currently reading a Japanese text about political philosophy, but I can’t put my head around the term ****. It comes up in the following sentence and is frequently used afterwards.
****
All possible translations I came up with didn't quite fit. Can anyone help me out?
|
A
B
AB
Now you are standing at the center of the crossing of two ways: A and B. You are forced to select one of the ways of living between A and B. To live for the contribution to others or to live for your selfish way is the question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Difference between どこですか and どこにいますか/どこにありますか?
> (1)
>
> (2)
Unless I'm mistaken, both those sentences mean something like "where is the book", what's the difference between using and to indicate position?
I wouldn't have said (2) for "where is the book" but in an exercise where the question was "where is the switch" and the answer "next to the door", the answer used so I assumed it was also in the question. It made me wonder when it was better to use instead of .
(Also, if there's an error in my sentences don't just correct them, also give an explanation to my question please)
|
The verb is translated "be located", so there's usually little semantic difference between and This rule can be further extended to XY = XY for a thing X and location Y.
> = _The book is on the desk._
>
> = _John is in Akihabara._
However, of course, the extended form is required when it's not obvious that Y is a location name in this construction.
> _Ronald is McDonald. / Ronald is at McDonald's._
> → _Ronald is at McDonald's._
Now, the pronoun , unlike English _where_ , can indicate not only a location but also a **group, community or organization** (as well as ), thus also affected by the ambiguity in some context.
> _Who is the publisher? / Where is the publisher?_
> → _Where is the publisher?_
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "questions, copula, pronouns"
}
|
What is にゃんちゅう saying here?
 in his speech where I cannot catch what he is saying even with a dictionary, and even by slowing down the video.
His speech starts 0:42, and ends 1:57. **The 3 places I have problems with have timestamps 0:54, 1:21 and 1:51**. My attempts, after many listens, are below. In addition, I suspect 0:54 is a variation of , but I am not sure what it is. Could I receive some help for these three areas?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **** (0:54)
>
> **** (1:21) **** (1:51)
Edited: to , before
|
**** (0:54)
↓
> **** **** ****
**** **** Why would he say "barf" here?
↓
> {}{}{} is an exclamation.
**** **** ****
↓
> **** {}{}{}
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words, listening"
}
|
Meaning of ポンポンしている
What's the meaning of in the following sentence? Context: a girl is touching his friend's boxing gloves and then says:
>
Of all the meanings I found on dictionaries (cheerleaders' pom-poms as a noun, bang-bang, one after another, outspokenly as adverbs/onomatopoeia) none seems to fit the context. Could it mean that they are soft like cheerleaders' pom-poms, and therefore cute (even though I don't think boxing gloves are that soft)? Thank you for your help!
|
In this context, / would mean " ** _plump_** ". It has absolutely nothing to do with "pom-poms".
or
would be a synonym.
To comment on your question title, we do not really say ; We say.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, onomatopoeia"
}
|
Meaning of 二次遭難{にじそうなん}
Context: the speaker was in a bad situation but got out of it, and has the expectation that the other party is going to scold him for his carelessness.
> ****
What is the meaning of {} here? Dictionary defines as "secondary" and as "accident" or "being stranded". Being stranded would somehow describe the nature of the situation, but I don't get the "secondary" part.
If the word has uses in other contexts, I would like to know about them, too.
|
{} is an accident that could happen to you while you are trying to rescue another that has already been in a (different) accident. It is **derivative** in nature.
here means "secondary" only in the sense that it takes place **_after_** the original accident.
Unless the story you are reading is about an accident in mountain climbing, is being used figuratively, which is quite common.
A far more comon word would be []{}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, compounds"
}
|
On the use of 「憎々しいまでの」
The usage seems straightforward in such cases as:
> **** 1
↑ the performance is so good that the bad character appears almost .
But sometimes I feel kind of uncertain of its nuance as in:
> **** 2
↑ How can the reflection be so to the point that it feels even ?
> **** 3
↑ How can the weather be so good that it is almost ?
> **** 4
↑ You like the meat so much that it turns ?
To wrap it up, can be used as a generic emphasizer even when there are actually no real feelings involved? That is, similar to the Mandarin phrase .
|
in a dictionary:
>
So let's jump to :
> ****
So "vexingly excellent" (or practically, _astonishingly excellent_ ) is the meaning. and its derivatives including , and all share this definition. Your example #2 is explained in this way.
But for your #3:
> ****
He's complaining about the scorching-hot sun, so he probably literally "hates" it.
And your #4:
>
reads . Yeah, it's a pun. This is a slang also written as to describe a meal contains a lot of juicy meat, or "meatful".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "nuances"
}
|
Is there a word to express "the rain of sakura petals"?
I think it's a good question given the season.
I was watching the petals of cherry flowers falling down in the typical "pink shower" after the full bloom and wondered: is there a word that expresses exactly this phenomenon of cherry petals "raining down"? After all it is such a typical "Japanese scene" that I would be surprised otherwise. However, I asked a Japanese person who didn't know (and if such word exists I figured it would be so common everyone would answer immediately).
Ps I know I was curious about a single word.
|
Yes, but we take it as snow rather than rain.
****
>
> _a word describing cherry petals whirling down in the wind by analogy with snowstorm_
* * *
![enter image description here](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, culture"
}
|
How to say "I take dancing classes" or "I'm learning dancing"
How do you say "I'm learning dancing" or "I take dancing classes"?
Is this correct?
> watashi wa dansu wo benkyou desu
|
"watashi wa dansu wo benkyou desu" is not correct.
As for "I take dancing classes", you say in Japanese; watashi wa dansu kyoushitsu ni kayotte imasu.
(class)
And, for "I'm learning dancing", you say; watashi wa dansu wo naratte imasu.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
is 退屈は石になる an expression or it's wrongly translated?
Taikutsu wa ishi ni naru , "boredom becomes a stone". is this an expression or it's wrongly translated? What is it supposed to mean?
|
I visited the site:
<
and I found the following lyrics;
(Woo-hoo) taikutsu wa
(Woo-hoo) ishi ni naru
Omokute ochichau mae ni (let's fly high)
Now I got the meaning of the "taikutsu wa ishi ni naru". In this lyrics, the expression "The boredom becomes a stone." may be allowed, though having some unnatural tone as a Japanese language.
I paraphrased the lyrics of this song as follows;
We are flying in the sky. We feel bored very much. Our boredom is heavy like a stone. Yes, "the boredom becomes a stone." It is becoming heavier and heavier so as not to be able to fly. If we keep bearing the boredom, we are threatened to fall onto the ground by the heaviness. Let's shake off the boring feeling, and let's fly up high in the sky before falling onto the ground.
I thought that the lyrics are full of hope and give it to the person who sings the song of them.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
When can adjectives be used with the particle "no"?
Some adjectives are used like this:
* []{}[]{} "tsugi no sekai" (next world)
* []{}[]{} "kiiro no kuruma" (yellow car)
and others are used liked this: []{} "kawaī kuruma".
Though kiiro can also be used thus: []{}[]{}"kiiroi kuruma".
When can I use an adjective with "no"? Is it always or only in some special cases?
|
Grammatically, you can _never_ use an adjective with . You can only use with nouns. Your confusion arose because the parts of speech do not always correspond between English and Japanese: is a noun, but "next" is an adjective.
Similarly, all colors in English are adjectives, but all colors in Japanese are nouns (except for six that have adjective counterparts, namely , , , , , and ). You can't say because it only exists as a noun, not as an adjective (a fact you just have to memorize).
You can use nouns to modify other nouns in English, too (and this is probably true of most other languages). _Health Department_ (or _Department of Health_ ) is an example in English: "health" modifies "department" and specifies the kind of department.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle の, adjectives"
}
|
What does 虎の巻 mean?
I know it has to deal with something about books or some type of writing, but when I looked it up, all that came up were scrolls and cheat sheets of some sort. I'm guessing it's something "___ for dummies" or maybe even a "crash course?" Also, if it's published, is it more like a scroll or a book format?
|
According to , {}{} has three meanings.
> 1. Book of war strategy secrets. (Original meaning)
> 2. A document that covers secrets of an art or skill. (First figurative use)
> 3. Book that lectures are based on. Also, a reference document for textbook question answers (especially something that's easy to understand). Crib notes or cheat sheet. Alternative words:
>
So in a school setting, the third definition is probably the correct one. First one is only needed in history or fantasy settings. Not sure if the second one gets any use nowadays when you talk about "tricks of the trade" or such.
Your "for dummies" matches definition 3. Not sure about crash course.
The kanji here doesn't refer to a scroll in definition 2 or 3, they are just figurative use of the first definition.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, kanji"
}
|
Translating とする彼を
I'm looking at Lake & Ura's _Learn to Read in Japanese_ page 37-102
>
is translated as
> On the "to-a-dangerous-place-he-will-try-to-go" him, everyone detained.
in the book, and
> Everyone stopped him trying to go to a dangerous place
by Google Translate. The google translation seems a lot more idiomatic, but I can't tell if it's correct because I don't understand the second half of the first clause: ""
|
To make it simpler first you can cut out the first part of the sentence.
This is simply "everyone stopped him"
The first part we cut out is all just describing the "him" that everyone stopped.
the he who .
In English we'd just say something like "they stopped him from going to a dangerous place." Or "They stopped him, as he was trying to go to a dangerous place." might be closer.
Anyway, () is basically one big adjective describing .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
Meaning of はにゃせ or はにやせ
Context: two people are walking on a street and a tramp says to them:
>
I'm not sure if it's or , because it is written in small fonts, I am attaching an image so you can tell. Could it be a Korean greeting? Thank you for your help!
.
would be the drunk and/or sleepy man's pronunciation of
1) {} = "Leave me alone!", "Let me go!", etc.
2) {} = "Tell me!"
The first interpretation would be more likely, but that is just speculation given the limited context.
with the normal-size would make no sense at all.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, slang, greetings"
}
|
How to interpret ないって
How to interpret **** in the following sentence?
>
looks like negative form of , but what is then? Can it be a contraction of quoting particle ?
|
You are parsing this incorrectly. It is + following after. In this case, the is a contraction of , and the goes with .
So the whole sentence parses like this:
> ( → Is it really true that ice cream doesn't have an expiration date?!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "contractions"
}
|
How to explain to the 店員 that I'm an "inverted triangle" body type?
Recently went to buy some shirts to wear at work, I exercise a lot (cardio, weight-training and calisthenics) so I have pretty large shoulders and a (smaller? regular?) waist.
I tried explaining that I'm an "inverted triangle" body type and was told something called "Y", at first I thought it made sense but when I tried them on, the ones that fit my waist I couldn't even get my forearms into, and the ones that fit my shoulders and arms were like 1.5 times the size of my waist, came to the conclusion that this "Y" is just a "rectangle" body type (why it's called "Y" beats me...).
How would I explain an "inverted triangle" body type in Japanese?
|
The literal translation, ()(/) makes perfect sense (` ` on Y! image search).
I have no idea what a Y is (it may be jargon used by someone, though).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
What is the difference between 預金 and 入金?
Both {} and {} can mean **deposit**. Is there any difference in the usage of these terms?
|
is a suru-verb that refers to the individual transactions of putting money into a bank account. The antonym is . In daily conversations () or () might be more common.
usually refers to the money (already) in an account. It occasionally works as a suru-verb, but when it does, it refers to the long-term state of having money in a bank account.
In other words, if you do , your will increase.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "pragmatics"
}
|
What does the sentence structure ＡでもＢ mean in this song?
The song in question can be found here. For example:
>
While I do know that means 'but', I also know that most particles have multiple meanings.
Since 'but' wouldn't make much sense as a translation here, I am confident that is used here to mean something else. That's what my question is about.
What does the sentence structure mean as it is used in the song?
|
The in the song is conditional/hypothetical "even if" (indicating ), rather than the conjunction () , "but", which usually comes at the beginning of a sentence.
The here consists of (the continuative form () of the copula ) + binding particle .
So AB/ means "(It's) B, even if it's A."
> **** _lit._ (It's) ninjin, even if one.
> → It's called [ni]{2}njin, even if there's one piece (of carrot).
>
> **** _lit._ (They're) sandaru, even if two pairs.
> → You call them [san]{3}daru, even if you've got two pairs (of sandals).
* * *
Examples of this :
> * **** I'll go even if it's rainy.
> * **** I'll do even if it's a difficult task.
> * 100 **** 100 Two for 100 yen. It'd still be 100 yen even if you bought three.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles"
}
|
What does やりすぎなほど mean on this page of Yotsubato!
I am on ch.82, pg.19 of Yotsubato! manga. ![enter image description here]( Source: <
What does mean here ?
From what I know, is used to express the extent of something and means overdoing/excessive etc., Does this translate to something like "Awesome!" ? Or does the literal translation mean something else?
Also, is the usage of here unconventional ? I have never really seen used after noun so far (I am a beginner).
|
> **** : You know what? I saw a woodpecker!
>
> **** : Really? What was it like?
>
> **** : It was pecking wood! Way too much (lit. to an extent that could be called overkill)!
The part, meaning the same as , is a pun on .
is an additional comment to the previous pun. (overkill) is used as an adjective while it normally is just a verb-derived noun (do + too much). There is a similar question about the use of after nouns here.
Note that it's perfectly grammatical to use with na-adjectives like in **{}** {} (JoJo's **Bizarre** Adventure).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, usage, colloquial language, manga"
}
|
Can I use my Chinese name and if so, how do I say it?
My Chinese name in Kanji is (Wang Yuan Shao). I've heard there are many different readings I can use for each kanji, am I allowed to use whichever reading I like? Also, apparently the character is a hyogai Kanji, which means I can't use it.
|
We are supposed to call your name unless you challenge it. If you want to be called differently, go ahead and offer it. In that case, you'd use katakana like .
p.s. I'm Japanese but I haven't heard that one cannot use hyogai kanji.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, names, chinese"
}
|
Translating て-form + ばかりいないで
I have a sentence from page 39-108 of Lake and Ura's _Learn to Read in Japanese_.
>
The book gives a somewhat inscrutable:
> Eating only not being, it would be better to do a little exercise, for sure.
Google Translate gives the translation as:
> You do not have to eat, you had better exercise a little
The second half of the sentence () is pretty straightforward; as I understand it from here, the first half of the sentence describes habitual eating. I don't know how it interacts with .
|
+ A verb in form or a noun followed by means to do only that action or thing, or continuously do it, or to always (verb). This phrase is often used to disapprove of something.
To do nothing but study.
To do nothing but run.
means please do not (verb).
To combine both meanings:
+ =>
Which means, "please don't always just eat" or "please don't eat constantly."
For the record, could also be written which means the same thing (but with more emphasis), and if it follows a verb in past tense, then it means that you have just finished doing that action.
= I just ate. (I just got done eating)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "て form, particle ばかり"
}
|
Unable to understand 理にかなっています meaning
``
In the above sentence I am unable to understand the `` phrase. Does anyone know what this means? Please help.
|
is a set phrase that means _is reasonable_ , _to make sense_ , etc.
is _reason_ , and is _to match_ , _to accord_. The kanji for in this context is , but it's usually written in hiragana.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, phrases"
}
|
Could ひきつけられる mean "to get distracted"?
Context: a boy will soon take the test to become a pro-boxer. After a training match, his trainer says to him:
>
I found on dictionaries that means "to be drawn, attracted, charmed by something", but that something is not present here (maybe it's something implicit?), so I thought it could simply mean "to get distracted". Is my guess correct?
I would also appreciate if you could help me with the rest of the sentence. My translation attempt:
> You still get distracted. You can still step a little closer. Your are still far from reaching your limit.
Thank you for your help!
|
First, this is in the potential form ("to be able to "). You can forget any definitions based on passive ("to be attracted/charmed/distracted/etc").
literally means "to attract". In this context, means "to allow the opponent/attacks to get closer", and that's what you need to do when you try to achieve ("paper-thin margin"). I think here refers to efficient dodging moves (eg swayback), not the overall distance between you and your opponent. If your dodging technique is bad, you have to keep a distance from the opponent and to dodge early and largely, wasting your stamina and losing chances to counterattack. The sentences basically say the boy should correct such inefficient moves.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, verbs, passive voice"
}
|
Name of レ点 in 漢文
In , why is the used for ? Is it purely a graphic representation of returning to an earlier point in the text, or does stand for some word?
|
The means first read the next character (that is the character below since it was written from top to bottom at that time) then read the previous character.
Ex: should read .
Before, the was called []{} because it looks like a goose which is flying ({}) ![enter image description here]( You can see that first the symbol is going down then going up. That means first read one character below then go back and read the character above. That's the whole purpose of the .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "katakana, classical japanese, chinese, symbols"
}
|
Meaning of 命の保証
Context: a boy has had a troubled life. His father used to beat him up, but then committed suicide. Then he was almost killed by his mother's yakuza boyfriend. His mother is now in prison and doesn't want to see him. The boy is now basically alone, but has just joined a boxing gym. His boxing trainer tells him (the sentence is split into two separate balloons, see the whole page here):
> /
First, I don't understand if and refer to or to . And what is the meaning of ? "Life certainties"?
Also, I don't understand the actual value of . "Another way of life" compared what? To the one he had before?
I think the trainer is trying to cheer the boy up after he has been rejected by his mother. My translation attempt:
> Do other ways of living have any certainties? Even shitty or imperfect ones?
Here's the previous page too for more context.
|
> {}{}{}{} / {}{}
means " **guarantee of your safety** " and it is used fairly often in fiction.
> I don't understand if and refer to or to .
It is the former.
> "Another way of living, how shitty and incomplete it might be, will (at least) fully guarantee your safety."
The question mark used in the original expresses the speaker's intention of asking the listener to choose between the present way of living and another. You as a reader is expected to employ a rising intonation at the end of the sentence even though it is not a question grammatically.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words, manga"
}
|
Unable to determine the meaning behind ~のみこと at the end of certain names
Examples include: , , and / (Here, I've been unable to merely identify the set of characters I'm to use, which is unfortunate.) So, what would this ~ happen to mean?
And, does it work in any sort of fashion similar to modern names, id est, it signifying the first name? Or is it merely title?
Too, are all of these names merely that, one name, or do they have both a surname and a given name?
|
is a possessive particle.
{} is an honorific title/referral to a deity or a noble person:
> … () ―
Unless you were referring to a member of the Imperial family, wouldn't be used.
Deities do not have family names. The Emperor neither.
What comes before is a proper name. Sometimes open to an interpretation, sometimes not.
In some cases is translated as "the god who ...", in other "the god of ..." depending on the aforementioned meaning. The use of the full names of deities is pretty rare and limited to mythology or religious explanations of the name itself.
In case of human, "Lord" seems like a suitable English counterpart.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Translation of "technically speaking" / What is this villain saying?
 villain was saying (second line) at 0:03. The English translation of the line is above.
> My attempt:
>
> {}{}
>
> **____** (0:03)
|
He says {}{}
"Well, strictly speaking, nope."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, nouns, listening"
}
|
What does あるとき mean in this sentence?
I came upon the following sentence and its English translation in a collection of parallel short stories in Japanese and English.
>
>
> Sometimes, just like that, in the dead of night, I wake up.
What confuses me is the translation of as "sometimes". My dictionary translates as "once; on one occasion; at one point" which would imply that the sentence describes **one occurrence** of an event. In contrast, the "sometimes" of the English translation implies **multiple occurrences**.
Can refer to multiple occurrences or is the translation somewhat removed from the original sentence?
|
> {}{}{}
I'm a Japanese. If Japanese use this phrase, such as in a book as a novelist, the event could occur multiple times, because the phrase is written in a present tense not in a past tense. And, if the phrase is written in a past tense, the event occurred only once.
> An example of multiple times
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> An example of single time
>
I know the sentence {}{}{}{}{}in the example of single time should be written in a past tense in English, but in this context, the sentence is more natural when written in a present tense than in a past tense in Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
What is the meaning of か in といったところか
I have two examples:
> {}. -- Then, he really lives up to the rumor!
> 100 -- That would mean that we need 10 million to build this building!
I would bet that here is used in the following sense (that is how I translated it above). Is it really so?
Related question: Ending a sentence like that may seem blunt. How it is possible to keep the tone of surprise (as long as I have guessed right) but with a softer ending?
|
> I would bet that here is used in the following sense (that is how I translated it above). Is it really so?
I am afraid that is not the case.
simply means " ** _I would say ~~~_** ". It implies that the statement would at least be fairly accurate if not 100% accurate.
This is a way of talking as much to yourself as to your listeners/readers. It is a way of avoiding clear declaration as well. It softens the tone of the statement compared to sentence endings such as , etc.
It seems that you were thinking of the used as in:
{} **** = "What? This melon costs 20,000 yen?!"
That would certainly express {}{}{}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "particle か"
}
|
”ないし”-Unable to understand the use of this phrase here
> **** 5.3.3
I am unable to understand the use of "" phrase in the head of the above sentence after the "". This phrase is a form of the adjective "", meaning no/is not, which is mainly used when the speaker wants to continue after the negation. So why is this being used in the head of the sentence ?
If necessary, this sentence is speaking about a machine learning algorithm and its tuning.
Please help.
|
I think it's the conjunction {}, meaning "or" here, and "from ... to" in other contexts.
> **** …
>
> The (amount?) of bases **or** patterns, `m`, ...
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, phrases"
}
|
Parsing potential phrase modifying a noun
From Hirameki Hatsume-chan Vol 1, chapter 7[1]( How does the sentence in the third panel translate, and who is doing what to whom? Is it a potential and the is "enabling" him to have good dreams or is it passive and the verb used to mean "show"?
|
> /
> A tool [with which (I/people) can see a good dream]
is a relative clause modifying .
Its non-relative equivalent would be:
> **** /
> With a tool, (I/people) can see a good dream.
So the is potential. Its subject can be "I", "we", "you" or "people" who will have a good dream using that tool. The particle goes missing when you turn the sentence into the relative clause.
Compare:
> * **** -- I used the pen.
> → -- the pen that I used ( goes missing)
>
> * **** -- (I) start a fire with a tool.
> → -- a tool with which (I) start a fire ( goes missing)
>
> * **** -- (I) can write beautiful characters with a brush.
> → -- the brush with which (I) can write beautiful characters. ( goes missing)
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "passive voice, relative clauses, potential form"
}
|
What does 全中制覇 means?
I came across this phrase but I can't find in the internet what it means. At first I thought is an idiom but there was no result when I tried searching for it in the net.
|
{} is short for [[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}]( which is like all-Japan championship meets for **junior high school** athletes.
Thus, {} would mean "winning/becoming a champ at the ".
For the advanced learners, the **high school** version of is commonly called .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "idioms"
}
|
Translating the set phrase 後は～～だけ
I'm taking a sentence from page 49-138 of Lake and Ura's _Learn to Read in Japanese_
>
The first part of the sentence () and last part of the sentence () seem pretty straightforward, but I'm not sure where fits in with those. If it's associated with the first part of the sentence, it seems like it could mean
> After the plans to go to Brazil are finished, there's nothing to do but get on the plane.
but if it's associated with the second half of the sentence, it might mean something more like:
> The plans to go Brazil have been finished; later there's nothing to do but get on a plane.
|
> {}{}{}{}{}
>
You seem to be concerned about whether is associated with the first part or the last part of the sentence. It is both, actually.
IMHO, what is more important here is whether or not you are looking at the set phrase **//, etc.** . So, **you can pretty much forget about "later" or "after"** here.
> **//, etc.** = "all that is left to do is ~~"
Thus, the sentence means:
> "My preparations for going to Brazil are finished and/so all that is left to do is to get on the plane."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "set phrases"
}
|
Problem with のが in this sentence
**** A < The sentence is from Line 5 in the above linked text.
the problem lies with . I don't really understand why it is there. I usually would expect the sentence to be like this: A => "Therefore, the map A is there, which McArthur tried to craft by himself." or "Therefore the McArthur tried to craft by himself map A is there" in a more literal way.
In this very chapter, my textbook taught me that a sentence element further determining another sentence element can be marked through both and , like here: /
But nowhere has it been said that both can be used at the same time xD So, apart from the fact that I really don't see why or have to be there at all, I understand even less why both of them are there...^^
|
This type of sentence is called a _cleft sentence_. This works as a placeholder just like "it" in English cleft sentences. This is a very common pattern. See the link for details and lots of similar examples (linked under "Related" section).
> A
> McArthur tried making Map A.
>
> **** A
> **It is** Map A **that** McArthur tried making.
>
> **** A (exhaustive-listing _ga_ )
> It is Map A (among others) that McArthur tried making.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does する mean in this sentence?
>
I didn't get why it is here. Could I rewrite the sentence without ?
|
> (amount of money) +
means:
> "~~ costs (amount of money)"
That is probably the most common way of describing what a thing costs.
> "I think it would cost at least 10 dollars."
You **_could_** say just about the same thing without using , but **it will not sound nearly as natural**. For instance, you could say:
{}
I would be shocked if they did not teach (amount of money) + in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language, seriously. It is an expression we use on a daily basis.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, syntax"
}
|
What is this なければならない doing there?
**** (From line 7: < should be a particle here right? If so, why is not attached to any verb? I don't know what this means.
I would say that the sentence means the following: "Well, why must the north be attached on top/in the upper section?" But I can't say why floats around freely like this.
|
Here is the passage:
> []{}
In fact, there is a verb. This verb is . And the negative of is . _Must be_ can then be written .
> Usually on a map, north is at the top. But, how come that north has to be at the top? In fact, it has been customary since the use of latitude and longitude and it is not unusual to see south at the top on old maps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Feeling unsure about the connection of the two sides of the comma
(From line 7: <
=> "The map is normal, it can hang with the north attached to the top."
I feel very unsure about this one since there is no copula and no connector (like for example **** ), but I can't make sense of it otherwise. I'm also not sure whether the potential form expresses an ability here or makes an objective statement (I think there was something about that with potential form, please correct me if I'm wrong, I also don't feel like I understood it).
|
Is there a typo here? Shouldn't be ? If so, it's a passive, not a potential. Try analysing the sentence without .
means "Maps are hung with North at the top".
Then restore the :
means "Maps are usually hung with North at the top".
One problem is that we tend to assume that the punctuation mark is like an English comma, marking off a grammatically distinct section of a sentence. So when we come to one we stop to look at the meaning of what precedes it. That's not what it does: it's best to think of it as simply indicating a point in the sentence where if you were reading it aloud you might pause to breathe. I think what's happened here is that you've come to a comma so stopped to make an interim translation of the first part of the sentence as "the map is usual or ordinary" and then gone on to deal with rest of the sentence, not realising that is in fact an adverb meaning "usually", "ordinarily" and that this is a general statement about the way maps are hung.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Translation doubts
This means: The girl I love/I love you
I'm interested in knowing if it absolutely has to refer to a person that's not in front of you.
I also want to know if (like very much) can mean favourite in this sentence (something like my favourite girl or the girl I love the most).
|
It means neither.
is not "you" but "that girl", referring to someone who is _not_ in front of you. If you said this to your girlfriend in front of you, you would probably make her angry; "Wait, who is ? Who are you talking about!?"
The sentence means "That girl I love." means "love" or "like very much", but it does not mean "love the most" on its own.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
"ji" ending on verb "nai" stem?
My question is from this sentence. It is from the "Easy Japanese" YouTube videos:
>
Why "nurasaji"? I would understand "mada nurasanai" - not yet wet - but why "ji"?
|
is an archaic auxiliary, similar to describing negative volition.
<
So it's or in modern Japanese.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs, conjugations, auxiliary ず"
}
|
Is there a shorter version of saying "これからは、日本語を学ぶために全力を尽くします。"?
I want to say this sentence in Nihongo:
> "From now on, I will do my best to learn Japanese."
I entered the exact same sentence in Google Translate and it gave me:
>
But I am also aware that Google Translate sometimes has grammatical errors in its result. I can confirm that **** is the correct translation for **from now on** , since I often hear that in anime episodes, but I am not sure if the rest of the sentence is correct.
Please help me confirm if the rest of it is grammatically correct, or if there's something wrong with it. Also, is there a shorter version of saying this in Nihongo? I feel like this translation is too long. Thank you very much.
**Background:**
I am very new to learning Japanese. I am learning it for two reasons:
* to communicate well with my new Japanese friends and clients
* to fulfill my dream of learning as many languages as I can
|
> "From now on, I will do my best to learn Japanese."
>
When we learn English language, we Japanese usually say not , but say . And, the translation of for "to do one's best" is correct, but it doesn't sound natural. So, I recommend you to say /. So the appropriate translation for "From now on, I will do my best to learn Japanese." is;
> to do one's best /
By the way, I'll show you the usage difference between and . The principal difference lies in the duration time of doing effort. As for the former phrase, someone does his best only once or for a short period of time just like "doing one's best in the tennis match", while for the latter phrase, someone does one's best for a long period of time just like "doing one's best in learning Japanese."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
Explanation of ambiguous "gokigenyou"
I googled for a bit and it seems like / ("gokigenyou") has both a greeting and a farewell meaning, but I couldn't find any etymology to explain it. Does it consist of any simpler parts, or is this a whole word/phrase? Why is it both a greeting and a farewell? I don't think there are other phrases like that but maybe I'm wrong about that.
|
**** _gokigen'yō_
* (honorific prefix)
* ("mood; tide")
* (old-fashioned form for , a conjugation† of )
Altogether means "your mood (being) well", or practically "in good mood; in good shape".
> _Why is it both a greeting and a farewell? I don't think there are other phrases like that but maybe I'm wrong about that._
Well... this word is pretty much analogous in many ways to "Good day!" in English. With the verb omitted, the phrase can stand for both "it is a good day" and "have a good day", thus has dual use as hello and goodbye.
* * *
† The inflection of adjectives is normally called _declension_ , but in Japanese context I'm more comfortable to call it _conjugation_ nevertheless.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "etymology"
}
|
Explanation of 掛けられたら in this situation?
I've come across this sentence ……, which I think might roughly translate to "It's too hot to be wearing a coat on a day like this, though if (I) were to take it off, (I'd) be shouted at!"
Would translate to if (I) would take off? I've only learnt it in the context 'To hang' as in a picture. I'm still around N5 but conjugations are the most confusing to me.
Thank you.
|
> {}……{}{}{}{}
here is **_passive voice_** , namely the famous "suffering passive". A person does something to you and you are not happy about it. You would not ("yell out loud") if you were not suffering, would you?
The three usages of is explained here. Only the context will tell which one of the three meanings is being used for. Please remember that Japanese is an incredibly contextual language. Had you asked just "What does mean?", no one could have answered. **Without any context, it could mean honorific, potential or passive voice**.
> "I would yell out loud if someone put a jacket on me on such a hot day like this."
I did no use the passive voice structure in my translation. You could replace the "if someone put a jacket on me" part by "if I were made to wear a jacket".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
}
|
How to say "What the f**k am I doing here?"
How to say "What the fuck am I doing here?"
I came up with two versions for the above question.
1.
2.
|
1. means "this place" and it needs a locative marker to mean "here" when it's combined with the predicate .
2. You can't use the form of a non-noda form followed with for interrogative sentences apart from slang.
3. … doesn't stand for a simple question but a rhetoric question to actually deny it.
4. has two objects of and . You need some particle when you use adverbially, aside from some slangy usages.
So, you might want, for example, (), or … (interrogative noda form with ), which expresses blame rather than really asking.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "interrogatives"
}
|
meaning of ひょうたん ぽっくりこ in a song about a rolling caterpillar
I am reading a children's book written in hiragana. I saw the opening line of the book mentioned online as being from the lyrics of a song, so I think this may be a folk song or children's song.
The first line is:
I translated this as The caterpillar started to roll (with the sound effect of a large and heavy rolling object adding humor).
But then the next line confuses me completely.
My dictionary tells me that could be a contradiction or a gourd, but I don't see how either of those ideas would fit in.
|
I'm a native Japanese, but I don't know the meaning of .
Visit the site < then you'll know native Japanese don't know the meaning of . So, you need not worry about not knowing the meaning of .
I'm not sure, but may be an onomatopoeia. When you tap at a gourd, it will sound something like that.
At least, I know the in this phrase is a gourd, not contradiction. The meaning of contradiction for is used only in the Japanese proverb {}{}.
{}{} could be literally translated like;
A piece of shogi gets out of a gourd, upon which "shogi" is a game of Japan like chess.
The proverb means;
* What is not expected happens.
* An impossible thing happens.
* Something said as a joke actually happens.
Similar proverbs in English are;
* Many a true word is spoken in jest.
* There is many a true word spoken in jest.
![enter image description here](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, song lyrics"
}
|
Meaning of 尖った道
What is the meaning of this expression? I know is an adjective that means "pointed, sharp", but I don't understand what a "pointed road" could be. I tried to google it but I only got 8 results, all of them about a song, so it doesn't seem a common expression. Here's the sentence in which I found it:
> …
Is it a metaphorical way to refer to a path that is hard to walk? Thank you for your help!
|
> *
> *
> *
>
It is a metaphorical way to refer to a world or a society that is hard to live.
I think , a road/way, means a "world" or "society" in this context. meaning "sharp" describes the world or society metaphorically and figuratively, and I think the adjective "sharp" describes the brutality, heartlessness or irrationality of the world where normal person would feel fear. In this context, the adjective "sharp" is the antonym of the adjective such as "calm" "peaceful." "" meaning "this boy/youngster" may be a true naughty boy because he has not felt the bottom of the fear of the world yet.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, words, adjectives, metaphor, collocations"
}
|
Is there such a word as かなまや or かなまゆ?
In the manga I'm reading, there's a part that I can't decipher if the character is Ya or Yu. I tried searching, or , but there seem to be no such word.
The context before the statement was said is that the female protagonists thinks that she's stronger than the male protagonist. But she is not definitely sure because, the male protagonist always refuses to have a fighting match with her. In this statement the female protagonist is so angry to the point of grabbing the male protagonist in the collar and is challenging him to have a fight with her. But the male protagonist just keeps on declining.
I place the screenshot of the manga below.
![enter image description here](
|
If you are referring to the handwritten part, it says:
>
which is:
> []{}[]{}
meaning:
> "Gotta clear his/their misunderstanding."
The small at the end is for informal emphasis, which is used very often.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.