INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Expressing the irony of the situation
I was writing in my Japanese study journal, and I realized that I don't really know a good phrase for "...ironically, ..." Like so:
> Work as of late hasn't been busy. Ironically, even though I prefer to have a busy schedule, I just can't find enough to do.
To me, and seem to carry a little bit of a negative context with them. I can make the sentence work with but that doesn't really capture that I think that the situation has a light-hearted kind of irony. Am I wrong in thinking that there is another way to express this kind of light-hearted irony?
Here's my translation:
>
Am I on the right track? Is there a better way for me to express that I think this ironic?
|
As you said, I think has a bit negative nuance and I can't think of the appropriate word for a light-hearted kind of irony.
I translated your sentence as "(?)". I can't think of (?).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, words, word requests"
}
|
Can't recognize the kanji
![](
Can anyone tell what that kanji is? The left part looks a bit like but trying to use its radicals for searching isn't giving me anything close to resembling the one in the image.
|
It's .
> []{}
> "Let go of me. / Let me go."
(But I have no idea what means)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji, handwriting"
}
|
Why だからよ is considered "girly talk" and だからね is not?
So I was talking to a friend when he told me, as the title says, that:
> **** is "girly talk" but **** is correct
for instance:
> (according to him, totally ok and natural)
>
> (according to him, girly talk) it should in fact be:
>
> ****
It's weird for me because, in everything else I studied so far, both this particles seem to respect the same grammar rules (though I know this is not really a grammar point but a "pattern" in the spoke language)
Is it correct? Is this the only case where these partciles behave differently
|
… can be interpreted as two usages.
One is a sentence ender with omitted, in other words, it's interchangeable to …, albeit it's slang among women in a certain generation or for female characters. is parallel to this.)
The other one is filler usage, this time, it's not interchangeable to … but just added to the sub clause …, which is slang too, and also a for the delinquent.
And the point is, the filler usage with is accepted in Standard Japanese. That's why he said it's correct.
Difference between main clause and sub clause
* main clause: (It is because I drank alcohol)
* sub clause: (I was happy because I drank alcohol)
In the former sentence, is the predicate of the sentence or the main clause. And particles like , or that follow it are a sentence ending particle, in other words, ones as in or .
In the latter, is a sub clause, and particles that appear after it are a filler.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "slang, spoken language, particle ね, particle よ"
}
|
Why do Stereopony use Katakana for their song "Hitohira no Hanabira"?
My understanding of katakana is that they are used for foreign words. I am not sure why they might use it like that:
> for Hitohira no Hanabira
The lyrics are here.
|
My understanding on the broader topic of styling, alphabet choice, and the like for song titles is that usually choices like this are made when they want the content to appeal to a specific crowd, or to evoke a very specific feel. If, for example, you saw the title as , you might think it's a more traditional expression of the image that is evoked by the phrase. might give the impression the song is aimed at children due to the use of all-. Therefore, might at first glance give the idea that there is an alternative artistic expression of this phrase that is encapsulated in the song named after it.
Alternatively, it's to create emphasis on the specific words when read. In this case, the title is as you mentioned, and if you come across the phrase written like this in the lyrics then you know that it's referring to the titular phrase of the song.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "katakana, song lyrics"
}
|
Is there a phrase in Japanese that means "anything under the sun"?
The English idiom "anything under the sun" means, anything at all. For example:
> We sat and talked about anything under the sun.
Is there a Japanese phrase with the same nuance as that? The sentence:
>
doesn't seem to "catch" the nuance.
|
According to my E-J dictionaries...
> under the sun (1) [][]. **(2) [everything under the sun] .** (3) [nothing under the sun] …. [4][ What...? ] .
> (Taishukan's Genius English-Japanese Dictionary)
> under the sun ① [] There is nothing new under the sun. [←Bible _Eccl_ 1:9] **② I tried everything under the sun. **
> (Obunsha's Lexis English-Japanese Dictionary)
"Anything under the sun" in your sentence is used in the sense of #2 in both dictionaries, so I think it can be translated as:
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "idioms"
}
|
Trouble recognizing kanji
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
'V' sound in Japanese
How do I get a V sound in Japanese? How do I write my name XAVIER
Thank you in advance for your reply. Prasanna XD
|
We Japanese all know your name here (in Japanese) and here (in English).
We usually write Xavier as , but the Japanese who could write it as have increased since English loanwords have increased. The sound of is _bi_ , while is _vi_ , so seems to express the sound more accurately.
But, we are familiar with , so I recommend you to write your name as .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "sound symbolism"
}
|
What are the rules for using 最高敬語?
Apparently when speaking to someone like , I'd need to speak a special brand of urban-polite keigo called .
Given this, what exactly are the rules for this brand of keigo? As I can only find it on Japanese wikipedia, and my Japanese isn't good enough to thusly read up on it.
|
No, you don't need it. It's just speaker's choice.
is ~~no longer a different category from normal , in short~~ , obsolete. In modern language, ~~it consists of some specific words~~ it's just a bunch of leftovers and doesn't have grammar that's generally applicable. So, there are no rules.
Even if you use it to (the current tenno), it just sounds old fashioned or a kind of joke at most.
e.g.
*
* (tenno's visit)
* (tenno's death)
* (his/her majesty)
* (his/her highness)
* (his/her holiness)
Among them, or are commonly used unlike others but at the same time, simply is often used instead, though you particularly don't say {} but . may be heard too.
(When I was writing the slashed part, I was thinking of some but as a result of adding modern leftovers, my explanation went contradictory.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, keigo"
}
|
Parsing 中村さんは私を相撲を見に連れて行ってくださいました
Can someone break down this Japanese sentence into simpler parts?
>
I was stuck at the , didn't realize that it's about watching sumo that's why there were two s.
|
> ****
The basic form of the given sentence is as:
>
If you parse the sentence, you'll get it as follows.
> _Mr./Ms. Nakamura_
> _me_
> _to watch sumo matches_
> _takes_
**** is the past tense form of .
is the polite form () of .
is the honorific/respectful form () of .
The relation between and is explained precisely here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, parsing"
}
|
Translation: ところを, ようとする, 側
**** ****
Context: a child was abducted, they made him take a sleeping pill, they changed his hair and clothes in order to disguise him. Eventually the parents and the park staff managed to save the child.
1. : my main issue with this sentence. What does it mean?
2. : could it be here "[they] were about to sneak away"?
****
Also, I noticed in many text this use of . Does it mean here something like "the people of Disneyland", namely the staff?
|
1. and then
2. Yes
"" means Disneyland as a corporation body. It does not identify the person.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, syntax"
}
|
What is the meaning of ルンパッパ？
I've noticed the word (runpappa) is used in the KEMU VOXX series of songs, but I don't know how to translate it. Using google translate just returns rumpappa, which isn't an English word. I've tried googling it, but it just returns Ludicolo, which certainly isn't relevant. The top result says it means to sin, but it also says their source may be unreliable. The three songs to use it are Haikei Dopperugenga, Inbijiburu, and Kamisama Nejimaki. Thanks!
|
That is a mimetic word to feeling the rhythm of a song. So translate it into "Rum-pa-ppa".
Rumpappa is the word combined "Run-run" and "Um-pa-ppa"
"Run-run" is a mimetic word expressing good/happy mood. <
"Um-pa-ppa" is the title of song. This word is familiar with Japanese as they sing it when in primary school.
"Um-pa-ppa" is "Oom-Pah-Pah" in musical "Oliver!". <
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Need help recognizing kanji
![enter image description here](
I'm having a lot of trouble with this one, due the blurriness of the text and the fact that I'm struggling to recognize the radicals. Thank you in advance^^
|
I'm pretty it is the Kanji for "fly"
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Help understanding this handwritten Japanese sentence
Could you help me understand what is handwritten in this image? It is taken from a manga about boxing.
> (?)(?)
>
|
> *
> * : →
> * **** ({}{})
> means a punch that is thrown to gain a knockout.
>
* He is good at basic boxing combinations. / He is good at boxing combinations sticking to the basics.
* Throwing punches high and low, or Going up and down: A left-hand body blow to A left uppercut
* His **Sunday punch** is a right hook!
**Sunday punch** : US English the most powerful and effective punch of a boxer, especially the punch used in trying to gain a knockout
**** : [san-dê panchi] < Japanese> the punch that a boxer is good at most
Reference: How to Box > 7 Basic Boxing Combinations
![enter image description here](
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "handwriting"
}
|
Explanation of 四方八方
The definition of this seems to be "in all directions," but I was wondering "why" this was the case. I'm guessing has to do with the four cardinal directions, but I'm not sure what represents. Thanks for the help!
|
It simply includes the four intermediate directions too as a kind of emphasis.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
How is the と particle used here
My grammar book says I can use the particle to mean 'and'. It continues to say that I can use the particle to indicate doing an action with someone else.
> Eg:
The topic particle is not mentioned if it were included. Would it be ?
>
I know that order in the sentence doesn't really matter but does it matter in this case? Like do I treat as one noun?
The book I use is Japanese Grammar Guide by Tae Kim.
|
I know this was already answered, but I'd like to expand a bit more:
The particle in this kind of case can be thought of as an appending particle. When you think of it in this way, 'and' and 'with' are both appending words in English.
Some examples of both usages and how they correlate. First, as 'and':
> {} **** {} = My friend **and** I
> {} **** {} = Trains **and** Cars
Now, as 'with':
> {}{} **** {} = I met **with** my friend.
> {}{} **** {}{} = My friend went out to a cake shop **with** her father.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
can を particle be used twice
First of all I wish to say: "I forgot about eating steak." Is it possible to use in this sense:
>
Is this correct and if so does it translate to what I want to say?
|
Generally cannot be used twice in the same sentence, but here is a relative clause nominalized by . So, the two are not in the same sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle を"
}
|
What do は and と stand for here?
>
Does like summarize the first sentence and means "from"? Is there a different way to construct that part?
|
As I understand, is also a set unit of particle as , for examples:
This summer was cold rather than cool.
There's a more precious thing than that book.
However, when I googled on internet, I found most native writers simply drop “”from the unit. Or should I say in itself is a set unit too.
All three units , , and convey the meaning of “in comparison to”. Of course, there might be some slight differences in nuance that I’m not aware of.
Now, about the sentence in question “”, I highly suspect there is a common omission, which is or . Inserting this missing block back to the sentence, I believe everything is becoming as clear as daylight.
“”
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
Use of なんと to begin a phrase, but not as a question
>
in the first year the school was established, (?) the astronomy club existed.
what purpose is it serving here?
|
According to :
>
>
The in your sentence is a (interjection), not a (adverb). It is uttered to express one's surprise or amazement. This cannot be rephrased as , and can mean "Believe it or not", "To my surprise", "Surprisingly enough", etc.
Examples from Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary:
> ****
> The woman who then entered the room was -- why! -- my own wife! / Who should then enter the room but my own wife!
> ****
> The debt went on increasing, reaching at last a surprising amount of 100,000 yen.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, interjections"
}
|
How would you say "Something isn't X, but isn't Y as well."
I'm currently practicing to use japanese adjectives by writing down sentences with antonym pairs, and I came up with the following sentence.
"My room isn't dirty, but it isn't clean as well."
Unfortunately I find it difficult to find an appropiate grammatical structure which can be used to translate this sentence. I have been looking around the internet for a bit, but I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer. The closest I got to an answer was this post, but it isn't really usable in this context. Can somebody help me to find an suitable grammatical pattern for this particular sentence?
|
There are some phrases. For example, "AB", "AB", "AB".
Your sentence is translated like "", "", "", etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
}
|
Best word choice "to learn"
I want to say I am learning, but not in a study/classroom/teacher kind of way, but dictionary definitions have me confused.
* → to learn (to take classes in)
* → to memorize/remember, (to learn?)
* → to study? take classes in something?
* → to study
Until now, I've been using but based on how frequently use I just feel like that's probably the one to go with...but I don't know. The other two are definitely not what I want.
example sentence:
>
> I am learning various things at work, its quite informative.
|
Well
: is learning but the real meaning is closer to: to be taught by a teacher, so you are learning.
: is Memorize/learning, but here is the catch, the meaning is that you memorize something because you did it again and again, you didn't have to really study to learn it, you just repeat it again and again.
: Means deep learning, eg studying japanese but not N5 or N4 something more advanced like >N3, we use manabu to express that we are really deep into studying
: Also means to study, eg studying for an exam, studying not very deep, just studying for passing a test of completing something
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Why in the expression "ぜんぜん違う" the verb is in positive?
I have been studying the adverbs and in the grammar book they said that there are some negative adverbs that means that when you use it the next verb must be in negative form, for example:
* > ****
* > ****
But I found the expression **** shouldn't it be ****? how do I know when to put the verb in a positive form or in a negative form?
|
has two definitions:
1. not at all (with negative verb)
2. wholly, entirely, completely
Therefore, it's meaning is based on whether the verb that follows it is in the affirmative or the negative. I'm guessing about 99% of the time you will see it used in conjunction with a negative verb, but every once in awhile you will see it used in the affirmative.
is one example, as is (I'm/It's totally fine), which is more like a set phrase. You will also occasionally see something like (It was completely spoiled/ruined), which is similar to in that already has a negative connotation and so to add a negative verb on top of it would make it a double negative, thus reversing the meaning.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, usage"
}
|
The humble （謙譲語） prefix 愚 when used to refer to own family members
I read about kenjougo (here and here) and understood that it is a type of honorific speech used to lower your rank below the person you are speaking to when you describe the actions of yourself or somebody within your in-group, be it your family or company.
The words I'm interested in:
* Husband/wife:
* Son/daughter:
* Siblings:
Considering that humble speech is used when lowering your rank below somebody else, using the prefix when talking to somebody within your in-group can probably only be an insult. However, when the person in question hears you refer to them with , even in a situation that requires humble speech, doesn't that sound rather insulting as well?
1. Is the humble prefix usually used for family members in situations requiring humble speech or is it mainly used to make fun of family members?
2. Is there some other less "insulting" way to humbly refer to your in-group members?
|
You wrote "when talking to somebody within your in-group can probably only be an insult", but it's not.
Being spoken to with humble speech per se means it's no longer the in-group **in its own** relationship (in other words, it can in another relationship). Whether one belongs to the in-group or out is relative and depends on cases. So it still works as a humble speech, though, of course, since it's abrupt and unusual to use humble speech among close relationship, it would sound joking.
So, nobody takes it as an insult as long as they have common sense, though series are a dated expression anyway.
As for paraphrases, I come up with for your son but I don't for the rest.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness, honorifics"
}
|
What's the difference between 売り切り and 完売?
Do both of these mean "sold out"? What is the difference, if any? And how might these be used differently in sentences?
For example, if I were to ask a convenience store clerk if a certain campaign/item was still in stock and I wanted to ask, "is this sold out?" which one would I use?
|
**** and roughly mean the same thing, "sold out". We commonly see both and on a signboard. When asking a store clerk, you can say either X or X. The difference is not large, but sounds more technical because it's a Sino-Japanese word. is probably more common in speech.
**** means something different. Its meaning depends on the context, but the basic underlying meaning is "once we've sold it, that's the end". For example, means an item that won't be restocked. refers to a package game as opposed to an online game with monthly billing system. It can also refers to bargain/sale/clearance.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, words"
}
|
How to count the word 言葉?
So if I'm trying to say "I found more than 50 unfamiliar words" how would I count words?
My attempt: 50
As you can see, I counted how many times I saw an unfamiliar word, rather than the words themselves. Is my sentence okay, and can anyone tell me the word to count more than ten words?
PS Sorry if this is a dumb question, it's my first time. This website seems really sophisticated and I do not want to bug my Japanese friends. Google searching wasn't helping me much, either.
|
is more like "language" or "phrase". If you want to talk about individual words, a better term is {}. Furthermore, the counter for words is {}.
So, one way you could say what you're trying to say would be:
{}{}50{}{}{}
(means "more than". )
Hope that helps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, counters"
}
|
What is a meaning of 予約 on the washing machine?
According to JMDict is translated as
1. reservation; appointment; booking; advance order
2. contract; subscription; pledge
None of the meanings above seem to make sense to one of the function labels on a washing machine.
|
On Japanese washing machines the is designed to set a timer for the washing machine to start. For example, if you don't want wet clothes to be in the machine while you're at work you can put clothing in there, set a timer for a an hour before you return and then it won't start the cycle until then.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "pragmatics"
}
|
Telling someone to ask/demand an action "Ask your ... to ..."
Yesterday my Japanese teacher told me that I should ask my language partner to correct all my mistakes (and not leave some for the sake of politeness).
So now I want to write to that person:
> My teacher said [You need to ask your partner to correct all your mistakes].
I am having issue translating the part where I quote my teacher.
>
I came up with this. I didn't found a way to say "ask him to do it" but I found people using instead. I also found a post that suggests using for something really necessary when I use "need to/have to". But is too strong a word?
|
First, here is a translation of your sentence to help you understand.
>
> My teacher said "You, by your partner, want to fix your error is needed"
The first is redundant.
The following :
> : wants someone to fix
> : is needed
Would make more sense this way :
> : to receive someone's correction
> / : there is a need to / is needed
is a desire, and saying that your desire is needed does not make much sense. Also note that saying that it is needed for your partner to fix your mistakes seems a bit over the top. Unless your partner has a contract and is getting paid by your teacher. It might be better to say something like "if possible, it would be best if ...". Which can be said in the following way.
>
So in the end you would get something like this.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, english to japanese"
}
|
translating a headline, て form
TDL⁉
This is a headline from an article. How would you translate the whole headline? I don't know how I should translate the from of the verb .
|
Kidnap Mystery on TDL Stage! Rumours and False Stories Run Rampant: Massive Confusion
Literally "Rumours and deliberate falsehoods run rampant/fly around and [there is] massive confusion". The verb following is omitted to save space - standard practice in newspapers.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, syntax"
}
|
I think that she thinks that I think she is dumb
Just trying have some fun with Japanese grammar, but the sentence in the title has me stumped. I just don't understand Japanese particles enough to even know where to begin. Here is my best attempt at something resembling this sentence, but its gotta be wrong, so please help understand how to construct this sentence in the best way.
> I think that she thinks that I think she is dumb
> (LOL, there is just no way...)
|
How about...
I think she is dumb.
↓
She thinks that I think she is dumb.
↓
I think that she thinks that I think she is dumb.
↓
X thinks that I think that she thinks that I think she is dumb.
X
↓
Y thinks that X thinks that I think that she thinks that I think she is dumb.
XY
↓
... and it can go on and on...
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 28,
"question_score": 20,
"tags": "grammar, particles"
}
|
I don't understand the meaning of しばらく in this sentence
I was reading a story and I found this sentence (in the previous part of the text the author wrote that a taxi driver had found someone and he had picked him up):
First of all I don't understand the meaning of .
Another structure that I don't understand is . Why did the author put after ?
|
I'm sure OP can look up things in a dictionary by him/herself.
While the usage may be slightly different to how you would normally see it used ( or etc), the meaning here too is that of a somewhat short time span.
"However, while/after driving for some time, the inside of the car became (gradually) colder."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, verbs, adverbs"
}
|
「おや? と思って振り返るとちゃんといるのです。」
A taxi driver picks a girl up. He is driving. Unintentionally he looks at rearview mirror and he doesn't see anybody. Then I found this sentence:
> ?
When I have read it I have understood that he is driving, he sees that nobody is there, he turns to the back seat but the girl is there. However, it doesn't make any sense to me. At the end of the story the author says that he was afraid but he continued to drive and when he stopped the girl was not there.
Can somebody explain this sentence to me?
|
This story is a horror story.
I suggest that this girl was a **ghost**.
Don't you feel horrible to know the following series of phenomena?
1) A taxi driver picked up a girl. - **She was there**.
2) While he drove for a while, he found that the girl was not reflected in a rearview mirror where she should be. - **She wasn't there**.
3) He turned to the back seat but the girl was there. - **She was there**.
4) He continued to drive and when he stopped the girl was not there. - **She wasn't there**.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, sentence"
}
|
In a speech, should です/ます be used, or である form?
I am writing a speech, and it is a speech presentation. I was wondering if I should be using / form, or form which is used in formal essays?
Thanks
|
In a speech presentation we use / form without fail.
Here is an example of "a good presentation". She is giving a presentation using / form.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, formality"
}
|
Translation of 実に大人気無い in this video?
I was watching the news -> link and I believe the narrator said
at 3:03
>
The first translation that pops up in my mind is "really childlish" or "immature".
However, I'm not sure if this is what the narrator really meant??? For me, it's a pretty harsh word to describe a person, especially the one you aren't close with.
Hence I was wondering what did the narrator actually want to imply in this video? and Is there a better English translation that are more align to what she really meant?
or is it that these words just are not as harsh for Japanese?
|
Yes, the narrator said .
The beanstalk in the video is obviously targeted at kids. The implication of this phrase is that the male adult should have given the child the chance to win (or at least the chance for the kid to try to win) because it's a variety show on TV. Of course it's said as a joke (so calling this corner was a kind of joke, after all)
would have sounded harsher, but is often used this way, to playfully refer to such "abuse of the power of adults". Here are some funny examples. I'm afraid I don't know which English phrase best matches this, but maybe something like "You've tried too hard (when you're with kids)" work.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
what are the differences between いつも、度でも、何でも
I googled them, they share the very similar meaning and it confused me
always/ forever
endless times/ forever
how many times/ many times, you can not only use in question, but also non question sentence to express many times
|
You're correct on the first one. means "always".
I think you meant to say . This means that something has or will happen "many times". It's as if the speaker can't count how many times it has or will occur.
actually doesn't have to do with time at all but rather means "anything". It is similar to , where there's a question word and to mean "any---".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
}
|
What is the difference between 急ぐ{いそぐ} and 急かす{せかす}?
The verbs {} and {} both seem to mean _to hurry_. Is there any difference between them?
Also, Jisho.org says that can be both intransitive and transitive, but doesn't mention the transitivitiy of at all, which I find particularly weird (for all other verbs I've seen on Jisho, their transitivity was always mentioned). Is transitive or intransitive (or both)?
|
is transitive, and usually takes a person as an object.
> * I hurried him. / I made him hurry.
> * () Don't rush me so much.
>
is usually intransitive, but it also sometimes takes as a location marker. also has a transitive usage, and when is transitive, it takes an inanimate object.
> * I'm in a hurry now.
> * Let's hurry in this way.
> * Let's hurry to complete the project.
>
Etymologically, I believe is one of the causative forms of , which is another rare intransitive verb meaning _to hurry_. It's the same as the "shortened causative form" explained here, but is far more common in today. is found almost only in this proverb. I think you can regard as a separate (transitive) verb.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances, verbs"
}
|
Volitional form
> 20
Is the author doing hypothesis by using the form that I have marked? This is the opening sentence of a ghost story which is set in Isezaki.
|
The "volitional" / has several meanings. Here, these and express a **guess** of the speaker (i.e., "it seems ", "I think ", "look like "). Basically they mean the same thing as 20 and , respectively. This usage is uncommon in spoken Japanese, but not rare in literary and stiff sentences. You may have seen `adjective + ` before, which is essentially the same pattern.
As for the second sentence, is an old-fashioned and stiff way of saying . In archaic Japanese was safely used for people (e.g., in archaic Japanese = in modern Japanese). Normally this sentence should be written as or .
References:
* What Does the "Volitional" Really Mean?
* Advanced Volitional (see the last section)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, volitional form, pragmatics"
}
|
What is 願ったりだと?
The protagonist of the story is a taxi driver who picks up a girl. She asks him to bring her to Isezaki and then the author writes:
> ****
What kind of form is the one in bold?
|
is a part of the set phrase . Sometimes the latter half of this set phrase is omitted, and that doesn't change the meaning. The following is a copula, and is a quotative particle which is not followed by a verb.
> ()()()
> Thinking "that's exactly what I hoped", he picked her up and ran down the road at night.
The driver thought he was lucky maybe because he wanted to go to Isezaki anyway even without a customer.
These in are explained here. I think the phrase literally means "things like wishing and coming true." Well, since it's a set phrase it may be better to memorize it without thinking too much. There are a few set phrases that look similar: / .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, meaning, syntax, set phrases"
}
|
Omission of verbs into state of being
If someone asks me, "?", and I have a certain place in mind, but I don't want to say the whole thing, "", can I just say the location instead, omitting the verb?
> would be good enough? Or somehow the particle must stick in?
Can someone Clarify..?
|
isn't natural. You can say and but I think just saying is more natural.
When someone asks you, "", is natural. If you are asked in polite form, you should reply in polite form.
and are also used but would be usually used by females.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does 六等星の夜 mean?
Google translates `` to `night of a million stars`. But shouldn't a million stars be ``? Moreover google translates `` as `six stars`. Is this a translation error? If not, can anyone explain why?
|
is definitely "a star of the sixth magnitude)" or "6th magnitude star", not "six stars" nor "million stars." So it's an error made by Google Translate.
Google Translate recently started to use a neural network. It works excellently for many common sentences, but I feel it also makes terrible mistakes like this one when it encounters relatively rare words. From my experience, it's especially bad at dates and numbers.
By the way, doesn't sound natural to me, either. You usually have to use and say , , etc.
**EDIT:** I've found that there is one (and only one) fantranslation of the song that actually uses _Million Stars_. I believe it's a human error, but there is a small chance that Google automatically "learned" it as a translation of the title of this song.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does 気になりだす mean?
I found this sentence:
I got the meaning of the first part, but I don't get the exact meaning of .
|
I think it comes from which means to worry. In Japanese it is common to combine two verbs to form a new one. (to wear) + (to switch/replace) = (to change clothes). The preceding verb must be changed to the verb stem before being attached to the other verb. = . Then the verb is attached. If it's correct then it should mean... To start worrying. I'm still learning so I cannot guarantee my validity.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
I am trying to figure out what this sentence means but can't figure out part of it
I think the first part says something like, it is certainly nice to have a girlfriend/wife but I can't figure out the rest. Please help...
|
>
* : to be popular among women
* : to tease (a person)
* is : the side that is teased
* is or , which is /: can't stand (some situation)
* ***some situation** in _can't stand some situation_ might be _to be kept waiting_.
The whole meaning is like:
_It is certainly nice to be popular among women but I who am teased can't stand being made to wait_.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
I have a doubt about the use of ～てみる
****
Does the structure in bold mean: "I have immediately tried to touch the seat"?
|
I would not translate the structure in bold () that way.
>
First off is indeed a conditional and it's key to understanding the construction as a whole.
The latter part means "it was cold enough to make me shiver."
* = to shiver.
* []{} is an expression of degree
* = it was cold.
The left hand part means "when i tried to touch the seat"
* = either seat or sheet * (here conjugated as ) = to touch * ~ is a helping verb that means to "try"
I'd actually say = for a brief moment applies to the entire construction.
So then we get "when I tried to touch the sheet/seat for a moment it was cold enough to make me shiver"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, syntax"
}
|
I don't understand the expression 葉が震える
A man is driving home a woman. At a certain point he does not see her in the rearmirror of his car. He discovers that the woman has vanished. Then he writes this: ****
Has the expression in bold a particular meaning? I know it only as "leaves tremble" but here it does not make sense.
|
It is a typo for ****.( and have the same pronunciation "")
**** ( _lit._ [one's] teeth tremble) is used when you feel horror and are frightened.(or it is so cold that your teeth chatter.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
"learning" in a general sense
I asked a similair question already, but wasn't satisfied with the answers, mostly due to my poor wording.
I want a word that means to learn. Not "to study" "to memorize" "to be taught/ learn from a teacher". A word that basically means "to absorb information" from, work, life, nature, etc.
From research I feel like its either (both memorize/learn) or but I have rarely heard the latter used, so I would be inclined to use
What is the word I am looking for?
|
As Yuuichi Tam said, the most obvious answer is . Is there any reason you'd discarded it from your list of options?
Two other possibilities that come to mind are () and ().
My wife often uses the first one when talking about our daughter, generally to complain that she's not learning (variants of or ), in reference to repeatedly behaving in a way that she should realize would make mommy angry.
The second is one I often see in more formal context, and it tends to refer to learning through a combination studying and practice, and acquiring experience, with a focus on learning by doing aspect.
Just remembered one more as I typed learning by doing: is also often used in that context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
I don't understand the premotification of the noun コ一ト
Is the coat described above a winter coat?
|
> Is the coat described above a winter coat?
Yes, you are correct. Here is your coat.
**** is **** a **_fluffy** coat_.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
the difference between ル and タ when the verb shows status
I am wondering how (original form of a verb) and work when it comes to a status verb. For example:
>
I think is natural, because I often see , , and so on.
From what I know, for the verb like and , which can be done in one-second () the difference between -form and -form is clearer than the verb which emphasizes status... (that's more similar to the difference between and ), the problem is, for the status verb, how I can know when should I use when to use
Where can I get more relating to the topic? What keywords should I search for?
|
> > (the original text)
>
> However, from my point of view is natural... Because in Japanese, I often see , , and so on.
>
> and () the difference between -form and -form is clearer
> (that's more similar to the difference between and )
>
> for the status verb, how I can know when should I use when to use
I like the way you put them; is about completion (), and is the basic verb form ().
I feel that in is saying somewhere the picture **will** stand out if it's hung there. If it's , it says (someone) hangs pictures somewhere prominent.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, tense, attributive"
}
|
What does this usage of 「かどうか」mean?
So I've been studying for the inevitable JLPT N4 exam, and came across a grammar question I didn't understand at all. I mean, I do understand every individual word, but as it often happens with Japanese, I don't get the whole meaning. The question is:
Thanks in advance for explanation - what those sentences mean, and what does mean in this context. Since normally it means 'whether or not' from what I know. Is this some uncommon usage of that expression, or is it just me not getting the rest of the sentence right?
|
These two actually mean "whether or not " or "if ". Examples are found here. In case you don't know about embedded questions, please learn embedded questions first. And "" means "I'm worried about ." If you're familiar with the "" pattern, "" should look similar. The sentences in question are the combination of the elements above.
>
> (In the past,) I was worried about whether or not I can keep my job tomorrow. But now I'm worried about whether or not I can protect my life.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, academic japanese"
}
|
What do the Long vowel rule and Palatalized long vowel rule represent?
In relation to the Classical Japanese orthography what are the **Long vowel ( Chōon) rule** and the **Palatalized long vowel ( Kaiyōchōon) rule**?
What would be some examples of them?
|
_I judged it as a question of what is said to be "classical kana orthography" or "historical kana orthography"_. _It is necessary when reading Japanese classics and Japanese poetry such as **Hyakunin Isshu**_.
_As a reference,here is one as a reading material, but I think this one is gathered neatly as the rule of your choice_.
_I extracted the rule. It becomes as follows_ :
> **** → **** ****
> **Historical kana** → **Modern kana** **Example**
> **orthography** **orthography**
>
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → →
> * → → → →
> * → → /
> * → →
> * → → →
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "orthography, classical japanese"
}
|
Translating a sentence with 限り
How would you translate this sentence? I'm not sure about the meaning of .
|
means "limit". Following a verb it has the sense "within the limits of [whatever the verb means]", "so far as . . ." For example: means "so far as I know". Here, means "so far as I understand". The whole would mean "I was surprised, and I heard/listened to what was said so far as I understood it, and so I report it [now]". Note that marks as object of , not of .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, syntax"
}
|
Different meanings of すっきり?
For , Jisho gives six possible translations that don't seem to have much common ground, so I have a hard time forming a general idea of what the word means, or knowing which meaning to pick when seeing the word in the real world. Can somebody help?
|
Based on the link provided by Ataraxia and the Jisho entry, here's my attempt to answer my own question:
The general meaning of is something like "a state where all bad/unnecessary/superfluous/etc. things have been removed". Specifically, it can mean one of the following, depending on context:
1. feeling refreshed; feeling fine; feeling clear-headed - with respect to one's head, feelings, mood, etc.
>
> A cup of coffee cleared my head.
2. clearly; plainly; distinctly - e.g. sentence, article, writing style
>
> a clear writing style
3. shapely; neatly; refinedly - e.g. clothes, posture
>
> I'm looking for a coat. I'm short so the length should be on the short side, and as refined a design as possible.
4. completely; thoroughly - reaching a state where nothing remains
>
> Then clean it really well.
5. not at all (with negative sentence); not even slightly - e.g. "I don't know him at all". Basically, the opposite of #4.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
だろう probably / will not / would?
I'm having issues understanding . I thought it meant "probably" or "maybe ", as in:
>
> Perhaps he didn't wanted to go / he may not wanted to go
but then it may mean "will not"? Like this example..
>
> I will not marry you
And then there's another meaning... would?
>
> In the future work would increase even more
And also would have been....?
>
> He would have liked to have been there.
I found this examples online, but I'm not sure when to tell which is which. Am I missing something?
|
Think of as adding a dimension of speculation to the previous statement. As such you might choose to translate it as "perhaps", "possibly", "may/might", or other similar expressions in English which create a sense of uncertain surmising about things.
translates into "Perhaps he didn't want to go". Here both the and add the sense of speculation.
could also be translated as "In the future, work will perhaps increase more."
In we have a slightly different situation. But to just say would come across as very rude and possibly mean-spirited. Here it feels to me like softens the blow and throws things back into the realm of speculation, "I'm probably not going to marry you" where you don't means "there's a small chance that I might marry you". This is what great Harlequin novels are made of, right? Someone is being very polite to avoid flat out saying, "no", only for the other to flat out ignore the softened blow and still pine away.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
}
|
On the use of ゆえ - Difference between ゆえに and ゆえの
I'm confused about the use of in case it is followed by instead of .
In the second case I know that indicates a consequence, a sort of "Some state/condition some consequence".
However, the following sentence (coming from an exercise book for N1) confuses me:
> [...]
The possible answers to pick from were , and the correct one would be indeed (at first I mistakenly chose thinking of "being a woman", but now I realize probably that would not work because of how the sentence continues from there).
Anyway, I can't understand why is correct. Could someone explain if in this case (that is, followed by ) has a different interpretation? How would you translate the sentence above in the most literal way? Thank you.
|
I think you got the meaning of backward: It does not mean _consequence_ , but _reason/basis_. The word's direct attachment is to what comes before it, not to what follows. This might be the root of your confusion.
Quite naturally, the 's meaning (i.e. that of _basis/reason_ ) is the same both in the (conjunctive-)adverbial (X) and in the adnominal (X).
> X Y = On the basis of X, Y.; Because (of) X, Y. (E.g. → "Becasue of/On the basis of (being) a woman, one receives discrimination.")
>
> X Y = X-based Y; Y by reason of X (E.g. → "womanhood-based discrimination/discrimination by reason of womanhood")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particle に, particle の"
}
|
Nuances? 見つける vs 見つかる
So I get that takes an object and doesn't, but can anyone tell me if there are any major differences between and
If I came across an answer by chance, does the second sentence do a better job at expressing that?
And also:
What is different between sentence 2 and 3? (And aren't they both passive?)
Thank you :D And sorry if duplicate or dumb question
|
I think you seem to notice that is a transitive verb and is an intransitive verb.
A subject is omitted in , for example(He found the answer.). On the other hand, is a subject in .
(The answer was found) is passive form of and it has a nuance like "by someone", but we don't use it often. Both and seem to be translated as "The answer was found".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "nuances, passive voice, transitivity"
}
|
Does 「何は名前は君の大学か？」 mean "What is the name of your university?"
I just learned the word and wanted to try to put it into a sentence. My reasoning is that nani means what, namae means name, kimi no means your and daigaku means university, although im not so sure that this is how I would ask it or if it is even correct. Could someone please help me with this? I'd like to know 1. If i used the particles correctly and 2. If the question makes sense, if not could you please show me how to say it and explain it? Thank you for your help c:
|
>
is the way to say it. It is short for: ``
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, questions"
}
|
Why is the particle を used in this sentence?
I found this example in a japanese textbook:
* > : Everyone is using umbrellas outside.
Why is in that sentence?, and because it is a japanese textbook I doubt that it is inconrrect, shouldn't be like this?
* >
|
Verb of movement can take to express the idea of moving about within that space. So here, expresses the idea of "walk around outside". In a similar vein means "to fly through the sky".
isn't quite grammatical in the sense which you seem to have in mind; instead it means "to walk toward the outside". It would be better to say, but it doesn't have quite the same feel as . seems to suggest that there are other places where you could have chosen to walk--maybe you're at a convention and you could walk inside the convention center or outside. But, carries a connotation of walking about outside with perhaps no particular destination in mind.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, particle を"
}
|
What is the meaning of 攻めを自重?
I am confused with the phrase in the following sentence
>
The sentence is taken from Asahi Simbun article <
|
mackygoo
To expand a little more, I think I'd describe {} in this context as "exercise self-restraint".
So overall, something along the lines of: "While restraining himself from overly bold behavior, he nevertheless made his unique high pitch singing reverberate throughout the stadium." And here I didn't even know could sing.
That having been said, I don't think you're likely to come across {} very often, although figurative usages of to refer to bold, daring, proactive, or even agressive behaviors, attitudes, or approaches come up a lot.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Usage of キャッチ vs 捕まる
I'm studying for the JLPT and had a practice question regarding the correct usage of the word `` (pick which one of the following sentences uses the word correctly):
> 1) ****
>
> 2) ****
The book's answer key claims that #2 is correct and that #1 is incorrect. The reasoning given is because the correct word to use for sentence #1 is ``. However, the two words appear to be very closely related and I don't see how one is obviously right compared to the other. Is the only difference between `` and `` the passive/activeness of the words?
|
This is one of those tricky things with near synonyms. There will be cases where you can use one or the other, and the main difference will simply be one of register.
In this case, I get the sense (based on how I've come across the words being used in day-to-day life here in Japan) that the first one is wrong because "" is (almost) never applied to people, while is usually applied in reference to catching someone, especially if some form of wrongdoing is involved.
The police will criminals, but I don't think it can them.
Here, a shoplifter (presumably) ran afoul of a theft prevention sensor, resulting in getting 'd by the staff.
The only instance of I've read about for people involves taxi drives using to refer to getting a passenger. Usually, it's used for physical objects or more abstract concepts, as in a ball, or information.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, jlpt"
}
|
What's the difference among ~てください, くださいますか, and くださいませんか?
I think all three expressions are used to show my requests to someone who are superior than me. However I am wondering if there are any nuance differences in these expressions. For example:
> (1)
>
> (2)
>
> (3)
I can feel that it is more polite to say (3) or (2) than (1). But am I correct?
|
The nuances of these requests are not far from their English counterparts, actually.
>
>
> Please write more clearly.
This is a direct request, but isn't rude by any means.
>
>
> Would you write more clearly (for me)?
This, just like in English, is less direct and therefore showing a bit more respect to the listener.
>
>
> Wouldn't you write more clearly (for me)?
In this form it feels more like an invitation than a question but is very similar to the previous.
In most cases I would use the first. It has a pretty broad usage. If I were feeling the need to be more polite (maybe I'm speaking to a teacher I don't know well) then I would use the second. If I were inviting a superior to do something for me or come somewhere I would use the third. Knowing which one to use often comes down to having lots of practice with social situations and a good grasp on context.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "politeness"
}
|
What is the meaning of "僕にだって 見えってものがあるさ"?
This is from the opening of an episode of Sazae-san:
Kazuo is buying a necktie for his father (who is bald)
> store clerk:
> Kazuo:
> store clerk:
> Kazuo: …
> store clerk:
> Wakame (Kazuo's sister):
> Kazuo:
(video is on Youtube here: <
I don't understand the meaning of Kazuo's last sentence. My best guess is "As for me, there's something to see", which is obviously wrong. Also, why did he say the necktie is for (middle-aged or old man with gray hair) when his father is bald (bald on top, with black hair on the side)?
|
The comment from Dim should help you figure it out, but I'll just point out that most of the translations in the link he helpfully provided have a more negative connotation in English than by itself has in Japanese.
Here, Kazuo is essentially saying that even he has standards in terms of the kind of impression (of his father) he wants to present to other people.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, words, anime"
}
|
Is there a difference between 最高の and 最高な?
A dictionary lists as being both a no-adjective and na-adjective. I've also seen other examples of this. However, is there a difference between using it either form since they're both attached to nouns?
|
Basically you should stick to . Personally I feel sounds slightly peculiar.
In BCCWJ, there are 2410 examples of ``, and only less than 20 examples of ` + noun`. As for the meaning, I see no difference. All the examples of ` + noun` in BCCWJ seemed safely interchangeable with ``.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, na adjectives"
}
|
Are のだぞ、のさ、のだ grammatically wrong?
I've been told is formal, thus is grammatically right.
Yet, is not. Only would be correct.
Therefore, are correct and are not.
Do you agree? Why or why not
|
As for the difference between / and /, yes, the former is far more common, but the latter form is still grammatical and occasionally heard. A fictional pompous person may well talk like / with their close friends.
/// do not exist.
> * : OK, informal male speech
> * : Less common. pompous and/or old-fashioned
> * : ungrammatical
>
I don't know why, but is more common than , and is more common than . / sounds a bit dialectal to me.
> * : OK, informal male speech
> * : OK, informal female speech
> * : dialectal
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle の, explanatory の"
}
|
What is the difference between 代表取締役 and 取締役?
I tried looking up at dictionary also the meaning of both of seems.
Could anyone please tell me the exact difference between these two?
|
is a legal term that refers to managing/board directors of a company, and a large company typically has about 5 to 15 members. is a subset of , and is defined as " ** who have the (right to represent the company)**." According to the Japanese law, a person with a can make a contract by themselves on behalf of the company. So basically is higher than normal .
Typically, there is only one in a company, and in such a case the is almost always the /president of the company (i.e., ). Large companies may have more than one . For example Nintendo has 6 , and three of them are , and one of them is the president himself. But who own the among the of a company is somewhat arbitrary, and technically speaking, there may be edge cases where a is not a .
In Japanese companies, are traditionally divided into three categories; from highest to lowest, , (), and . See: Hierarchy of management titles in Japanese companies
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, words"
}
|
Grammar question about [sentence]のに
I was asked by my teacher to read a kid friendly manga, something easy to start with.
I am not having issue with the vocabulary and I understand the general gist of a sentence but I am having issue with "why" is the sentence constructed that way.
>
So what I get from this is :
> Come to think of it how are we going to find the place, that I don't know, where the ball is.
But I am a bit confused grammar-wise with two things :
> ****
and
> ****
These are my best guesses :
**** -> is to show that the character is asking where is the place of the ball
is used here to say the character doesn't know **anything** about it
-> say that the previous part of the sentence is **where** they need to look
I really have no idea why a no would be here
Thank you for your help !
|
The sentence can be roughly divided into three parts:
>
* is a common set phrase, "come to think of it", "as I recall."
* forms an embedded question. "where the other balls are".
* is "to know/understand ".
* The following replaces , and adds the nuance of "(not) even". See: The meaning of and How to say "even" in Japanese?
* is a common conjunction that means "although", "despite the fact that ". See examples here.
> Come to think of it, how can we find (it) when we don't even know where the other balls are?
I don't know what exactly they are searching for from this context. Maybe they are searching for something which is related to 'the other balls'.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle の, particle も, particle か"
}
|
Trouble recognizing kanji from a manga
![](
{}
{}__
I can't find a kanji that looks like the one in the image. For context, it's a guard/police officer yelling so I assume it's got something to do with arresting/capturing but even with that, I still cant find one that fits the image.
|
I read it as []{}: arrest. Hope that helps.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "kanji, handwriting"
}
|
数え方（ドラマのエピソードの場合）
episode 1, episode 2...
|
[]{}[]{}...
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word requests, counters"
}
|
Does 次の always indicate a temporal relationship?
> ****
> Additionally, this year, director 's 'In the Corner of this World' received the Judges Prize, which is ???
Does mean the prize which is awarded after the Crystal prize, or the prize which is second best to the Crystal prize?
When I first read the sentence I thought it meant the second best prize, but then I started to worry that might only describe a temporal relationship.
|
I agree with you; it's theoretically ambiguous, but I also read this as the second best prize after Crystal Prize.
For example one can say:
> *
> What's the next highest mountain in Japan after Mt. Fuji?
> *
> Let me see the next cheapest one.
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Need help understanding a sentence I came across. Possible ては
I came across this sentence while playing Hatoful Boyfriend. At first I had trouble with the `` part. Would I be correct in saying that the use of in is an example of the ** construction** , and if not could someone please help me understand the grammar behind it?
> ,
|
This is the te-form of the copula , followed by the topic marker . So it's essentially the same in simple sentences like **** . Literally, is "when it's , ..." or "if it's , ...".
*
if the appearance (of the characters) is (that of) avian species, doing is difficult
* ()
those who have difficulty in doing when the characters' appearance is that of avian species
* ()
for those who have difficulty in doing with characters that have an avian appearance
*
In Hatoful Boyfriend, we have also prepared "anthropomorphized" versions of the cut-ins of the characters for those who have difficulty in doing with characters that have an avian appearance.
Each character in the game is assigned a virtual seiyu, so here seems to refer to imagining the characters' sweet voice without actually hearing it.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
}
|
Question about まんず
I'm trying to translate one of the Japanese stories (currently this one: ) to get better understanding of the language (as I'm still a beginner, but stubborn) and the whole thing was going smoothly until this part:
>
I just cannot grasp this particular sentence: .
Before asking for help I've searched throughout the web but with little luck, apart from which, after some digging, I'm kinda convince it is a dialectical version of . According to Google Translate (not a great source) the meaning of the sentence is 'Make sure to warm up'. Sounds right by a long shot, considering the previous sentences in the story.
Can anyone help me with breaking this apart? I begin to think this is really all about being cold but it just doesn't click for me still (maybe because of it being some dialect thing or a fixed phrase?)...
|
* is a dialectal way of saying ("first of all", "before anything").
* is in Tohoku dialect.
* is a causative form of . (See "shortened causative form" here)
* in this context is ("to get warm by the fire"). is omitted. See the definition **1** in this entry.
So in standard Japanese, the sentence is (), which is translated as "Let me get warm first" or "First of all, allow me to get warm".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation, dialects"
}
|
The usage of 一本 vs 一杯。
So for we know that is a measure word for long cylindrical objects in class. If you were to order a glass of sake, you would use My question is when can you use for sake?
|
In alcohol contexts, is the counter for bottles and (sake bottles), which are usually cylindrical. If the restaurant serves sake poured in a tokkuri along with an ochoko, you can order saying 1. In an izakaya that serves sake in a glass or a cup, you should use 1. In both cases, saying is always okay, too.
The same goes for ordering beer or wine; 1 refers to a whole bottle, 1 refers to a glass.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "adjectives"
}
|
Unclear sentence: 選を先行する取り組みを本格化させる
I have difficulty trying to understand the following sentence:
>
Source: <
What is the meaning of here?
|
> **** **** →→
* is short for , "US presidential election".
* **XY** is a common pattern that means "with X as/in/on Y", "using X as Y".
Meaning and transitivity of
So literally means "with the US president election and such as triggers", which adverbially modifies .
* modifies ("movements", "initiatives", etc) as a relative clause.
* is the long noun phrase that works as the object of the verb (lit. "to make it in full progress"). So this refers to things like this one.
* is the long subject of the main clause of the sentence. The corresponding predicate is (). "... is the purpose."
> Their purpose is to push ahead also in Japan with the (same) movements that precede in Western countries triggered by events such as the US presidential election.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What exactly is a 生徒?
The word () means "pupil", but what exactly is/was a in Japanese culture? And how is a different from a ? And in what context would you use the word?
|
According to my Japanese dictionary, , the two words are defined as follows:
* -- refers to a student receiving an education from a fixed location such as in middle or high school or from under a tutor etc.
>
* -- refers to a someone who attends classes, but in particular someone who studies at university.
>
From this it seems that is the more general term covering a wider range of students including those in the category of . As @naruto pointed out in the comments, isn't quite as general as those definitions might leave one to think (now I'm a bit disappointed in my dictionary). Apparently, is the more appropriate terms for a student taking a culinary class, or swimming lessons, or studying martial arts, and I would therefor imagine a number of other things.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "etymology, culture"
}
|
What is the meaning of すこ in ほんとすこ?
Seen on the internet. Looking around I see others guessing it might be a different form of for , or maybe for . Can anyone confirm? Thanks!
|
is a recent slang word that means . is "I really love it".
For some reason, young net users keep coining strange words by changing a single character. Another well-known example is , which just means .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "internet slang"
}
|
Is the use "ほしい” appropriate in these sentences?
Professor A asked you to go to his room.
> A
Is it OK? I feel it is not quite natural.
Similarly, how to say "Professor A hopes you can concentrate on the XX research."
> AXX
|
Your sentences are not quite grammatical for the following reasons.
* To describe a third person's desire, you must use instead of . See: When to use instead of
* The person actually performing the action (aka _agent_ ) must be marked with instead of . **** in Japanese is acceptable only in sexual, headhunting or flesh-trading contexts.
* You perhaps want to use instead of in your second example because the desire of A is probably not temporary in this case. See: Can someone explain me the use of and in this sentence? and Why does sound more adversarial than ?
After fixing them, you'll get:
> * A
> * AXX
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Will you come or go to my location?
I'm in Tokyo. I want to ask my friend if he's coming to Tokyo. In English it is natural to say "Will you come to Tokyo?", not "Will you go to Tokyo", as I use my own location as the reference point. But how is this in Japanese? Do I say
>
or
>
|
In this situation, you can say ()?. However if you say it to your friends, ? would be natural. wouldn't be natural.
In this situation, your friends shouldn't say but as the answer, though they seem to be able to say "I will come to Tokyo" in English.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "direction"
}
|
indirect question
I hope I got the terminology right, here is the case I want to ask about:
In an exercise, I have to find out what the protagonists say in which situation. The situation is described in a short sentence. Here is the sentence in question:
**** "When he asks if it wouldn't be possible to use the employee training program..."
What bothers me is the sole . If I remember correctly, for indirect/embedded questions, alone is used only if a question word is contained in the respective clause, like or . I can't see something like that being the case here, so I'd expect here. My textbook never taught me wether this "rule" gives you any leeway in omitting the even though there's no such question word. Or maybe I misinterprete something here.
|
Are you sure there isn't either a or an missing after the that is bothering you? That's the part that bothers me in your sentence.
But at any rate, the use of by itself in cases like this is quite common, more so than which tends to be used in cases involving a binary "either ... or" choice, often to emphasize the fact that it's only one or the other. Your sentence would certainly work with in that respect, but I think that it would be overkill here given the broader context of the conversation that goes with this exercise, which you posted in a separate question. The focus isn't on whether the company training assistance programme can or cannot be used, but on the willingness of the speaker's boss to let him use that programme.
In more open-ended questions such as , or , for example, you couldn't use .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
「お前が言うなの世界」をどのように解釈すればいいのですか。
SOSSOS
> ()
> ()
> ()
> ()
> SOS ****
|
(SOS)
(you describe, you think, you say about)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, interpretation"
}
|
Use of まだしも in this sentence
>
the latter part is talking about how there aren't enough teachers for every circle to have an adviser, but the "rather; better" definition of doesn't make sense here.
It has already been established that clubs have more stature than circles for context.
|
X means "If it were [only] X, that could be coped with, but [something more is involved]". As a translation, I'd suggest "X would be one thing, but Y on top . . ." How about: "If it were just the clubs, that would be one thing, but if advisers were extended to the circles as well, no matter how many teachers there were there wouldn't be enough"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of 法律のとおり
> ****
> Even now, because there are 302 apartment blocks which are breaking the law, Tokyo fire department are telling people to quickly _decide on the law's street_.
I can't figure out at all what the fire department are telling people to do. I did a Google search for the phrase "" (in quotes) and only got 3 hits.
|
It's not meaning "street". This means "in accordance with". For example: "as I thought", "as you said", "that's the way it is", "that's right" (= but a bit more formal), "as follows".
So means "make it in accordance with the law", that is "bring it in line with the law"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Why this verb isn't in the dictionary form?
The sentence is this one:
> ****
Why is it instead of ?
Also for a bonus question, I read in this forum site that means to make emphasis on the ending of the action or for some embarrassing situation. Which is the meaning on that example?
|
To answer the first question, it is not in dictionary form because in formal Japanese, or generally often in writing, it is customary to connect two sentences using the "pre-masu form" that is, the -masu form without the ”” (for example: → → and in your case -> ).
So in your case you could see this as the equivalent of putting an "and" after the verb in English.
To answer the second question, as pointed out in a comment one way of thinking about the - form sometimes is to see it as "Ended up...". Moreover in this case we could imagine that "falling down a hole" represents a somehow undesirable situation since after that point the rice ball might be lost. This however, might depend on the context of course.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning"
}
|
Why does the IME give me "←" when I type "zh"?
I accidentally typed "zh" using the Japanese IME on macOS Sierra. Surprisingly, "zh" turned into a "←" character! Why does it do this? I would have expected it to produce just "zh", like it does with other two consecutive consonants: "kr" is "kr", "mn" is "mn". Why is "zh" a left arrow?
I did some guessing and thought that the "h" must stand for , that's why it's a left arrow and not a right one. Then I tried "zm", thinking that it would give me a right arrow because "m" stands for , it _didn't_.
I am so confused. What does "zh" stand for? Why a left arrow? How do I do a right one?
Note: the left arrow is U+2190 "LEFTWARDS ARROW"
|
I can't tell you about the wherefore but that seems to be a shortcut associated with the letter z + hjkl-directional keys. Moreover this doesn't work with all IME (but it can be reproduced with Google IME, you can try that on Google Translate website)
![enter image description here](
I dug a bit more and here a list of keys that goes with the `z`-mod key.
* ZH ←
* ZJ ↓
* ZK ↑
* ZL →
* Z, ‥
* Z. …
* Z/
* Z[
* Z]
* Z-
Source
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "words, input method"
}
|
What is the thing written in grey that sometimes shows up in the macOS Sierra dictionary app?
In the macOS Sierra dictionary app, sometimes when I look up a word, there is sometimes this thing that's in grey written on the right of the word that I searched. For example, :
![enter image description here](
The thing written in grey is . What does this mean?
Other examples:
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
![enter image description here](
I observed that sometimes the "" is on the right, sometimes on the left, sometimes on both sides and sometimes it does not appear at all. And I became even more confused.
I know that grey text is used to show the "old" forms of some words, like →:
. For that reason was widely used those days, and today in Japan you can sometimes see literature written then. That is why modern dictionaries have the old spelling.
"" is used to show the part is written in the same way of modern Japanese. For example, __ for () means it is written as __ in .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "dictionary"
}
|
How to interpret the phrase 師匠をつけるほど?
This is a passage from NHK's about Oda Nobunaga performing Noh before the Battle of Okehazama:
> ****
>
From the dictionary the only usage of with a person seems to be:
> ―
But that doesn't translate go "Nobunaga put the efforts as he was performing in front of a master", imho.
And the phrase meaning seems more like Nobunaga was achieving the performance level of a master. But it's not .
It also doesn't seem to be a set phrase for performing arts - Google returns only the old transcript of the very TV programme.
* * *
How to interpret the phrase here?
|
Formula: " " ≈ "so B that A; B to the extent that A"
(A): "" ≈ "get (himself) a master instructor"
(B): "" ≈ "was passionate about Mai/dancing"
Thus: "" ≈ "Nobunaga was very passionate about Mai/dancing, to the extent that he got himself a master instructer (to teach him)"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Are both 遠く and 遠くに adverbs? If yes, are them interchangeable?
The i-adjective {} means _far, distant_. From what I know, I can make an adverb out of an i-adjective by replacing with , which should give me .
Now, the word is also a noun itself, which is interesting. This is nicely explained in this question.
Now, in the song _Yume Sekai ()_ , by Haruka Tomatsu, we have:
>
>
> [...]
It looks like is working as an adverb here. Is this correct? If this is the case, then can both and be used as adverbs, with the same meaning?
|
No, is a noun meaning "distant place". The sentence means "The sound of a bell heard in the distance was a little melancholy".
Compare:
A building in the distance
A lighthouse visible from afar
I want to go somewhere far away
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, adverbs, i adjectives"
}
|
What are the most common words for "to attack"?
The concept of "attacking" is a vary broad one, with a lot of nuance to it. What are the most common/practical words used to describe attacking in Japanese; and what are the nuances to each?
Also, I'm specifically talking about physical attacks; like cutting, stabbing, clawing, punching, smashing, striking, impaling, etc. Not things like fraud, or taunting, or other things that be considered a form of attacking. in some other sense of the word.
|
i want to share my opinion about your question.
there are a lot of words refer to attack but, ill explain some.
First ill share verbs that refer to attack.
> **Cutting**. (but its refer to general cutting.)
> **Stabbing** , Impaling, Pierce, etc.
> **Clawing**.
> **Punching** , Hit.
> **Shoot (gun,Cannon,etc)** , Defeat, Destroy, etc.
> **Striking** , Smashing, Punching, Slap, etc.
>
**Im not sure its right or wrong, but i try to help and thats what i get for studying japanese.
Feel free to correct me.**
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, words, culture, terminology"
}
|
調べました versus 調べてわかりました
Regarding a new born panda:
>
> Tokyo's Ueno zoo announced that the baby panda born on the 12th is a girl.
> ****
> On the morning of the 22nd (the zoo) together with Chinese experts examined the baby's body.
What is the purpose of adding to the end of this sentence? How does the nuance change if you omit this verb?
|
> ****
On the morning of the 22nd (the zoo) together with Chinese experts examined the baby's body and **found/figured it out**.
What they found/figured out must be mentioned in the sentence right before this.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, nuances"
}
|
そらのおとしもの - "Heaven's Lost Property" or "What fell from the sky?"
I am watching an anime called (Sora no Otoshimono). There are two translations: the one is "Heaven's Lost Property" and the other is "What fell from from the sky?"
I'm pretty sure that the first translation in correct, since there is no question mark on the original Japanese title. If the second was correct, it would have (the question particle) and a question mark.
But I'm not really sure about the correct translation. Can you help me? Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Bajiru
|
"Heaven's lost property" is the only correct (literal) translation of {}{}{}, mainly because is a fixed word meaning "lost property", and is a transitive verb so it has to mean "dropped/lost item (i.e. by someone or something else)" as opposed to a "fallen item" which would use the verb {}.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, names, anime"
}
|
What happened to original, pre-Kanji, Japanese words?
Some of the most common words in Japanese seem to have their origin in Chinese:
The evidence for this is, as far as I know, the fact that these words are written with characters, whose **on-yomi** is used to read that particular word.
Further evidence is that there usually is a synonym or an archaic form, that is written using characters whose **kun-yomi** is used:
according to tangorin.com
I imagine that these words were used by the Japanese **before** the introduction of Chinese characters to Japan.
However, some words do not have this form:
How did the Japanese folks say these things before the introduction of Kanji and what happened to these words?
|
Your question is too broad to give a specific answer, so I'll try to give you a few pointers instead.
Given how early in Japanese history kanji were introduced, compounded with the fact that there was no writing system in Japan prior to their introduction, we're very much delving into the realm of conjecture.
I imagine that some words simply fell out of use, especially among the (newly) literate upper classes who started to use the prestigious new kanji-based words. In other cases, kanji may have been adopted as for the original word.
If you want to look into it further, I'd suggest researching and , and possibly looking up research on the various dialects, some of which may retain words derived from an older, pre-kanji influence Japanese word.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, history, spoken language, archaic language"
}
|
words for snail
I have seen and and listed as "snail." What are the differences between these words?
|
They are dialectal forms, but it could be said that three synonymous forms , , and have gained more or less nation-wide recognition today. The situation is somehow similar to that "soda/pop/coke" tripartition in USA.
The name of snail has been a signature of Japanese dialectology since the pioneering work written in 1930 by Kunio Yanagida. The summary of this book is that dialectal forms distribute in concentric circles from Kyoto, so that the remotest place maintains the oldest form.
> (newer/nearer to Kyoto → older/farther)
> > > > > (source)
A very detailed survey on word forms of "snail" conducted by was compiled into three atlas (No. 1, 2, 3) if you seek further understanding. (Tons of local forms recorded.)
I (and most people living in Tokyo) would use most often.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "word choice, words, nuances, dialects"
}
|
What does 家建てる mean?
I cannot figure out what on this tweet means.
> ****
Is it a typo for ? Or it is a word that Koike Kazuo coined? If so, what does it mean?
I think "made a house" is a little bit strange in the context. (I _know_ the particle is sometimes omitted.
|
Just from reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that using the word can be considered a trademark of Koike Kazuo's writing (as is using _katakana_ where usual orthography would demand _hiragana_ ).
In the tweet, he is simply saying that he "made a career" out of (using) , so one shouldn't make fun of / underestimate his language abilities.
literally just means "built a house" and could indeed be taken literal, or as a metaphor for "made a living".
The particle is often omitted in colloquial speech (here writing).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, words, colloquial language, particle を"
}
|
How to say "moment of weakness"?
is there a good expression for the English "a moment of weakness"?
For example: In a moment of weakness, I strayed from my diet and ate some cookies.
I tried looking through alc but couldn't really find anything that seemed to sound right.
|
Depending on context, I think you could probably say...
> ...
> ...
> ...
* * *
> In a moment of weakness, I strayed from my diet and ate some cookies.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does this ため say here?
> ****
From <
I would translate it as follows (without ):
> They say that there are many young women who can't tie a hard Obi, from last year the number of soft obi has increased by 30%.
I can't find an entry on jisho on and I can't remember having seen it on my textbook either :/
|
It means "because". It could be replaced with or . It's used in writing more than in ordinary speech. Sales of soft obi have gone up "because" many young women can't tie stiff obi. (I'd go for "stiff" rather than "hard".) can also mean "for the sake of", as in "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words, particles"
}
|
How do you say (something) 'could be'/'might be' the cause/reason for a certain effect/situation?
I was searching for a way to say something like the following:
"I think that's why he was crying."
I remember or simply being used to suggest something 'could be'/'might be', but I'm not sure if it fits in this context.
Would the following be a correct translation?
""
What are correct ways to say something 'could be'/'might be' the cause, in Japanese?
|
> "I think that's why he was crying."
> ""
You're right that means "could be / might be" (You could also say ) and your translation makes sense (though I'd probably say more like ), but I think it'd sound more natural if you said it as...
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, english to japanese, phrase requests"
}
|
Why ga and not o in "Mari wa neru koto ga suki desu"?
When I saw this sentence alone _Mari wa neru koto ga suki desu_ I first thought neru koto is the direct object of the answer and should have an "o" particle, and not a "ga". Later I thought I might dont understand very well and may be actions can't be direct object or something, but after seeing the structure of the question that originates that answer more confusion arises:
Nani o suru koto ga suki desu ka?
Here Nani is marked as "o" (direct object) and in the answer that "what" becomes "suru koto" (which is marked as "ga" so supposedly it isnt a direct object) . isnt this contradictory? is it simply this way a valid syntactic rule or am I missunderstanding something more?
|
(All that grammar they've taught you is a necessary oversimplification.)
If you want to have the equivalent of a direct object such as we have in English, use []{}. But don't do that until you've heard several natives say it and recognized how they are using it.
means something like "to be liked", in the proper grammar. So you can't really have a direct object, only an object complement. (Which is also a necessary oversimplification.)
That having been said, modern Japanese usage, especially among the young, will see a bit of self-assertion, trading the stuffy for the "incorrect"
Since Chocalate asks, I'll add this, which I have heard from a should generally be understood as a polite construction. This is one of the reasons I have generally objected to "A is liked by B." examples for passive form in classes, and when I point this out after classes, the has almost always agreed and given me time to help them prepare more natural examples.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, particle が"
}
|
When is the "しりつ" reading of "市立" used?
In various dictionaries, the word "" has "" listed as the main reading. However, they then go on to list the reading "", with a note saying "when spoken to avoid confusion with ". This makes sense, as having the same pronunciation for two words that are completely opposite to each other would be... confusing, to say the least.
But in that case, when is actually used for ? If people pronounce it "when spoken", is there at _all_ a case where is used? And why is it listed as the main reading in dictionaries?
|
If I encounter unprefixed , I would probably read it as to avoid any confusion. But when I read as part of a longer proper noun including the city name, I would use .
> * ****
> * ****
>
Private schools never have the word as part of their proper school names. So whenever you hear X, it should mean X, and you don't have to use . (Reading it as is not wrong, though)
By the way, in conversation, if you hear a mother say , it usually means . The opposing idea of is (government-run schools) in general, and people usually don't say something as specific as .
The same is basically true for /, etc. While it's common to read as , longer compounds like are almost never read as or such.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "readings, multiple readings, homonyms"
}
|
Why is シャワー used with 浴びる?
I'm a little confused as to why it's as opposed to . In nouns like or , the verb used is . Can anyone clarify?
|
The picture should evoke in your head is "something pouring on to your body."
is literally water pouring on to you, so is the most natural verb to go with it. Another example would be (sunlight), and here you can also picture sunlight pouring down on you from the sky.
is the most generic verb like "do", and as such it does cover a wide variety of cases. But again just like the English word "do", there's also a lot of cases where this verb just wouldn't do it. Examples include , , , and so on.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
Is こんにちは a question?
I came across a cartoon of a Japanese lesson with
>
On a blackboard. Is the greeting actually a question? The impression I have (eg from ) is that etymologically speaking it's derived from a question, but wouldn't be regarded as a question nowadays.
|
as a greeting don't have the meaning of a question. The origin is a phrase like {}?.
However some people may use ? as a question when they ask someone whether today is convenient for you or not, though ? would be common.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "greetings"
}
|
Translation: 多大の貢献をなし他の範とするところ
I'm trying to translate accurately the following text (JP > EN)...
I'm particularly puzzled about the part: " **** ". Did I understand the meaning well? Does "" refer to other departments in the company?
>
> ****
## My English translation:
Certificate of Distinction
In light of the superior and all-round excellence of your department’s achievements in 2016 in the domain of construction work, which has brought about major contributions to the improvement of our company’s technological abilities and performance, **unparalleled in other sectors** , and on the basis of our company’s internal regulations as regards commendations, I hereby present your department with this certificate and its corresponding financial award in recognition of the achievements of all department members.
|
The part you excerpted crosses the boundary of phrasing. It's actually,
> **** / ****
While the first portion aptly corresponds with your translation:
> _...has brought about major contributions to the improvement of our company’s technological abilities and performance..._
the real problem is in the second portion.
>
This wording utilizes a relatively rare as well as ceremonious construction. seen here is a literal translation of the (Classical) Chinese relative particle (for grammatical details please see the link), that, in short, makes `AV` mean "what A V". Thus,
>
> = "what others (can) take as model is huge"
> ≈ _from what others (can) learn is huge_
> ≈ _(you) set a profound example to others_
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, business japanese"
}
|
Katakana (potentially gibberish) "sentence" in Bibara Bibara: meaningful or not?
In the middle of Bibara Bibara by Stereopony (lyrics here), there is this weird Katakana "sentence":
>
I cannot make any sense of it, but I do see a Hiragana syllable in the middle of Katakana, and it happens to be a particle, which makes me wonder: can this be made any sense of? Is this a meaningful sentence in Japanese? Are the sounds chosen for some reason, or is it just plain "scat"?
**Update**
I looked stuff up on JEDict and found the following. {} means "confusedly, perplexedly", and {} means "method", while {} means "path". That is all I can see in there. Well, there is meaning "toad lily" or "cuckoo"… maybe "the toad lilies are confused" with a few extra syllables _because why not_?
|
This isn't gibberish. In fact, there's even a clue at the beginning of the video; you can hear a cuckoo clock in the background. is a cuckoo (a bird). I presume that is probably just the sound the bird makes.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, song lyrics"
}
|
What does it mean a form to be "continuative" in japanese?
Sometimes here I've been taught that some form is "continuative". I read some webpages to try to understand what it means, but I'm not getting it. For example, this webpage
<
says the "te" form is a continuative form because "it forms a subordinate clause that requires a main clause for completion." What is the main clause this clause is subordinated when you use it as imperative? . That webpage also says the main clause can be implied but I dont see which one it could be in cases like Tabete kudasai.
|
Don't get caught up in the name of the form. It's just a name to help identify what is being talked about.
It mostly just refers to a form of the verb that implies there's yet more that needs to be said. The name itself, "continuative", was probably arrived at because the verb form itself needs for something more to happen before there's a complete thought: so, the form suggests that there's more _to continue_ after what's just been said.
Frequently, but not always, the _continuative_ functions like _-ing_ participles in English. Sometimes it's rendered into English as "... and ..."
> ****
>
> Drinking beer and then driving is bad.
>
> ****
>
> I went to the bank, and .... spent the afternoon at a cafe.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "syntax"
}
|
So, what is the rule for this construction
In my textbook I learned that when a sentence shall be nominalized, there are these 2 ways.
1. SENTENCE +
2. SENTENCE + +
2 is in case a complex sentence shall be nominalized.
In addition, when the to be nominalized sentenced ends with a adjective, it shall be nominalized this way: ` adjective + or adjective + `
Now, concerning this case, there were 2 examples in the grammar section, one for simple sentence and one for a complex sentence.
simple sentence:
> (/)
complex sentence:
> (/)
Now, for the complex sentence, would it be possible to write ... **** ... as well?
My textbook gave me no explanation as to why it only proposes the copula, but not the suffix DESPITE claiming otherwise just a few lines before :/ Or is it possible that in the nominalization of complex sentences requiring , it is obligatory to use the copula when the to be nominalized sentence ends with a adjective?
|
Basically:
> * (attributive form) +
> * (predicative/terminal form) +
>
So grammatically speaking you can use...
* + ( is the attributive form)
* + ( is the attributive form)
* + ( is the terminal form)
* + ( is the terminal form)
as in:
>
>
>
>
As an aside, you could also say:
(or in colloquial speech)
* * *
> would it be possible to write ...
No, you can't say +. is the attributive form and should usually be followed by a noun, as in , .
> in the nominalization of complex sentences requiring , it is obligatory to use the copula...
Yes, you should use the terminal form or before . (You could also say etc., dropping the . This might sound a bit informal.)
So I think you could say...
>
>
> (? *)
>
> Also:
>
> (or in colloquial speech)
*might be a bit strange maybe because it could sound like "Family noticed something important..."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Help to understand difference between に堪える/に堪えない/に耐える/にたえない
A.
B.
C.
D.
The answer is A
First there are two words: and , with different of course different meaning
: can't suppress emotions(?)
But also means ~
: can't stand to do
According to the sentence above, it is suppose to express emotion of happiness
(This opinion still has little evidence and does not fit/worth a detailed discussion)
So what I want to ask is what is the real meaning of / It expresses worth/not worth doing something, but also has meaning to express strong emotion like ()
: not worth to feel happy/really happy? Thank you!!!
|
is rather idiomatic.
> **(, dictionary form)** \+ ****
In this case means " _not worth doing_ ", and by extension " _cannot do it because it is unpleasant._ "
> **enotional noun(e.g. , )** \+ ****
Here means " _cannot help feeling_ " or " _cannot suppress emotions_ "
By the way, and is the same meaning " _be impressed deeply_." Such a phenomenon sometimes occurs in Japanese. e.g -(the latter is obsolete), -(old Japanese), -(the latter is slangy)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.