INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Appropriate Honorifics for Fan Letter
I wrote a fan letter to Japanese actors that I admire.
It was compulsory to write his name on the envelope,
so I just simply put **X**
However, I later noticed that everyone seems to address him as **X**
I was quite confused since I have never seen anyone address him this way on SNS
(i.e. usually it was his nickname or X or X
Is this a common practice in Japanese or something?
![enter image description here](
Original Photo
* <
* <
|
We are discussing two separate things here.
**On the envelope** :
It is just customary to use on the envelope. How you address your star in your imagination or what you call him/her when talking to someone about him/her is **_irrelevant_** here.
The only mail I have ever received with "[my name] + {}" was the New Year cards from my teachers in my elementary school days. Teachers used for boys and for girls. would have been unnatural in that relationship and age difference.
In the case of fan letters, would be the only proper honorific choice even if your star were 30 years younger than you.
**In the actual letter** :
This is altogether another matter from the above. On the letter pad, you can address your star using whatever honorific you usually call him with -- , etc. You can also just use his/her nickname without an honorific as well.
This is all about Public vs. Private (envelope vs. letter pad). We need to make a distinction.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "culture, honorifics"
}
|
Use of のってある in this sentence
context: A person complaining about some raunchy conduct
>
Even between girls, there should be some display of shame, right? (?)
Not Sure how to parse the long winded "" section, aside from the ambiguity of , it feels redundantly wordy.
Thanks you
|
You sound as if were an independent phrase, but that is a nominalizer.
= "something like that"
here functions as an informal topic marker.
Thus, {} means (there is/exists) something like a sense of shame.
> "Even among girls, there certainly exists a sense of shame or something along that line, right?"
The last half is kind of redundantly wordy as you observed, but that is exactly how we chat informally -- wordy and unconcise. The point is, though, it is not at all awkward as a spoken sentence. You should not apply the grammar for the (formal) written language.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
帰宅すれば、必ずお風呂に入りなさい。'When you get home, be absolutely sure to take a bath' Why is this an incorrect usage of ~Ba?
× Why is this incorrect? Is it because it is non-volitional? takes out the decision aspect?
|
only works as action and consequence. A common example given is "if you drop a ball, it will fall". You can't put a command, volition, etc, after , but rather a sequence of events; the result (ball falling) after the action (dropping the ball). And doesn't have a meaning of "when" either, and even translating as "if" would not make for natural English either at times. Like . Again, action and consequence; go down this path and you will arrive at the hospital.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "conditionals"
}
|
How does 最初の何年かは work here?
I'm communicating with a Japanese penfriend on italki, and I've got a few problems with what she has written me in Japanese
For context: Amongst other things, I've told her that I've changed my profession. I successfully finished my studies to become a teacher, but I've changed into the IT sector because, in my country (Germany, Bavaria), there is no need for teachers anymore for the subjects I've studied.
Now, I haven't told her this background information and as far as I can understand, she tries to convince me to go for it. The problem is, as I said, that I don't understand everything she has written me.
>
What does mean? Does the topic marker include the phrase as well?
=> "(Concerning?) The time you start your work, (concerning?) the how many years of the onset it is horrible.
|
[]{} means "a few / several years" (≂ []{})
cf:
> []{} ≂ []{} "a few / several days"
> []{} ≂ []{} "a few / several people"
> []{} ≂ []{} "a few / several times"
So means "the first few years", and the is a topic marker.
>
> When you start a new job, the first few years will (usually) be really tough/hard/difficult.
p.s. +counter sounds a bit more formal than +counter+.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, particle は"
}
|
は significance in ゲームは上手いですね
I'm confused by the reaction to in this exchange
> A:!
> B:.....
source context: <
|
> A: **** {}!
>
> B: **** .....
This is the contrastive or at least that is what B takes it to be.
A's line can be interpreted as "You are good at games ( _ **if not anything else**_ )!", which is exactly how B interpreted it. That is why B reacts (jokingly) by emphasizing the contrastive .
B's line is obviously difficult to translate literally as English has no such particles. In that sense, A's line is already difficult to translate to begin with.
Particles can be so powerful that this shortest exchange can stand as a valid joke in itself. (And this often takes place with the contrastive in real life.) The in B's line would receive much stress in actual pronunciation.
B could have also said:
>
>
>
>
>
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "particle は, は and が"
}
|
I got my car back!
Just for a silly post I want to make, I want to say, "Ya! I got my car back!" My attempt at this is As in, I was without my car for a few days while it was being repaired, and now I have it again.
Is this correct? I looked up "returned" and sounded like it expressed what I wanted. It was defined as a suru verb, so is correct conjugation for past tense?
|
Unless you are saying this jokingly, you would not use a big Sino-loanword like {} at all. Trust me, you would sound more than weird if you used it.
Native speakers would say:
> **** {}{}
We would not use the pronoun "my" here because everyone would know whose car you are talking about.
Lastly, we do not use **** nearly as often as Japanese-learners have been using it recently.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, conjugations"
}
|
夢は〜を持つことです VS 夢は〜を持ちたいです
This sentence is from my textbook:
> *
In other words, it says that is incorrect in this case.
But since the topic is seems like a perfectly suitable response. Why isn't it?
Is the second sentence maybe saying, "My dream is _to want_ to open my own store"?
|
> 1 : **** (correct)
> 2 : **** (incorrect)
> 3 : **** (correct)
The sentence structure of 1 is "A is B" where A and B are nouns or noun clauses.
As you know A is and B is in 1, but in 2 is not a noun.
To change into a noun clause you should add "" to it as in 3.
##
# EDIT
Thanks to Yuuichi Tam's comment, I'll add useful information to my answer.
If you do not stick to "A is B" which is the sentence structure of 1 and you want to use the expression in the second half of 2 as it is, you'll get a grammatically correct sentence like 4.
> 4 : **** or ****
4 sounds much more natural to the native Japanese than 3.
If you want to use by all means in 4, it'll become like 5.
> 5 : **** or ****
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is this に in 知恵に挑戦する
As usual, I'm having trouble with this particle. Here's the sentence:
> ****
I don't understand. I would personally have written "". How is effective here? Or is it one of those special verbs that can use ?
|
This has the nuance of the meaning of , it may be close to "to" and "for". Dictionaries say .
We generally say to , not . Other examples are , , , etc. Intransitive verbs don't take as the object marker.
Of course, transitive verbs take as the object marker as in .
Further, direct object takes and indirect object takes as in .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, transitivity"
}
|
Difference between お見舞い and 薬
What is the difference between and ? Both are translated as "medicine" by Google Translate
I guess that is more like a treatment while is actual medicine people take
|
As you know, normally refers to an actual medicine, while is an act of encouraging used normally when someone gets sick, but not limited to the case.
Basically implies you see how they are going, giving a book or food to get them well and so on. It is rather an act and not necessarily a substance you can buy for a treatment at the pharmacy.
As for Google Translate, you should provide a sentence for a better translation. Using Google Translate at work, with only one word like "decline", I get " ≅ falling down" when I want to get " ≅ turned down".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Why is その used here?
I found this definition of {}:
>
Which I read as
> {}{}
Meaning
> A thing that can be used as food. Also, that food. "To be edible"
I don't quite get what `` could mean apart from `that`, but does that make sense here, as `edible` doesn't mean `food`, and according to jisho, `` means
> for use as food; edible
I am new to Japanese so forgive me if this is really obvious.
|
I believe you are misunderstanding the first part of the definition.
>
means
> the use of something as a food.
The next bit specifies an alternate meaning that follows from a common use of the first meaning:
>
Means
> or, the food item [itself]
So refers to both the use of things as food and by extension food.
Thus,
is either to make use of as food or something edible.
But to be edible is really
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, definitions, dictionary"
}
|
Why is using the particle 'wo' now seemingly optional?
Why is using wo, now seemingly optional? Now I tend to only see noun suru opposed to noun wo suru/shimasu. What are the implications/ connotations of using or not using wo? Are there times where you have to use it or is it now down to formality?
(sorry my Japanese keyboard isn't working)
|
The particle is often left out of casual conversations, in fact casual conversations in general enjoy the luxury of not having to use as many particles as polite/formal speech.
> Example:
Even in polite/formal speech its common to see
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles"
}
|
What's the meaning of おまっとさんどす?
I've found this in a comic frame, but i can't find it's meaning Maybe be a kind of , but I don't know.
Best Regards.
|
>
is a **Kyoto** way of saying the standard (dictionary):
> {}
<
which means:
> " ** _Sorry to have kept you waiting_**."
is a very "famous" Kyoto version of .
> Honorific / + Noun + Honorific /
is a pattern used in very common fixed expressions. Other examples include:
{}/ (Thank you for your hard work.)
{}/ (Thank you for your hard work!)
("Thank you for the meal.") in colloquial speech.
{}{}/ ("That is too bad.", "My sympathies.", "My condolences.", etc.)
{} ("Thank you for your kindness.", "Thank you for everything.", "Thank you for taking care of ~~.", etc.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Meaning of 何かに挟まっても
Referring to babies falling out of bed:
> ****
> It's because their heads are heavy and, **no matter what it gets caught in** , they can't get out with their own strength.
At first I translated to "Even if it gets caught in something" but that doesn't fit the rest of the sentence.
Then I thought about phrases like: question word + verb + e.g. , "no matter what he does", , "no matter who he talks to" etc. But doesn't seem to fit this pattern because ('something') is a noun, not a question word. I would have guessed at (without the ), if this was the intended meaning.
So, how should I translate this phrase, and why would be incorrect?
|
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Your translation is:
> It's because their heads are heavy and, **_no matter what it gets caught in_** , they can't get out with their own strength.
The only mistake, of course, is the "no matter what" part. If that were what the author had wanted to say, s/he would have said:
> without a
just as you yourself stated.
In this sentence using would be considerably better and more natural than using . My own TL would be:
> "It's because their heads are heavy and in case they (= babies) get caught in something, they can't get out with their own strength. "
There is no "even if" feeling in the original, which is why I just used "in case". It only means "when" here.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
How does this て-form interact with 見える
For full context: <
The sentence in question: ****
First, my attempt at translation: "According to the weather station, concerning this, with the light appearing bended it is a mirage."
I'm quite weary about my translation. I made and one unit in which is kind of like an adjective and is kind of like a copula (semantically it expresses almost the same as "to be" here). This seems quite wrong to me. However, it does make sense contentwise and more importantly, I can't come up with a translation making more sense (also grammarwise).
I can't really remember cases where a verb directly modifies another verb, at least not in the way it is done here. So I wanted to ask for confirmation or correction.
|
This te-form is rather simply connecting two verbs. The latter action happens right after the former, or almost at the same time. The first verb is often the cause of the second one. So it's like and . Of course you know how to translate these, right? One catch here is that the subject of the first verb is different from that of the second verb, because the first verb is explicitly modified by . Then modifies as a relative clause, but only serves as the subject of the second verb, , because already has its own subject.
So the sentence says two things, ("light bends") and ("mirage is seen/visible"), happen almost at the same time.
>
> This (phenomenon) is (called) _mirage_ , (which is) seen when light rays bend/refract.
Similar examples:
> * a building which collapsed after a storm came
> * parents who are rejoiced to see their baby walk
> * 1 a meal you eat after a day ends
>
I think "by means of" is not suitable in these examples.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Meaning of refrain in 青空 by "The Blue Hearts"
The refrain of the Blue Hearts song starts like this:
While the first part is rather clear, I don't understand the second part. What's the meaning of
Thanks!
|
the hell, on earth
>
=What do they know about me with only the information such as my nationality, my skin color, or my eye color?
> ****
=What **_the hell_** do they know about me with only the information such as my nationality, my skin color, or my eye color?
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "song lyrics"
}
|
What is the best way to translate 中？?
Although this seems to be more of an English question, it deals with Japanese usage, so I would like some help here.
We know the kanji ; I am talking about when this is used for processes that are happening. For example ... What would be a correct way to translate this into English? Sometimes I use "In" as in "In Operation", sometimes I use the "ing" as in "Collecting", etc.
Any suggestions?
|
Language is not a science, nor is translation. There should be no such thing as the single best translation for {}.
Whatever sounds best for the context in the **_target language_** would be the best.
> in, within, during, while, in the middle of, in the course of, under (as in "under investigation" = {}), etc.
Thus, no matter what word comes before the in the original Japanese, there should usually be one or two word/phrase choices that sound natural in English.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, suffixes"
}
|
Meaning of かませるワンちゃん
Context: boxer A tells boxer B that the president of the gym, who is also boxer B's father, cannot come to watch boxer B's match. Boxer B doesn't have a good relationship with his father.
> Boxer A:
>
> Boxer B: … …
What is the meaning of ? I think the verb is . I understand the literal meaning, but not the actual one. Is it an idiomatic expression? Something like `a dog to give orders to` or `a dog that talks for him`? My translation attempt:
> Boxer A: The president is in Thailand to organize a match. It looks like he won't come.
>
> Boxer B: Ha! My father found a dog that talks for him. Ah ah!
Thank you for your help!
|
I think "" implies "". I don’t know a dogfight system though, I guess the word comes from them. In a combat sport like boxing, it is not uncommon that a match-maker chooses the opponent which their boxer definitely wins in order to get his boxer confidence.
It is very similar to ”underdog” in English though, while the underdog is used when a team always lost regardless of making an effort, himself often doesn't intend to win from the beginning.
Edit:1
Sometimes makes an upset in a boxing match. Say, a match-maker prepares a world championship between ex-champion which seems already passed his best time and an undefeated-prospect for the future champion. An ex-champion seemed by a matchmaker though, he showed his pride and won the match. So, has a broader usage.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, manga, idioms, sports"
}
|
Understanding 見せていただいてて
While watching a Japanese TV drama I came across this sentence "" as shown in the image below. I can't understand the "" part. Can anyone please break this part down and explain what does it mean?
![enter image description here](
|
> ****
is a colloquial contraction of:
> ****
the last part of which is the te-form for:
>
It is difficult to translate the phrase because it is not a whole sentence, but it would mean something like:
> "I am having the priviledge of taking a look at this store, and ~~"
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particles, expressions, て form, sentence"
}
|
Jikoshoukai for Interview. 「My Strength and Weakness are...」
I'm kinda new here so please kindly tell me if have broke any rule.
I'm currently doing my Jikoshoukai for my upcoming interview and kinda stuck on some part of my translation. Note Im just N5 when it comes to my nihongo level. I want it to be sound more simple and natural but acceptable for an office base job.
Here is what I have so far:
Full Name
Age
City
YearUniversity
Company
Job title
This part is where I'm stuck:
> I want to say:
>
>
> * "My strength are Keen observation and Logical Reasoning".
> ()
> * "My weakness is I'm too strict at checking"
> ()
> * "My weakness is I don't know when to quit a Project"
> ()
>
This is all what I got so far. Feel free to correct my Jikoshoukai.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, english to japanese"
}
|
|
What's the grammar behind ヤカンのある部屋?
I tried to make a sentence saying that since I don't have the key I cannot go inside the room that has a kettle:
>
But I was told that it sounds better if I changed it for
>
What's the grammatical reason that explains this?
|
The grammar behind this is explained in this question, although you may already know this: How does the work in ?
I personally think this sentence is perfectly fine and natural regardless of whether you use or . Someone might feel the sentence sounds slightly more "soft" or "sophisticated" with , but this is very subjective. I think you can safely ignore the difference unless you're interested in aesthetic writing.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, relative clauses"
}
|
～かなんだか meaning in this sentence
I'm dealing with some TV character's lines that speak in slang.
Speaking about a snob girl, she say this to another character near to her:
> ****
To me, the general meaning seems to be "I don't care if she came from a noble family, (but) that her haughty behaviour really piss me off!", but I can't figure out what is that "", before .
May you help me to understand? Thks in advance!
|
> Word/Phrase + **** \+ {}
should be remembered as a set phrase meaning:
> "I don't care (if something/someone is) ~~ **_or whatever_** "
My own TL:
> "I couldn't care less if she's from a distinguished family or whatever. That arrogant attitude of hers just pisses me off."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, slang"
}
|
～てりゃ meaning in this sentence
I'm dealing with some TV character's lines that speak in slang, and I don't understand what is the meaning of this "" in the following sentence:
>
Here the context:
There are three girl in a classroom. The first girl tell to the second one that she must act more seriously. Next, the third girl say the line abovementioned, in defense of the second.
I was thinking, may be that "" a simply variation of ""? And if it is so, which is its origin? And, have it a special nuance of meaning?
May you help me to understand? Thks in advance!
|
It is a variant of :
>
Similarly to →
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, slang"
}
|
Is this sentence right? コーヒーがおいしい喫茶店{きっさてん}へ行きたいです。
Can I transform this sentence:
> **** {}
into this sentence:
> **** {}
?
|
Yes, you can.
Both sentences are grammatical and they mean just about the same thing.
One thing I would like to mention, though, since this is a learning site is the fact that native speakers are taught from early on that the particle **** in a relative clause sounds "better and nicer" if changed to **** . Some teachers are more strict than the others on this. Personally, almost all of my own teachers in elementary school were in the -sect, so I myself am also. Old habits die hard.
Thus, depending on the person you ask, you might be told to make that change in both sentences even though they are already "correct" if grammatical correctness is all that matters.
Highly related:
What's the grammar behind ?
To sum up, you _**can**_ say:
> ( **** or **** ){}
>
> ( **** or **** )
>
> ( **** or **** ){}CD
But you _**cannot**_ say:
> **** Only using is correct.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "syntax, relative clauses"
}
|
How do you handle multiple verbs in this situation?
From what I understand, the final verb determines the reference time of the sentence, but I'm a little confused on how to handle the sequence of verbs with the construction here (particularly after following a stem of another verb):
>
The way I'm interpreting it, is seen as the verb in focus, while is simply listing any action(s) done alongside with it. But when considering here, it becomes even more confusing how to make sense of the order here. Can someone provide clarification, or possibly correct any misunderstandings I might have. Thank you.
|
I believe a suitable translation would be:
> While rattling around the ice, she tasted the barley tea and even did things like pressing the side of the glass against her cheek.
If I were actually translating this, I'd probably omit the "did things like". It is implied in the Japanese but it's somewhat unnatural to include it in English when only 1 example is cited.
is the {} (masu stem) of . In written Japanese, the can be used to join independent clauses in the same manner as the te-form. In this case, it is showing that the actions happened sequentially. Both and are of equal priority.
I do not believe it is clear in the Japanese whether she was rattling the ice as she pressed it to her cheek or if the rattling only coincides with tasting.
See: Masu stem to connecting sentences
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is the meaning of ー・
Can someone tell me what the notation "" means?
It's all over this article:
|
It simply means that it should be replaced by , or in actual usage.
The notation is used exclusively in some dictionaries to avoid looking repetitive in giving example phrases/sentences for the entry word.
(Of course, one could argue that the use of the same notation over and over looks repetitive, too.)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "dictionary"
}
|
Reading of ___の音
I am trying to read this sentence:
>
Which I think means
> You can hear the sound of the water (lit. sound of the water is audible)
But not 100% sure on how to read `` here.
Google translate suggests
>
But not sure how trustworthy this is, as another translation plugin I have gives me
>
Is there any best practice I can follow here in a case such as this where I don't have an audio reading of the word?
I found this post which gives a few examples, but it doesn't really clarify my scenario, unless it's a "kanji on its own" in which case I should use ``.
Which one is more natural/correct?
|
<
In this dictionary entry, is defined as follows:
①
, however, is defined differently:
①
②
This means, that is generally used for sounds. This can also include annoying sounds or noise. is used, when the sound creates an emotion or when the sound is perceived as pleasant or enjoyable.
So, both and are correct, they just have a different nuance. If the speaker just objectively describes the sound of water or perceives it as annoying, then would be correct. However, if the speaker finds the sound pleasant or uses it in a poetic way, then is correct.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "readings"
}
|
みたいに vs のように? What suits best?
I came across the following, recently.
_______
It is said that the most suitable to fill the blank is . is also given as an option. Can someone please explain me why ? Why not ?
|
That is simply because sounds too informal and conversational for the context, which does not sound informal at all.
, which is more formal than , would fit far better there.
It is of importance to keep the overall level of formality/informality in any kind of writing/speech.
You would not use the phrase "kinda like" in an essay or part of a novel that describes a character's actions, would you? I am not necessarily saying that sounds as informal as "kinda like", but you get my point.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Help with kanji recognition
I'm trying to work out what kanji this is:
 but this doesn't look quite right
 will only officially support its Kyūjitai form;
* **** was originally derived from the components **** (mouth **** written upside down) and **** (a lidded storage vessel for food), and it had nothing to do with **** or **** despite their similar looking appearances;
* Characters which contained a component involving will have the bottom portion looking like your second image in traditional (Kyūjitai) forms and looking like your first image in simplified (Shinjitai) forms. You can verify this by comparing e.g. the traditional/simplified versions of **** , or the traditional/simplified versions of ****. Note that both and are part of the Jōyō Kanji set, so they should be rendered in their simplified versions in Japanese text.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
Is this が at the end of the verb conditional ?
![enter image description here](
> []{} **** []{}[]{}
I understand this sentence as, _'if you kill him, you are following him to the netherworld'_.
I intuitively understand this as conditional but I am not sure. I haven't found anything which ascertains or confirms this. But I have a strong feeling of it being a conditional. What kind of is this and what is it called ? Also, is this some kind of polite form of ?
I've tried searching for this but I think I am missing its name or I am not searching it right. Any links relating to this would be awesome.
Thank you!
|
Your basic understanding of the sentence is correct. It means "Once/If you , (something very bad will certainly follow)."
It should be memorized as a fixed pattern, but grammatically, this is working as a noun, and is a plain subject marker. So it can be read as "Having killed (my son) is (your) end" or "Killing is the point of no return."
In archaic Japanese, attributive form () of a verb was used instead of / to nominalize a verb. You may see similar grammar in well-known traditional proverbs like , and . Basically is one of the fixed phrases using archaic grammar.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle が, manga"
}
|
What does 電波調査斑 mean?
I was reading the Japanese wikipedia article on Pablo Escobar and came across the word . What does it mean exactly? And how do you pronounce it? I take it means electronic wave, and search. But what about ? How does this fit in, and what is the resulting word?
The whole sentence from which this word was taken reads.
1993122.
|
is pronounced as .
Now, an original article also provides . It is not impossible to mistake as as . As Seesawscene already provided, may imply a team. I might add a squad for in this case since it is a police team for a specific purpose.
should be a radio wave. If this is correct < , radio-wave does not contain an electron. An electron is in the antenna which produces radiation.
So, should be radio wave search/detection in this case.
By the way, Colombia is a beautiful place. If you like a painting, check a painter Botero. A unique style.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
What does これには mean in this sentence?
's
|
indicates and is a marker that tells is what the speaker was surprised at. is a usual topic marker (as far as we can read).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle に, particle は"
}
|
What grammatical strucure is behind 唱えにゃならん and what does it mean?
In the sentance below, what is the grammar behind ?
> ****
(I thought it was _verb stem+_ with sound changes but I coudn't find such gramatical structure)
|
>
is a colloquial pronunciation of both:
> and
which means you must decide which one it is from the context.
In the phrase:
> {}
is short for . (Grammatically, you cannot say in the first place.)
So, the dictionary form of is , which means the same as = " ** _must chant the sutra_** " .
> " ** _Listen, boy, you are going to have to chant the sutra instead of me at the temple one day_**."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
what is different between "で" and "です" in this sentence?
original sentence is
>
what is different between
> ****
and
> ****
?
|
"" indicates that the sentence ends here.
"" , however, indicates that the sentence doesn't end here, but continues to the latter clause.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "copula"
}
|
Is there any difference between 処刑 and 死刑?
Both seem to mean "capital punishment" or "execution" or "death penalty". Is one a more specific word, maybe only used in legal contexts?
|
* is "death penalty" or "capital punishment". It's a kind of punishment, and is something sentenced in court. (literally "ultimate punishment") is an euphemistic synonym for this.
* is "execution". It refers to the actual action of killing a criminal/prisoner using a gun, sword, drug, etc. It also works as a suru-verb, "to execute (a person)." sounds a bit cruel, and () is preferred in legal contexts.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, words, usage, nuances"
}
|
Can you explain この建物は築100年以上たっている to me?
I was studying the word and I found some examples with them. The meaning of in my textbook is "or more" and they put an example:
> **** = A day of 30 degrees **or more**.
Then I was searching for more examples on the internet and I get confused a little when I found this:
> * 100
>
They translated it as "This building was built more than 100 years back " so my questions are:
1) is a group 2 verb so the wouldn't it be ?
2) Why is in the progressive form? shouldn't it be in past ?
3) Isn't the meaning of "or more" or it just means "more"?
Thanks a lot for your time!
|
1. The verb used here is not (transitive) but an intransitive godan verb ("(for time) to pass"), whose te-form is .
2. This is "have passed" rather than "is passing". precedes a number and means "since it was built", "since its completion/opening", etc. So the literal translation of the sentence is "Regarding this building, a hundred years or more have passed since its completion".
3. In technical/mathematical/legal contexts, means " or more" (`≥`). Practically, you can often translate this as "more than " (`>`), especially when the number before it is obviously a rough one. When what's compared is not a number, you can usually use "more than " (e.g., ).
By the way, also has an intransitive counterpart, ("to be built", "to stand"). With this verb and simple past tense, you can say the same thing like so:
> 100 ****
> This building was built more than 100 years ago.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, verbs, conjugations, て form, aspect"
}
|
Meaning of きれい in this sentence
Regarding a fossil that was dug out of frozen ground in Russia:
> ****
> (The cave lion fossil) was so _neat_ that it seemed like it was sleeping.
I'm struggling to translate in this sentence. Neither clean, neat nor pretty really seem to make sense. To be honest, I can't think of any English word that would fit this sentence well. Is there an obvious translation of that I'm missing, or am I just over thinking it? It is from an article for children after all.
|
Maybe trying to paraphrase it more than to directly translate it makes more sense here? In regards to fossils using something like _well preserved_ seems to fit, e.g.
> The fossil was so well preserved, it looked as though the cave lion was merely sleeping.
Or something along those lines.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
The difference in use and meaning for にくい, がたい and づらい
I know they all mean something is 'difficult to do', 'hard to...' etc but why have three versions? are they used in different grammatical structures or contexts?
|
You mean .........?like the following
I think these two are interchangeable. At least for me, I can’t find semantic difference. “/” Both explains “it is hard for me to understand his explanation.
... is a bit different. “”
It is incomprehensible for me to understand his explanation. Or, it is unlikely for me understand his explanation.
I think it is strange to use ... for sense verb since they have the word describes hardness of physical property ....
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": -1,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
}
|
Causative-passive contracted form
I'm working through the book Nihongo So-matome N3 Choukai and on one page there is a side note about contracting the causative-passive form (e.g. ). Underneath it says meaning verbs like these don't have these contracted forms. and are the usual exceptions, is an verb, but what about ? Is there something special about this verb or a group that it's in? Why can it not be contracted in this way?
|
According to --
> 2
> [-u] -aseru]
> ①
> →→ ****
> →→×
> ②
> →→×
> ③
> →×
> →×
You don't use the passive form for the verbs that take **** as the contracted causative form. So basically you don't use **** . (Compare: **** as in , **** as in etc. can take the passive form, as in **** in , **** in .)
...Although we often say things like etc. in casual conversation in Kansai.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "passive voice, contractions, causation"
}
|
Meaning of ～てもらう in this sentence
I encountered this sentence in a textbook
>
Which one of the following would the sentence is supposed to mean?
> Since [I] bought a lot of vegetables, [I] had a guy at the shop deliver the vegetables home for me.
or
> Since [I] bought a lot of vegetables, I received home delivery.
Does the verb in the form always mean to have someone do something for me instead of only to receive something?
|
The second reading is not valid. When a is a full verb meaning "receive", its object (and only full verbs can take an object) must be some form of noun and followed by a . The is not any kind of noun phrase. It cannot quite work like "home delivery" does.
So the first one, where the is correctly interpreted as a subsidiary verb, is the right one.
It is possible, however, for the in the string to be a full verb describing a distinct act of receiving something, as in relatively rare cases where the object of a that follows another verb is omitted. For example:
> "I was out of sugar, so I went next door and got some.")
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, giving and receiving"
}
|
Why are some basic kanji not in any JLPT level?
I'm reviewing my list of kanjis to limit myself to JLPT N2 and below for now, but I find that some of them aren't in any JLPT level yet are quite common. Examples:
* (in , , etc.)
* (in all the , very common suffix)
and I'm only starting so I'm sure I'll find more. I use jisho.org and this list also agrees: < Why is that? And given that common kanjis seem missing from the JLPT levels, are they a good reference for studying?
|
See, the jouyou kanji list is no less imperfect. Why simple and common kanji, such as , are suspiciously absent is anyone's guess. As for the JLPT list, well, you've pointed out some grave offenders yourself.
So are such lists a good study tool? If you're just preparing for the JLPT, and you're positive that only the kanji on those lists can appear, then keep at it; however, in general, I don't recommend this type of approach at all. As long as you're consuming media in Japanese and learning vocabulary in context, you'll amass so much vocabulary that the N2 multiple-choice kanji section will seem trivial in what it asks of you.
If you're serious about learning the language beyond just passing the N2, then do keep the jouyou list in mind as a guide or a reference, but nothing more.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "kanji, jlpt"
}
|
The logic behind なくば
> **** …
I understand it pretty much means "However, being our master, we can't even do that without your permission." but I don't get why and are both together. I would have said : "" or "" but never "". What could the explanation behind this be ?
|
is an older form of . It's not generally used in modern Japanese (outside of perhaps a few fossilised expressions like ), but is still recognised and can be used as part of an affected style of speech.
This character's speech is clearly somewhat archaic in flavour (as also evidenced by the use of and the negation), so the use of seems in fitting with that style.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, conditionals, archaic language"
}
|
What is this と? 芸術家は芸術を仕事としている人
>
> Concerning an artist, it is a person who does art for a living (=as a job).
I didn't encounter in this kind of function yet, or at least not often enough to remember it. Did I translate this correctly?
|
> Noun A + **** \+ Noun B + **** \+
means:
> "to regard A as B"
>
> "to let A be B"
>
> "to treat A as B"
>
> "to have A as B", etc.
Thus, your translation is not bad at all.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
}
|
How do you use comparatives for Japanese adjectives?
I am currently writing a section about the Japanese writing system. I have previously stated that Japanese was originally written completely in Kanji. However, people found it very difficult.
**Therefore, the simpler Hiragana and Katakana was introduced in the ninth century.**
How would I write this sentence in Japanese? If "simpler" was replaced with "simple", I would say: .
|
You can use and say {} for the comparative form.
(The superlative form is {}.)
Nothing to do with your question. but would sound too informal and conversational to be used in that sentence that contains a big word like {}. I would suggest using {} instead.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, adjectives, history, comparative constructions, written language"
}
|
そして、先に来た者から十二番目までを、その年の大将としよう
>
It comes from a fable about the Chinese Zodiac that I'm trying to translate into English. I have this basic word-by-word translation:
* - and, used to connect sentences
* {} - first
* {} - past tense form of , come
* {} - person
* - from
* {} - twelfth
* - only
* - that
* {} - year
* {} - leader(?)
* - ?
a) I would translate at the end of the sentence
b) How is this sentence structured? I understand the basic meaning only because I can put the seeming mess of words together, but I don't really understand how they fit together the way they do and why. Does just mean "first through twelfth", and what would be the correct translation of in that case, person? But why does it come after ?
|
I'd rather not do a strict analogous translation, but let's try to break your sentence down into sensible segments:
> Thus
>
> from he/that came first
>
> until the twelfth (person/being),
>
> as "the head/representative of that respective year"
>
> let's (make/designate)
To answer your question:
1) is the volitional form of "to do". From the context of the sentence it would mean "Let's do (something)".
2) To reorganize my attempt at the sentence breakdown, it would roughly come as
> Thus, let us designate those who/which came, first down to the twelfth, as the representative of each (of the twelve) year(s).
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, syntax"
}
|
Question about the verb 「嗅ぐ」
Here is the sentence containing the verb in -form.
> **** ....
As my understanding, the pattern use -form verb which the verb would be {}.
Is the verb Tokyo dialect?
|
The base verb here is:
> {}= "to smell something"
**** is the fairly common colloquial (and slightly slangy) version of **** . This is the -form of (" ** _to let one smell something_** "), which is in the causative form of . Please make sure you are following this because every word is important in this paragraph.
is not Tokyo dialect; It is used everywhere. People say {} **** for **** ("Let me see."), {} **** for **** ("Let me eat".), etc. colloquially. I do not think this is taught in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language, and I do not think J-learners should be using these until they are really fluent, either.
> "For the first time in so long, these leather gloves that have surely been sucking my opponents' blood are now letting me smell an indescribable smell."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, て form, manga"
}
|
Is there any difference between vertical and horizontal writing?
This might be a fairly easy question. But I am new in learning Japanese and I didn't see this question anywhere (although there are some about writing vertically).
Is there any difference between writing kanji symbols in vertical or horizontal direction?
E.g.: According to Google Translate the world **Family** is written like this . Would be wrong to write like this:
Would be ok to write full sentences in the vertical direction too?
|
There is no difference in meaning between vertical writings and horizontal writings. Only the style is different.
Traditionally, Japanese sentences are written vertically. So most of the Japanese newspapers and novels are written vertically. If you have a chance to look at a Japanese novel by Kindle, you will know that all the sentences are written vertically.
To the contrary, most web sites, SNSs adopt the horizontal writings. There are several advantages for the horizontal writings.
In horizontal writings, it is easy to type numbers or alphabets. For example, the height of Mt. Fuji is 3,776 meters: 3,776. However, it should be written as if we write it vertically.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, syntax, katakana, written language"
}
|
What is the difference between それでも and ところが?
I think both mean "Even so" or "nevertheless"
|
The difference is rather **huge** even though the two words do overlap in meaning to an extent. When a bilingual dictionary gives you the same English "definitions" to two Japanese words, the best thing to do is go to a monolingual dictionary.
> is a **_contradictory_** conjunction.
{}{}{}{}= "It was really rainy and windy. We, however, still went on the picnic. "
{}{}{} = "I studied 12 hours a day, but I still did not pass the test."
> is used to talk about an **_unexpected result_**.
{}{}{}{}{}{} = "That film had bad reviews. Even so, I loved it when I actually went see it."
8{}5{}0{}96{}{} = "We were leading 5-to-0 at the end of the 8th inning, however, we gave up 6 runs in the 9th inning and lost the game."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, conjugations"
}
|
To Underestimate: Nameru vs Anadoru 舐める vs 侮る
Other than one being to lick, any difference between the 2 for underestimating?
|
is slangy and should be avoided in very formal contexts. Its meaning is closer to "to look down" rather than "to underestimate." often also has a connotation of behaving disrespectfully/insolently to someone/something.
is a relatively literary word and typically used in a set phrase "" or "". It's probably safer than , but still has a connotation of making light of something/someone.
is a neutral and politically safer word for "to underestimate," which does not imply any disrespectful attitude.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, word choice, nuances, definitions, dictionary"
}
|
How to say change from A to B
Is it:
> AB
If I want to say A changes to B
Thanks
|
The usual phrase would be:
> A + **** \+ B + **** \+ {}
if you are talking about a change from an old state to a new state.
Your phrase:
> A + **** \+ B + **** \+
means more like:
> "A changes into B."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "verbs"
}
|
What does どうせ mean in this context?
> {} **** {}{}{}
The dictionary tells me this means either:
> Adverb
>
> 1. anyhow; in any case; at any rate; after all; at all; no matter what
> 2. at best; at most
>
So which is it in this context and how would you translate the sentence? I know this is something like "I figured you'd be free so I thought I'd invite you" but I'm not sure about the nuance introduced by .
|
From the definitions you gave, I'd say "anyhow" or "in any case" fits this particular usage best. Personally, I think of as "anyway" as well.
I would translate it as:
> I thought I'd invite you since you're probably free _anyway_.
You might also want to see this related question.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
に vs で with ～っぱなし
Let us take two sentences
Is that correct to conclude that is as just as ?
What is the difference in and logic behind using the particles and here?
|
Whether to use or depends on the verb that follows.
> 1) + **** \+ ****
>
> 2) + **** \+ **other verbs**
Thus, your two sentences follow the rules above.
> 1) + **** \+ **** \+
is the negative form of .
" ** _Please do not leave the water running_**."
> 2) + **** \+ **** \+
The verb following the is .
" ** _I (accidentally) went out with my windows open_**."
> Is that correct to conclude that is as just as ?
Yes. Thus, you can also say:
1) ****
2) ****
without changing the meanings.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Help me understand 言わんこっちゃない
I don't understand this whatsoever:
>
>
> ****
especially the bolded part. What real words does that come from?
Context is that the main character got a cold from staying outside all night; his friend then tells him this.
|
> {} ****
is the common colloquial form of:
> ****
which is a set phrase meaning:
> " **I told you so**.", " **Didn't I tell you?** ", " **That's why I told you**.", etc.
just means "Oh dear!" or something along those lines.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "spoken language, contractions"
}
|
は or が in the example "朝起きるとき、鳥 ( ) いつも歌います"?
Following up on my earlier question, I want to check if I've got a feel for this subordinate clause particle use correct. This is probably a duplicate, but it really helps me understand things better if I'm posing the question myself. If this infringes any rules, though, I'll happily remove it.
In the sentence
> ( ****? ****?) ( ****? ****?)
which instance uses , and which ? I get the feeling the first instance is , and the second, , but I could be wrong.
Any help is much appreciated.
|
It actually depends on the context, but the "usual" way to say this is:
> **** **** ****
> When I wake up, (I find) birds are always singing.
* should be used after because is in a subordinate clause ( is the subordinate clause.) This is the basic rule. As an exception, in rare contexts where you're comparing 's mornings with someone else's mornings, can be used.
* should be used after because the word has probably not been introduced into "the universe of discourse". If you have already mentioned these before this sentence in some way or another, should be used. In other words, is " _the_ bird(s)", is "bird(s)" without "the".
* I replaced ("birds (will) sing") with (progressive form, "birds are singing"). Saying sounds like these birds are waiting for to wake up and start singing only after the wake-up.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "nuances, は and が, subordinate clauses"
}
|
Is マネージャー suitable when describing a manager working in a large business?
In Fluent Forever's Awesome Word List, is used to describe a manager in a bank or similar organisation.
However, doing a search with the basic version of google image search mainly got middle-aged women wearing sporting gear. jisho.org gave me a couple of meanings, a manager of a business, an idol, etc, or someone who does boring work for a sports team. The Wikipedia article mainly emphasised meanings outside of a manager at a large organisation. For example, some of the meanings corresponded to an individual who managed a single person in entertainment or sport.
However, the word hasn't been mentioned by anyone in a forum thread about the Awesome Word List and suspected errors.
Is a suitable word to describe a manager in a large business?
|
I don't see why not, but there are also other titles in a business as with any other organization. Particularly in Japanese organizations there are simply many levels in management, and each level could have its own title for "manager".
The more commonly used ones could be:
* company president, manager, director
* office/bureau chief
* department head
* section head
* supervisor
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "translation, meaning, loanwords"
}
|
～になった versus ～された
Consider the following sentences.
* The police officer seized (my) license.
* (My) license was confiscated by the police officer.
If I want to use , how can I insert into it?
|
You can use and say . would also be understood, but many people would say this is clumsy due to the duplication of .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
trying to think about what part of the sentence is attached to what... i think
This question has probably been asked to death, but better to ask than not to.
I'm currently using "Basic Kanji Book 1" and this is one of the sentences in it. I can work out the meaning, but not intuitively and visually.
e.g. If I say 'as the water flows from the top to the bottom', I can visualize and interpret the meaning as the sentence is spoken..
water, high here from, low here flows
Is it simply a lack of understanding of the particle itself?
I think this step is kinda important as it may effect how I interpret and continue to learn in the future.
Thanks for your time.
|
> {}{}{}
There is no particle used in this sentence, I am afraid to say.
is one word meaning "place". It is not + as you seem to have analyzed it.
> "Water flows from a high place to a low place."
is the literal translation of the sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
Why is neither て nor ます form used here?
For full context: <
The sentence in question:
My attempt at translation: "This days morning, really as always nothing changed and it was an ordinary morning."
I usually would expect to be either or form to formally connect to the noun which it modifies. But instead, it's just plain form. Did I miss out on something, or is this just a question of style?
|
This is simply because is a _relative clause_ that modifies . Of course a relative clause does not end with //. Don't be misguided by the comma :D (Alternatively, you can think and independently modify .)
>
> It was an ordinary morning that was no different than usual.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Is this usage of から correct?
name of town.
I like my hometown because I can relax here.
|
> name of town.
or
> name of town.
sounds right to my ears.
seems more like "because I can take a rest" or "because I don't have to go to work here."
As for the usage of "" itself, your sentence was correct.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle から"
}
|
How do these two を relate to the respective verbs?
For full context: <
Sentence in question:
=> "vehicles, which drive there (=this road) on the opposite lane, pass by with extreme speed."
There are 2 which both connect the noun to an intransitive verb expressing movement. This use of is always a bit confusing to me, So I just wanted to ask for confirmation wether I got it right or not. Especially the first in gives me a headache. clearly refers to the from before, but I'm not so sure wether the first attaches to or ? I think a relation to would make more sense.
Furthermore, I'm not sure about why in , or should be used at all? AFAIK they usually indicate that something is moving towards or away from the speaker. If the verb is used in this function here, then I wonder why should be preferred over in this context. After all, the object passing by first needs to approach you and then move away from you again.
|
* Yes this refers to the .
* Both of the two are location markers used with intransitive verbs. modifies the main verb . modifies in a relative clause that modifies . As far as I understand, one verb can never take more than one .
* is followed by a subsidiary verb that describes some physical/emotional movement away from the speaker. In this case, is a neutral choice that simply expresses cars going away from the speaker after the action of . ("coming close to pass me") focuses on the approaching cars, and it would sound as if the speaker is scared by every car on the opposite lane. I know this paragraph is about the anxiety of the speaker, but itself is used to describe an objective fact.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What does 行う (おこなう) mean?
It is only a word but every time I look it up they give me a different meaning
Here are some pictures with the meanings that I found:
This is from the book "The preparatory course for the japanese language proficiency test N4 ":
> ![enter image description here](
This is from the book " N41500":
> ![enter image description here](
This one is from Jisho.org:
> ![enter image description here](
Can you give me the meaning you think it have and some examples? please
|
is a transitive verb that takes . (I don't understand why the first picture used "to occur" which is intransitive.)
It is basically similar to ("to do"), but sounds more formal and stiff. The more formal or the bigger the situation is, the more likely is chosen.
> * ≒
> * ≒
> * ≒
>
The following sentences usually sound a little funny because is too grandiose:
> * [?]
> * [?]
>
On the other hand, the following sentences are too casual in news articles, formal greetings or such, but it can appear in casual conversations.
> *
> *
>
There is also a verb which sounds even stiffer and is only used with big ceremonies like wedding ceremonies.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, words"
}
|
Could the animal "lion" be represented by シ or by ツ
Looking at an old world war two map, I know there is a mountain/hill/ridge which was nicknamed "lion" by the Japanese. The old map has a Japanese symbol written on the spot of that mountain/hill/ridge.
Because I don't know Japanese (can't recognize and understand the characters), I don't know which one of the following characters it might be:
Either:
>
or
>
Could someone with knowledge of Japanese give me a definite answer on which one it might likely be, and why.
Drawing from my knowledge of Chinese, my best guess is it will be
>
because it seems that this Japanese character is pronounced " **shi** ", which might be coming from the Chinese " **** " ( **shi** zi).
|
is a dated word that means _lion_ in Japanese. This can also be written as in hiragana and (shi-shi) in katakana.
can can be distinguished like this. // means _pipe_ , by the way.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
たform+こと が/は(particle) ない?
Is it
>
or
> ?
I'm not sure about the particle for this. Can both be used? Or which is better? (And why is it so?)
Thanks!
|
This is a good question because quite a few Japanese-learners do use the two as if they were completely interchangeable. They are not.
> ****
makes a simple and neutral statement saying you have not seen something. You just do not have the experience. If I said:
> {} ****
all it means is that I have not seen a pipe organ. Plain and simple. I am not implying anything.
> ****
, however, **_implies_** either:
1) you have not seen A, but you have B (or C)
or
2) you have not seen something, but have done something else (other than seeing) with/about it.
This is all made possible by the use of the **_contrastive_** ****.
Thus, if I said:
> ****
I would be implying either:
1) I have never seen a pipe organ, but have seen another instrument.
or, for instance,
2) I have not **seen** a pipe organ but I have **listened** to pipe organ music.
The smallest words are often the most important words in Japanese. I am, of course, referring to our particles.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Please help me understand the させたくない form
So I learned about , that it's like to influence someone to do something. Then we found this sentence on hunter x hunter.
A bit of context, Mito don't want Gone to take the hunter exam. Now I would translate as "not want to force him to take it", but my teacher told me it was wrong. For a half hour, he tried to explain it to me but I still didn't get it.
Can you guys help me? Thanks, Or
|
can also mean "to let (someone) do~~" "to allow (someone) to do~~". See definition #2 in :
>
>
> let ((a person do))allow ((a person to do))
>
> I will _let_ you do as you wish.
>
> _Let_ me [ _Allow_ me to] say one thing.I'd like to say one thing, if I may.
so how about translating it as...
>
> "Mito-san doesn't want to _let_ Gon-san take the hunter exam."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "conjugations, causation"
}
|
What's the difference between あまり and ほど when saying 'so much...that'?
What's the difference between and when saying 'so much...that'?
For example:
>
> Tom was so surprised that he was speechless.
>
>
> (Tom was so surprised that he was speechless.
Or:
>
> (It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop.)
>
>
> It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop.
|
Basically, the main difference lies on whether the focus is placed on the **cause or effect** in a given situation.
Though you will need to change the sentence structure around, you can describe a cause-and-effect situation by using either or .
> ( **cause + ** ) + effect places (at least slightly) more focus on the **_effect_**.
{} **** {}{}= "Tom was so surprised that he was speechless."
{} **** {}{}(//){} = "It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop."
> **(effect + ** ) + cause places (at least slightly) more focus on the **_cause_**.
**** = "Tom was surprised to the extent that he became speechless."
**** = "It was quiet to the extent that you could hear a pin drop."
You will need to form/read/hear hundreds of sentences like these to get a feel of the usages.
Thus, two of your four sentences sound quite awkward and make little sense to us native speakers. Those are:
and
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Increase to X% or increase by X%?
Referring to the tuna fishing quota:
> (from a news article)
> (made up by me)
> (This) will increase by around 52% compared to this year.
Is there any difference in meaning/feeling between the above two sentences?
How would I say increase **to** X% rather than increase **by** X%? Is it just from context? Would the following be correct:
> total output%
> Production of forks will increase **to** 50% of total output.
(sorry, I don't know how to say 'total output')
But if I just said:
> %
Would that mean **to** 50% or **by** 50% or is it ambiguous?
|
> (from a news article)
>
> (made up by me)
>
> Is there any difference in meaning/feeling between the above two sentences?
No, not really. The first one sounds just a little politer for using , but that is about it. If you wanted to use a big kanji word, that would be {}.
> How would I say increase **to** X% rather than increase **by** X%? Is it just from context? Would the following be correct:
>
> total output%
>
> Production of forks will increase to 50% of total output.
No, that will not work. 50 **always** means "to increase **by** 50%".
To say "to increase **to** 50%", you need to say:
> 50( ** or ** )
Particles are everything. To describe a move/change from A to B, you usually must use a or . Increases and decreases (from A to B) are no exceptions.
> %
>
> Would that mean **to 50%** or **by 50%** or is it ambiguous?
It can only mean " **by** 50%". It is not ambiguous.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
たform+こと が/は(particle) ありますか?
Continuation from my other question: if we were asking as a question, '' Can we use the question particle interchangeably? Or which to use under which circumstances? Thanks!
|
I think the question is clear enough, although there is no specific context.
I don't know whether all the questions about / should be regarded as "duplicated questions." If so, I had better not write this. But anyway, I will try to answer it.
Now I think that the both of and are almost completely interchangeable and have the same meaning, in general.
The choice depends on each concrete context. It depends on other grammatical rules.
For example:
> a
>
> b
a and b are completely the same and it depends only on the speaker's preference.
> **** **** ? c
>
> **** **** ? d
I believe not a few Japanese would choose d, because c includes the double "" s which seem less natural to native-Japanese speakers' ears.
Hope this helps!
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, は and が"
}
|
What is って in どうかしらって?
Which meaning of is used in this case and what is its purpose?
> ****
|
> {}{}{}{} ****
≒
> ****
≒
> ****
The is clearly the quotative particle.
**/** is the bare form.
> "Yeah, right. I , too, was thinking that it would (probably) be just as good to keep it as to throw it away."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
}
|
Understanding AならBたらどうかしら
Sentence taken from this question
> ****
> "Yeah, right. I , too, was thinking that it would (probably) be just as good to keep it as to throw it away." (translation thanks to l'electeur)
I'm more interested in the part in bold. I'm very confused by this double conditional construction AB. Literally I'd translate this as "If you were to end up throwing it away, I wonder how it would be if you kept hold of it". Whilst my translation is clearly gibberish, I can see how it might turn into the good translation, but only because I've seen the good translation. I certainly couldn't have worked that out for myself.
Could you provide some clarification (perhaps with simpler examples) on how to parse this sentence and on how the grammar works here?
|
> {} **** {} ****
In the original question, only one sentence was given without further context, which was all good because the question was about the usage of the .
I added my translation only as an extra service, so I did not explain anything about the construct in question.
The situation I had in mind was one in which someone, possibly the speaker herself, had originally decided to throw away or at least leaned toward throwing away an object, but its owner (again, possibly the speaker herself) is now leaning toward keeping it instead.
Assuming that that is what is happening, this would actually be closer to " _ **rather than**_ " in meaning and nuance than pure conditional. What I mean by this is that would be synonymous to **** .
A + + B means "B rather than A". Thus, this person is saying that might even be a better option than to . Thus, the speaker is making the suggestion of "how about keeping it" to herself or another person.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, conditionals"
}
|
Do I need to repeat the object + を in the response to a question?
I know that when answering a question, the topic + is implied and left out of the response because it's redundant. Is the same true for the direct object of the verb + ?
As an example, take the question
:
Would the response be
:
Or could it just be
Thanks for your help.
|
> I know that when answering a question, the topic + is implied and left out of the response because it's redundant. Is the same true for the direct object of the verb + ?
Yes, it is the same.
In a Japanese language class, however, the teacher might expect you to give the full answer {}{}.
In a real-life situation, native speakers often just reply , etc. to tell you the truth, but that does not mean that the beginning students should speak like that as well.
The verb is and not for watching something appreciatively. But then again, if you are being taught that it is in a beginning class, just use it for now.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle を"
}
|
Expressing 50% uncertainty
Could someone enlighten me on how to say: "I think I understand (it) right now, but I'm not entirely sure (I will understand it) in future"? The speaker feels their understanding could go either way: either they'll remember, or they won't. 50/50.
My (laughably poor) attempt would be:
>
Again, I'm sure that's probably riddle with errors. Yikes!
Many thanks in advance!
|
> {}{}{}{}
Just by the look of it, at least, I know that you tried very hard and that is what counts.
, when correctly used, expresses one's minimum hope as in wanting "at least this much". It is used to express a desire. Thus, it feels out of place in this context. Incidentally, , all by itself, covers what you want to say here.
is a bigger word than Japanese-learners tend to think. That I know for sure after having dealt with J-learners for a few decades. A good word to know, of course, but it is too big here.
You used three times in a short sentence and that is a little too many. This is, however, a minor thing compared to the two items I mentioned above.
So, how could we say this more naturally? We could say:
{}
/{}
{}
I personally recommend the last two even though they look quite different from your original sentence. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, word choice"
}
|
といった vs といって. What is correct? Why?
There is this sentence.
>
From and , which suits better here? Why?
Along with that can someone please explain what difference is made when changes to ?
|
Only using **** would be correct. Use **** and the sentence will **_not_** make much sense. It is not even a question of which one is "better".
> Enumerated items + + Noun
should be remembered almost as a set phrase meaning:
> "(Noun) such as (enumerated items)"
Thus,
> **** {}
means:
> "Japanese things such as tatami and shouji"
**** , therefore, is used to introduce actual examples of what one is talking about.
**** , however, is very different. It is used to tell the listener/reader what certain items are called **_and then_** to make an explanatory statement about those items. I am sure that **you have learned to use the form of a verb as a conjunction**.
For instance, you can say by pointing your finger to the items:
> **** {}{}{}{}
>
> "These are called 'tatami' and 'shouji', respectively, and they are items used in building houses in Japan."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
What is くらんたぁのクセして?
The following line is from the movie . Near the beginning of the movie, a yakuza guy () was collecting protection money on another guy's turf (). A moment later found this out and yelled:
!!!!!
I have no idea how to parse "." Is this somehow a yakuza slang or Hiroshima dialect? (this scene took place in Kure city, Hiroshima by the way).
|
* is the same as explained in this article. is less common.
* As for "", this word is actually (a form of postwar street gangs) said with an accent (source). I don't know if it's in a real Hiroshima accent, though.
* in this context is vocative "you", or . It sounds very rough and offensive (at least to speakers of modern standard Japanese).
>
> [ ]
* is just another derogatory word similar to "dummy" or "idiot".
= "Yo, you're a damn member and/but...".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, slang"
}
|
私に言われても versus 私が言われても
I am aware that "" means "to be told". My impression would be that "" means "Even if I told you..." while "" means "Even if I am told...".
But this site answer seems to suggest that another interpretation of "" is "Even if I am told..."
Is that a correct interpretation, and, if possible to explain, why?
|
**** is Suffering Passive (), a kind of Indirect Passive Structure (), and **** is Direct Passive Structure ().
(Active/) "You tell me."
→ Direct Passive: "I am told (by you)."
→ Indirect Passive: * "You tell me (and it affects me in some way)." This means "You do the action **** (you tell me) and it affects me or I am suffered/annoyed, etc." *The marks the indirect object of .
So... yes, that is a correct interpretation, and **** ... is actually far more natural and more common than **** ... for saying "Even if I'm told / Even if you tell me (I can't do anything)..."
For more about Indirect Passive, you could refer to:
* How to interpret indirect passives?
*
* Wikipedia
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, passive voice, ambiguity"
}
|
Difficult Katakana Gairaigo シュート
Many of us non-native japanese speakers have experienced the difficult of katakana . In this case I am having trouble translating the word **** Googling it, it seems that it means "shoot" but it does not make sense. So then I thought, maybe it means "shooter" (which to me sounds )
What do you think? Is there any other way to translate ?
(the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a machine to a particular place of that machine)
|
>
shootLeebochute
emergency escape chute
> the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a machine to a particular place of that machine
/ _letter chute_
"chute " "chuter "
# EDIT
_utilizing inclined paths or gravity_
> the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a machine to a particular place of that machine **by utilizing inclined paths or gravity**
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "katakana"
}
|
meaning of ことなんてない
Some context (this is from a Doraemon episode):
> 2
>
> …
So, this is something like:
> If you press this switch between two people, their life paths will be exchanged.
>
> But, for your information... It's not that (?) you may continue the life path of a person (?)
I don't understand the "" bit.
|
> .
It is used to **make light of a thing (~~)**.
> = "a thing like ~~", "something/anything such as ~~"
Thus,
> means:
>
> "there is nothing good (whatsoever)"
{} does _**not**_ mean a "person" in this context. **It means "another person" or "others"**. This is a very common mistake among Japanese-learners.
> "There wouldn't be anything good (whatsoever) if you lived the life of another person."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
}
|
Translation of "to buy a cat" vs "to own a cat"
This question is to confirm that the two verbs (to buy and to have) are homophones.
>
Could the above sentence be translated to "I have a cat" as well as "I am buying a cat"? Are there other ways to phrase the above sentence that are more specific to "buying" vs "having"?
|
Yes, they are homophones, and this is why kanji is important.
* []{} → to buy
* []{} → to keep/raise
I guess it _could_ technically be used to say "I'm buying a cat", but no one would ever think that if they heard you say it. If you really wanted to convey the fact that the action you're currently doing is buying a cat, you'd be better off using []{} or .
> *
> OR
> *
>
Even then, the latter is kind of suspect and could be ambiguous.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "homonyms"
}
|
How to say "famous quote" in Japanese?
Just like the title stated, I'm wondering how Japanese say quote or famous quote, since isn't the right translation for that meaning.
|
Most commonly, we would use:
{} or {}
{} or[Name] {}
{} is way off. It is used only in business for "quoting" a price.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word requests"
}
|
How are musical beats counted?
In English, it is common to count beats of music) using numbers for the beats and certain filler syllables for further subdivisions. What is the most common way to count beats in Japanese?
Adding some clarification from my comment below: For example, the bottom staff in this image shows sixteenth notes with the words "1 e & ah", and English speakers would chant "one e and ah, two e and ah..." along with the beat of the music. Is there a comparable set of syllables Japanese speakers say when counting, like " e and ah, e and ah..."?
()()() is arguably the most widely-used system for describing rhythms, and this particularly goes well with percussion instruments. I think this is basically a simplified version of "takatiki" in the article you linked.
* Japanese is mora-based, and some teachers take advantage of the fact.
* is very common for and such where you don't have to express anything complicated. Video.
* is equally common when practicing modern dance.
* If I understand correctly, is used by ballerinas, by _shamisen_ players, and by _taiko_ players.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "translation, music"
}
|
Alternate meaning for えぐい
One of the dictionary definitions for is "amazing".
I've never actually come across this sense of the word in any sentences. Does anyone have examples of where native writers have used to mean something like "amazing"?
|
That is why I don't like Jisho. It does not explain things; It just throws definitions at you.
"Amazing", or rather , is a new and slangy meaning of . It is used quite heavily among the younger generations nowadays. It is used far more often than you seem to think, too. Even I, who is not so young, used the word for that meaning to describe the excellent quality of the pizza served at my favorite pizzeria in Nagoya the other day.
We use the word for the same kind of new meaning these days as well. For both and , the new meaning is **_positive_** , which is the opposite of what Japanese-learners might think.
This video is all about homeruns, but you might want to check its title at least.
<
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "meaning, slang"
}
|
Question about と
Can Be written in
|
Both sentences are grammatical, but there's a small difference in meaning.
> *
> I (will) go to Japan with my sister.
> *
> My sister and I (will) go to Japan.
>
Depending on the context, one can be more natural than the other.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle と"
}
|
Native speakers, do you recognize the kanji 謳?
I saw this character in a manga today and it was the first time I'd seen it. Is this kanji something most native speakers would recognize?
|
I think virtually every adult native speaker knows this kanji (well, at least how to read it). The two _formal_ meanings of listed in any dictionary are "to openly celebrate/praise/glorify/enjoy" and "to publicly declare". See: jisho.org and this entry. In these senses, using is absolutely incorrect.
> *
> *
> *
> * 2
>
But you can always avoid using difficult kanji and stick to hiragana . See this discussion, too.
In addition, this is one of those kanji used in aesthetic writings to add some literary/poetic flavor (like vs , vs ). meaning "to sing" has many variations including , , , and . In lyrics, is used somewhat arbitrarily, and the difference may not be very important.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji"
}
|
やることもなく ; "doing nothing" or "doing nothing but/except"
Attempting to make some flashcards from the dialogue in _Dad of Light_ on Netflix.
Near the very beginning of Ep1, we have the following:
****
English subtitles read:
_I had nothing else better to do during summer vacation than lie on the kitchen floor and turn in circles using my legs._
my question is about -- I can think of two ways this could be:
"During summer vacation I did nothing. I was lying on the floor, turning in circles using my legs."
\--or--
"During summer vaction I did nothing _except_ lie on the floor, turning in circles using my legs."
Can anyone point me toward a resource to understand this usage? I found something close from user Chocolate here.
|
> ...
means "During summer vacation I _had nothing to do_ , and/so..."
→ "things to do" "something to do"
→ "have nothing do to" (≂ in your context)
cf:
→ "things to talk about"
→ "have nothing to talk about"
→ "things to write about"
→ "have nothing to write about"
→ "things to see"
→ "there's nothing to see"
The continuative form () **** is used here to connect two clauses, like a conjunction "and" or "so".
* * *
As for the replacing the , it's used to indicate...
> *
>
> **** ****
> \-- from (* categorizes /binding particle as /adverbial particle)
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
The nuance of "こと" in "まもなく雪が降ってくることでしょう"
As mentioned in the title, I want to ask the nuance of "" in this sentence
> ****
and the possible conditions or reasons that people won't just simply put it as:
>
|
Great question.
> {}{}
sounds **objective** and factual. You will hear that in **weather forecast**.
> ****
sounds more **subjective** than the first sentence. It carries within an _**emotion**_ of a sort. You would tend to hear that in some type of prose, poetry, personal letters, etc.
Without further context, we could not say what kind of feeling, anticipation, excitement or uneasiness the speaker is trying to imply, but we know that the coming of the snow is of some personal importance to the speaker. Perhaps, the speaker has a special kind of memory regarding snow. Only the context and/or the background story would tell us the significance of it.
Since the makes it subjective, it can sound somewhat poetic as well, which is why you do not want to hear the second sentence in weather forecast.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle こと"
}
|
毎月の月末 or 毎月末 to represent the last day of every month
I want to say
> The shop will close on the last day of every month.
Which is the correct one in Japanese?
A:
B:
|
Both sentences are fine, but sounds a little redundant to me. You may want to rephrase it as , , , , etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice"
}
|
Meaning of adverb followed by まで
> ****
> Experts think that this missile will fly _far enough to reach_ America.
I've never seen used with an adverb before. This translation is my best guess. Extrapolating from my guess I made this sentence:
>
> I will run fast enough to win the race.
Is this a natural sentence and does it mean what I think it means? Would this construction be used in everyday speech? If not, how would I express the same idea?
|
> {}{}{} **** {}{}
>
> Experts think that this missile will fly far enough to reach America.
Your translation is just plain good here if not literal.
It is, however, incorrect to translate:
> I will run fast enough to win the race.
to
> {}{} **** {}
The use of is incorrect here.
can only describe a _**physical distance**_ when combined with and followed by a verb like , but this sentence is all about a _**velocity**_ and not about a distance.
Thus, the correct way to say this would be:
> (or )
Using would be slightly more natural.
Finally, you stated:
> "I've never seen used with an adverb before. "
here is a _**noun**_ meaning .
<
{} is short for {}, which means a "noun".
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle まで"
}
|
Help transcribing a sentence
<
I'm trying to transcribe this sentence, what I have is the following but none of the characters seem to line up with words when looked up in a dictionary with the exception of ``.
|
Not sure if this is on-topic, but here is what she says:
> {}{}
meaning:
> "(Someone is)/(You are) a pitiful soul who cannot do anything except for unfair things."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": -2,
"tags": "transcription"
}
|
Why does ボウル use a vowel kana rather than a long vowel mark?
It seems like both and are valid Japanese words. The general impression I get is that using long vowel marks ("") are the norm for words written in katakana.
In Why are long vowels represented differently in hiragana and katakana? , explanations of vowel kanas being used instead include words that have kanji, or breaking up the sound. Maybe I'm just ignorant of how "bowl" is pronounced in either British English or American English, but neither explanation seems plausible. Why is spelt using a vowel kana?
Neither the Japanese Wikipedia article on , the Japanese edition of Wiktionary, or the English edition have an explanation for this particular word.
|
("bowl") is still often written as very few people (loanword pronunciation nazi types), actually pronounce the two differently. is pronounced by the rest of the nation.
(I never even knew that a sound like existed in this world until I started learning English in junior high school. I am sure you have heard Japanese-speakers pronounce "Oh, no!" as .)
One major reason that some prefer the spelling would be that is already reserved for "ball". The former would just look a bit cooler to certain people, but as native Japanese-speakers, we all know that to pronounce in 3 syllables is highly counterintuitive. It will simply make you stick out in the Japanese-speaking world.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "loanwords, long vowels"
}
|
ということで in this sentence?
>
I'm often troubled when I see in the middle of a sentence. Looking at this sentence makes me wonder if there isn't some kind of "because" or "since" meaning implied with , but as I'm not sure I'd like your opinion on it.
|
You are thinking in the right direction.
>
means:
> "Since/Because/As ~~ (is the case)"
Thus, the sentence:
> {}{}{}{}
means:
> "Since Gouda and Kumazawa were in charge (of the chore) at the guest house, it was arranged that they would show me to the guest house."
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
名詞になる versus 名詞する versus 名詞だ
I noticed there are certain nouns that can be used in , , and forms.
For example:
She is pregnant/bored/injured/a nurse/lying face down.
I seem to me that the nouns in this case must represent physical states. Correct me if I am wrong.
Is there any difference?
|
Are you sure you have seen all of these combinations? They don't even belong to the same word class.
is a plain noun that can be used with //. It's not a suru-verb:
> * () She works as a nurse. ( can be dropped only in a very casual sentence)
> * She has become a nurse.
> * She is a/the nurse. (exhaustive-listing _ga_ )
>
// is a suru-verb. / optionally takes .
> * She is pregnant.
> * (makes little sense to me unless you want to say "she's got a pregnant/disgusted/injured condition" in a game context, etc)
> * (not entirely impossible, but sounds blunt or clumsy)
>
is a no-adjective.
> * (ungrammatical)
> * She is lying face down.
> * She is lying face down.
>
See: Replacing with
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
}
|
Are the Japanese し and the Mandarin "xi" really both [ɕ]?
I've had this question for several months now, and haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer online.
The Japanese and the Mandarin "xi", as in , are listed equivalently as [[ɕ] in the IPA](
However, my girlfriend and I can fairly clearly tell the difference between these two sounds, even after trying to isolate the consonant in the above words. (She is a native Japanese speaker learning Mandarin, and I am the opposite.)
Are we imagining things, or is there actually a slight difference in [ɕ] between languages? If the latter, are they marked as identical in the IPA because no single language differentiates between the Mandarin [ɕ] and the Japanese [ɕ]?
|
As with all IPA transcriptions, for a consonant to be regarded as the voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant ɕ, it only needs to fulfil certain conditions (which are listed under the 'Features' section in that Wikipedia link). This does not mean that the set of conditions reduce to a unique phoneme; it is highly possible that the variety of actual sounds fulfilled by the transcription ɕ can be differentiated by someone with more sensitive hearing abilities. The following is a comparison between Mandarin **xī** and Japanese **** :
* xī
*
As a native speaker of Mandarin, I cannot tell the difference between the consonants, but if you **can** tell the difference, I suspect that you may hear subtle differences in the pronunciation of ɕ in the other language audio examples in that Wikipedia link.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "phonology, phonetics"
}
|
How to stay "chest out"
I tried Google Translate and just get . Other dictionaries do not provide any meaningful results. This is a common phrase used in sports training. I cannot believe there is no Japanese equivalent.
|
As an imperative: {}{} or
Name of a pose: {}{}{}, etc.
Drop the from the expressions above and you will have the verb phrases.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "set phrases"
}
|
Why the te-form 開けて is used here
In an episode on Crayon Shin-Chan, Shin-Chan says
>
In this situation, he was knocking the door (For the second time he was knocking. His mom has already told him that he should properly say "I'm home", as he didn't use the proper greeting. Shin-Chan replied that "You should not take a child's words too seriously".)
Shin-Chan's mom replies from inside the house
>
She was angry on him for returning home late.
Jisho says there is this verb , which may mean
> to open (a door, etc.)
But why Shin-Chan uses the te-form of the verb? He could at most use the imperative form of the verb, which is .
Another question, why Shin-Chan's mom uses the polite masu-form of the verb with her kid, while Shin-Chan didn't use it with her mom?
|
Technically speaking, {} in this context/situation is **_not_** in the te-form.
Rather, the here is a sentence-ending particle that is used to form a **_request_** or a **_light kind of imperative_**. This usage of is _extremely_ common in informal Japanese.
Thus, means the same thing as or , meaning "(Please) open (the door)!". Shin-chan is not using the te-form even though it is physically the same as the te-form. The grammar and meaning/usage is completely different from the te-form.
> Another question, why Shin-Chan's mom uses the polite masu-form of the verb with her kid, while Shin-Chan didn't use it with her mom?
It is not uncommon for Japanese moms to use the masu-form with their kids and husbands. This may sound weird to you, but not to us native speakers.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "て form"
}
|
Meaning of 聞いています in this sentence
Regarding videos made by some Taiwanese organisations about the plight of the people of :
> ****
> In the videos _we are hearing/ have heard_ stories, after the accident, from a person who has again become able to live in the town she once lived in, and from an old lady whose husband died in the tsunami.
The full text may be helpful here.
I'm confused about either the meaning or the conjugation of in this sentence and who the subject of the verb is. I would expect it to translate as either "You/one will hear... " or "You/one can hear...", where the implied subject is the reader of the article, but that would be either or wouldn't it? Neither "You are hearing" nor "You have heard" really seem to fit the sentence well at all.
|
An insightful question, this is (and you know I do not say that very often).
First, the implied subject. It is the people who have produced this video; It is **_not_** the viewers.
So, in English, it would be "they" as it is the news reporter that is speaking here. It is not "you" the audience.
Moving on to the tense and the meaning...
The meaning of the expression {}{} in its dictionary form is " **to listen to someone's story", "to listen to what someone has to say", "to interview someone** ", etc.
Finally, the tense of . It is the equivalent of " **(they) have interviewed** ".
It is **_not_** the same tense (present progressive) as in {}{}("Someone is listening to the radio now.")
Context is everything in Japanese.
EDIT: You yourself answered a question regarding the very same tense here:
Difference between "verb(past) + + " and "verb + "
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations"
}
|
Why is て form used here?
=>"Thank you **that** you have given the favor of doing a friend request."
What I expressed in my translation is something which usually gives me a lot of trouble when I try to express it in japanese. Until now, I wasn't aware that -form is suitable in japanese for the phrase which is expressed through the "that-clause" in my translation. However, is the construction in the sentence in question always appropriate? For example:
Is it formal/colloquial? Is it used in both written and oral communication?
|
Yes, `te-form + // + ()` is basically `Thank you for `. In general, this te-form is denoting a reason, and this is explained in this article. It's not particularly formal nor casual, but in very formal situations, you need more formal wordings (something that corresponds to "I would like to express my deepest gratitude" rather than "Thank you"), anyway.
is wrong, and the reason is explained in the article above, too. It's wrong because it contains the speaker's will in the latter half of the sentence.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, て form, conjunctions"
}
|
What does あとな mean here?
Is it "And my name is Balthazar" or "My last name is Balthazar"?
|
**** is a light and informal way of saying " **in addition** " and it has the same kind of nuance as " **Oh, before I forget,** ~~".
Think of as a variant of , the sentence-ending particle.
You can say just without a sentence-ender in informal speech. Or rather, I should say that is not used in formal speech. In formal speech, you would use **** .
Seems to me like someone had mispronounced 's name and is now correcting it, but if that is not the case, please forget this comment.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
}
|
What does 稀な公募 mean?
I am translating a personal statement and when talking about his work experience, the writer has stated
Is it saying that 'he implemented a system by which people from the wider private sector are recruited in selective public recruitment'. Does this mean the job is advertised widely?
Also I don't understand . How can a company have no record of hiring people?
Please help!
|
There seems to be a parsing issue here.
It is not {}{}.
It is {}{}.
≒ {}
> Does this mean the job is advertised widely?
At least "publicly" so, if not so "widely". How widely, we could not tell from this passage alone.
The speaker utilized a method that was ("rare, uncommon") for the city hall to recruit.
> Also I don't understand {}{}. How can a company have no record of hiring people?
Again, a parsing error.
It means " **the private companies from which the city hall has never recruited people** ". It is saying (or implying) that if you advertize the position openings too widely, you might end up hiring untalented people.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, nuances, set phrases, business japanese"
}
|
Why is it 「ロワイアル」?
Always loved the "Battle royale" anime, but am curious about why in the Japanese title it's.
Shouldn't it be something like, if you wanted to match the French pronunciation? Why the?
(I know royal is)
|
Pretty simply, because there's a /w/ in the French _royale_ /rwajal/. The onset cluster /rw/ is not allowed in Japanese phonotactics, so one of two repair strategies must be used:
1. Epenthesis (inserting a sound to break up the consonant cluster)
2. Deletion (removing a sound to eliminate the consonant cluster)
In Japanese loanword phonology, both strategies are used, but epenthesis is much more common. The vowel /o/ is inserted between /rw/ and the result is .
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 39,
"question_score": 21,
"tags": "pronunciation, katakana"
}
|
What's the meaning of 私たち三人? Does it make sense?
What's the meaning of ? Does that make sense in japanese? I found the translation "the three of us" on Google Translate. However, I want to know if that make sense in japanese. If not, What would be the best translation for "the three of us"?
E.g.: In Spanish the direct trasnlation using Google Translate would be "nosotros tres" and in Portuguese "nós os três". The Spanish translation is ok, it would work. But for Portuguese I guess the best translation would be "nós três", since "nós os três" doesn't make sense in Portuguese.
|
{}{} makes perfect sense. In fact, it is probably the most common way of saying "the three of us" in Japanese.
Since Japanese has many pronouns for "we" as I hope you know, you will also be seeing/hearing:
, etc.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
}
|
羨ましく思える か 羨ましいと思える か
. **** ****
**** ****
|
>
I think they are almost the same.
>
The former usually takes a person as a subject, whereas the latter usually describes an inanimate object (either as a predicate or as a relative clause). You can compare them with similar English pairs such as "to envy" and "enviable", "to regret" and "regrettable".
*
*
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
}
|
What does this で in でいいですか do?
"Are you well, Andreas?"
Obviously this doesn't prevent me from understanding the sentence. However, what does it add to the sentence?
|
This is a sort of situation/method/means marker, and the sentence is confirming is the right name, choice, etc. "Is it okay if I used Andreas-san?" is a terrible translation but should help you understand the gist of the sentence.
For example, this is used in the following situations.
* You're seeing bad handwritten characters, and want someone to confirm if it really reads "Andreas".
* You're discussing with your boss who to hire, and you're about to conclude you will hire Andreas.
* Your team has a bothersome task, which you have to assign to someone. You're trying to ask Andreas if he can do it for the team.
|
stackexchange-japanese
|
{
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle で"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.