question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56086",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> アザラシは寒い海にいることが多い動物です。 \n> The アザラシ is an animal that often lives in cold seas.\n\nI'm not entirely sure that 'often' is the right translation here. How does\nthis sentence differ in meaning/nuance from:\n\n> アザラシは寒い海によくいる動物です。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-20T19:10:21.970",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56075",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-18T23:22:15.580",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Difference between よく + verb, and verb + ことが多い",
"view_count": 1135
}
|
[
{
"body": "よく and ～V+ことが多い are basically the same meaning. The difference would be\nsentence construction.\n\nThe following sentences would have the same meaning:\n\n> 秀樹さんは図書館に行くことが多い。Hideki goes to the library often.\n>\n> 秀樹さんはよく図書館に行きます。Hideki often goes to the library.\n\n&\n\n> アザラシはよく寒い海にいる Seals spend much time in the cold ocean.\n>\n> アザラシは寒い海にいることが多い Seals spend much time in the cold ocean (are in the cold\n> ocean much).\n\nIncidentally, the sentence does not say that seals ‘live’ in cold seas, but\nthat seals ‘are in (found in)’ cold seas. Also, somewhat of a quibble, but to\nsay ‘ocean’ instead of ‘sea’ would be more appropriate.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T00:34:47.040",
"id": "56082",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T00:34:47.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56075",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "In your specific case, 寒い海にいることが多い and 寒い海によくいる are interchangeable, and they\nboth mean \"to be often seen/found in cold waters.\" (Note that these sentences\ndo not mean individual earless seals often migrate from cold waters to other\nplaces.)\n\nIn general, ～ことが多い and よく are not always interchangeable. ～ことが多い means:\n\n 1. often; frequently \n\n> * 日曜日はテニスをすることが多い。 I often play tennis on Sundays.\n\n 2. there are many things to ～ \n\n> * 日曜日はすることが多い。 I have lots of things to do on Sundays.\n\nよく also means several things depending on the context:\n\n 1. often; frequently \n\n> * 彼はバナナをよく食べる。 He often eats bananas.\n> * ここでタクシーをよく見る。 I often see taxis here.\n\n 2. well; much; intensively \n\n> * 彼はよく食べる。 He is a good eater.\n> * あのタクシーをよく見ろ。 Look at that taxi carefully.\n\nThat said, I think よくいる and いることが多い are almost always interchangeable.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T04:58:19.287",
"id": "56086",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-18T23:22:15.580",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-18T23:22:15.580",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56075",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56075
|
56086
|
56086
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56084",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have come across this issue a number of times. I am studying Japanese at\nHigh School, so I only know about 200 kanji. When I write words that consist\nof more than two kanji characters, I am unsure whether it is acceptable to\nwrite a word with the kanji I know, but also with hiragana to replace the\nkanji that I don't know.\n\nHere are some examples:\n\n 1. 以来 - I know the second kanji, but not the first. Is it alright to write it as い来?\n 2. 図書館 - I only know the second kanji. Is it alright to write it as と書かん?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-20T23:48:55.350",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56079",
"last_activity_date": "2019-01-31T03:31:18.280",
"last_edit_date": "2018-11-14T13:53:53.297",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "21867",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"orthography",
"kana"
],
"title": "Is it acceptable to use kanji and hiragana in the same word if a kanji character is unknown?",
"view_count": 4221
}
|
[
{
"body": "When one of the characters in a set of characters is rare, contains many\nstrokes, or is hard to read for a large segment of the population, Japanese\nwill sometimes write it in kana. Both 以来 and 図書館 do not follow this example,\nthough. They are commonly viewed as a well-known set and viewed not so much as\nseparate characters placed together to create a meaning as they are seen as a\nwhole.\n\nThe basic rule is that there is no special reading for the character\ncombination (漢語). For example, 田舎 is only read as いなか, if you were to change\nit to 田なか it would be very strange and people would assume you meant 田中.\n\nWords that might be acceptable (though not common) as simplified would be:\n豌豆→えん豆 続柄→つづき柄. For example, in supermarkets/convenience stores, they might\nsubstitute a more difficult kanji with ひらがな if most people have a hard time\nreading it.\n\nActually, [土嚢]{どのう} is a better example of words that commonly substitute one\nkanji for kana. The Japanese word for ‘sandbag’ is often written as\n[土のう](https://www.irisplaza.co.jp/IMAGE/HK/PRODUCT/H502891.jpg?iup=171106), as\nthe use of 嚢 is so infrequent. Also, 子供 can be written as 子ども.\n\nAnother example of discretionary product naming: 牛肩ロース is changed to\n[牛かたロース](http://macrobiotic-daisuki.jp/cms/wp-\ncontent/uploads/002-1-450x275.png).\n\n*Do not take this as an endorsement to avoid learning and using any and all 漢字 that you can.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T01:31:51.823",
"id": "56083",
"last_activity_date": "2019-01-31T03:31:18.280",
"last_edit_date": "2019-01-31T03:31:18.280",
"last_editor_user_id": "30123",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56079",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "There's a few different things going on in your question:\n\n 1. A general question about whether you can write words in mixed kanji kana orthography\n 2. An implicit question about when you can / cannot do so. \n 3. Two specific examples\n\nStarting with the first question, all Japanese language users including native\nspeakers write some words using a mixture of kana and kanji. This happens for\nat least three reasons. First, when taking notes or writing quickly, there's\nnot always time to write a 20 stroke character. So for something like 機会, you\nwill often see people write キ会. The same thing happens when you _hear_ but\ndon't see a person's name, you have to write it in kana (especially for ones\nwith more than one common way to write it).\n\nSecond, the list of kanji taught in schools is managed by a government (or\nsemi-governmental) entity and there are some things that are not on this list.\nAnd that means there are some parts of words that are not normally written in\nkanji -- like 処方せん (処方箋 if it were all kanji).\n\nThird, there are some things like とる, みる where there are many different kanji\nand it's hard to know which one fits best with a particular activity. Non-\nnative speakers like me are _worse_ at this than native speakers, but native\nspeakers also wind up just writing these in kana when unsure (this is separate\nfrom the use of みる as helping verb that means to try in which case it should\nalways be written in kana).\n\nSo, the answer to your general question is **yes** and I've given three cases\nwhere everyone does it.\n\nA fourth case is books for children. These will only include characters the\nchild is expected to know and start adding more and more kanji as the grade\nlevel goes up.\n\nMoving to your two specific examples, I've seen 図書館 written as としょかん in pre-\nschools and elementary schools. For two reasons, I think writing it と書かん might\nbe slightly confusing. First, 図 and 書 are both learned in the second grade, so\nit's weird to have one but not the other. Second, と also functions as a\nparticle so if someone cannot tell where the word break is (remembering there\nare no spaces in Japanese), then it's going to be harder to read than pure\nkana or pure kanji.\n\nI think 以来 would be hard to understand if written as い来. Here because くる is\nsuch a common verb and い is the ending for Japanese adjectives, there's going\nto be a lot of potential for this to make it more confusing.\n\nMaybe others disagree with me on this.\n\nOne final thought is that I think it's \"acceptable\" and probably beneficial in\n_language-learning_ contexts to write this way -- meaning when you submit\nsomething to your teacher, they can help you know whether you're making\nprogress if you do this, but it's (in my view) less \"acceptable\" in general\ncommunication in Japanese for the reasons I suggest above.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T02:09:01.053",
"id": "56084",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T02:09:01.053",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4091",
"parent_id": "56079",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
}
] |
56079
|
56084
|
56084
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> しかし、 **期待を胸に** 中学校に赴任すると、理想と現実は大きくかけ離れていました。\n\n> 加藤さんは **大切な手紙を手に** 再び「パナマ」へ向かいます。\n\n> 彼女は **手紙を手に** 、階下へ降りてきた。\n\nIs に turning these nouns into adverbs?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-20T23:54:59.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56081",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-22T07:40:22.813",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-22T07:40:22.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "25980",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"syntax",
"particle-に",
"phrases"
],
"title": "Can we turn nouns into adverb by adding に?",
"view_count": 456
}
|
[
{
"body": "None of your examples are being used as adverbs.\n\nYour first example is the fault of lack of comma usage. Read this way:\n\n> 「しかし、期待を胸に、中学校に赴任すると、理想と現実は大きくかけ離れていました。」 But, with my hope in my heart, I\n> transferred to junior-high, whereupon my dreams and reality drifted apart\n> dramatically. - - - - 胸に = in my heart\n\nThe other two examples are the same as far as using 手に (in hand), with one of\nthem simply not containing a comma.\n\n> 「加藤さんは大切な手紙を手に（、）再び「パナマ」へ向かいます。」 \n> Kato took the important letter in hand, and headed again for Panama.\n>\n> 「彼女は手紙を手に、階下へ降りてきた。」 She took the letter in hand, and came down to the\n> hallway.\n\nRules for use of commas are not quite as strict as in English. Usage also\nvaries by writer. Often, where we would expect to see a break in the sentence\nthere is none. Learning how to parse these types of sentences takes time.\n\nIf you do want to change nouns into adjectives or adverbs, use ～的 or ～的に as\ndetailed [here](http://learnjapanese.becauseofdreams.com/2017/08/10/how-to-\nturn-nouns-into-adjectives-and-adverbs-with-%E7%9A%84-%E3%81%A6%E3%81%8D/).\n\nAlso recommend that you get used to using「」 for open/close quotes in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T04:16:10.650",
"id": "56085",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T06:18:19.063",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56081",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
] |
56081
| null |
56085
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56094",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "An American boxer has been living in Japan for 3 years. He lives in the Kansai\narea, so he speaks Kansai dialect. He complains that after 3 years in Japan he\nstill hasn't fought against a really strong opponent, then he says this\nsentence:\n\n> ちゃんと強いヒトホンマ相手頼んますわ〰 ほな前座はこれにて――― 閉店ガラガラガラ――\n\n[Here you can see the whole page](https://i.stack.imgur.com/q0E48.jpg). What\nis the meaning of the second part of the sentence, in particular 閉店ガラガラガラ? Is\nthat Kansai-ben too? Thank you for your help!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T11:29:39.790",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56091",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T13:18:22.457",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"manga",
"dialects",
"kansai-ben",
"sports"
],
"title": "Meaning of 閉店ガラガラガラ in the following sentence",
"view_count": 562
}
|
[
{
"body": "ガラガラガラ is an onomatopeia representing the RATTLE NOISE of opening or closing a\nsliding door. In the given phrase, the noise means closing the door for \"閉店\nlit. _closing a store/shop for the day_ \".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T11:59:20.770",
"id": "56092",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T12:22:30.420",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-21T12:22:30.420",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56091",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "「ほな前座はこれにて」 → \"Well then, that's it for the opening act.\"\n\n「閉店ガラガラ」 is one of the signature shticks of the comedian\n[岡田圭右](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B2%A1%E7%94%B0%E5%9C%AD%E5%8F%B3), of\nthe Kansai comedy duo ますだおかだ, typically used at the end of their comedy\nsessions. (「閉店」 means the closing of a shop and 「ガラガラ」 is here an onomatopoeia\nfor the shutter being pulled down.) The extra 「ガラ」 in the manga could be a\nprecaution against a potential lawsuit.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T12:59:58.427",
"id": "56094",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T13:18:22.457",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-21T13:18:22.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "11575",
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "56091",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
56091
|
56094
|
56094
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56110",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am curious about the tense of ”知る” because both present and past tenses are\noften used.\n\n> 1. 来月、このビルが **壊されます** 。 **知っていました** か。(present, past)\n>\n> 2. 彼女がどこへ **行った** か **知っています** か。(past, present)\n>\n> 3. 〇〇ってどこに **ある** か **知っています** か。(present, present)\n>\n>\n\nAnd, another observation is the tense of \"知る\" doesn't correlate with the tense\nof the object.\n\nMy intuition/interpretation is:\n\n 1. The dismantle of the building is in the future, but the news was released before now. Both past tense and present are fine.\n\n 2. Not sure / No intuition\n\n 3. The existence of an object is regarded as an \"present action\" and therefore present tense only.\n\nIs there any rule to tell when we can use \"知っている\" only, and when \"知っていた\" only,\nand when both are interchangeable?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T12:29:54.160",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56093",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T02:08:12.147",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"tense"
],
"title": "The different usage of「知っている」and「知っていた」",
"view_count": 1174
}
|
[
{
"body": "I'd interpret those sentences as\n\n> 来月、このビルが壊されます。知っていましたか。(present, past)\n\nDid you (already) know (so past tense) that that building will (future) be\ndestroyed? In Japanese future is expressed with a present tense.\n\n> 彼女がどこへ行ったか知っていますか。\n\nDo you (in this moment, present tense) know where she has gone? (she's already\ngone somewhere, so a past verb is required)\n\n> 〇〇ってどこにあるか知っていますか\n\nAs the previous question, the speaker is asking if in this moment we know that\npiece of information.\n\n> Is there any rule to tell when we can use \"知っている\" only, and when \"知っていた\"\n> only, and when both are interchangeable?\n\nThe former is used for present situations (it's like a present continuous,\nsince it's a て form) while the latter is the same form, but in a past tense.\nThere are some rules which require a specific tense, for example 方がいいです form\n(that translates to \"you'd better do ...\") always want a past tense in a plane\nform like 知っていた。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T21:04:34.917",
"id": "56096",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T21:04:34.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27395",
"parent_id": "56093",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "知っていましたか is used to provide information the listener might not know. In\nEnglish it's \"Did you know _< fact I already know>_?\" 知っていますか is sometimes\nused in the same situation, but it is mainly used to get information the\nlistener is expected to have. \"Do you know _< fact I want to know>_?\" or \"Can\nyou tell me ～?\"\n\nThe tense of the information itself (target of 知る) has nothing to do with the\nchoice between 知っていましたか and 知っていますか.\n\n> * 彼が明日何をするか知っていますか。 \n> Do you know what he will do tomorrow?\n> * 彼が今何をしているか知っていますか。 \n> Do you know what he is doing now?\n> * 彼が昨日何をしたか知っていますか。 \n> Do you know what he did yesterday?\n> * 彼が明日結婚すると知っていましたか。 \n> Did you know he will marry tomorrow?\n> * 彼が昨日結婚したと知っていましたか。 \n> Did you know he married yesterday?\n>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T02:08:12.147",
"id": "56110",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T02:08:12.147",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56093",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56093
|
56110
|
56110
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56107",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 北海道の海岸に向かう途中で、川に入ってしまった **の** かもしれません。 \n> They might have ended up entering the river en route to the Hokkaido coast.\n\nWhat is の (in bold) doing in this sentence? It was my understanding that\nかもしれない came straight after the predicate.\n\nMy guess is that this is the so-called 'explanatory の' rather than a\nnominaliser. Please can you confirm or correct my thoughts?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T18:51:32.113",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56095",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:22:09.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-の",
"no-da"
],
"title": "Use of の with かもしれない",
"view_count": 1075
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, this is a typical example of\n[explanatory-の](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5398/5010). Looking at\nthe\n[source](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011292341000/k10011292341000.html),\nwe can see this sentence is trying to explain _why_ the アザラシ was found in the\nmountain.\n\n> * 川に入ってしまいました。 \n> The animal ended up entering the river.\n> * 川に入ってしまったのです。 \n> It is that the animal ended up entering the river.\n> * 川に入ってしまったかもしれません。 \n> The animal may have ended up entering the river.\n> * 川に入ってしまったのかもしれません。 \n> It may be that the animal ended up entering the river.\n>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T00:24:23.703",
"id": "56107",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:22:09.563",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T01:22:09.563",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56095",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56095
|
56107
|
56107
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I would like to know the difference in nuance between V-るほうがいい and V-たほうがいい.\nFor example, I have heard both 休むほうがいいand 休んだほうがいい. Over the years I have\nheard different explanation about the difference among these two grammatical\nforms, but I am still not really sure about it. From what I gather, V-るほうがいい\nis stronger than V-たほうがいい and it can imply that it is a general advise that\ncan be applied in different situations, and thus, it doesn not only apply to\nthe present situation. Moreover, V-るほうがいい does not refer only to the listener,\nbut it can also refer to the speaker him self, such in the case of 休むほうがいい\nthat could also mean \"we should take a break\". Is it correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T21:06:32.360",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56097",
"last_activity_date": "2018-03-22T23:41:11.673",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25880",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the difference between V-るほうがいい and V-たほうがいい?",
"view_count": 2924
}
|
[
{
"body": "Normally, the simple statement 'we should rest' would be 僕たちは休んだ方がいい。\n\nThere is a good answer on Yahoo 知恵袋\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1314629248),\nwhich draws a comparison between 「カゼのときは、早く寝るほうがいい」and 「きょうはもう帰って寝たほうがいいよ」.\nLook under ベストアンサーに選ばれた回答.\n\nBasically, the difference detailed in the explanation is between 'what you\n(personally) should do' and 'what one should normally do in this situation'.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T23:10:15.643",
"id": "56104",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T23:10:15.643",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56097",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "These are basically the same thing, with a slightly stronger nuance for た方がいい.\nBut they both express \"had better\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T23:14:50.563",
"id": "56105",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T23:14:50.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "56097",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56097
| null |
56104
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56106",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is a rather straightforward question. I have the following line said by\nperson H to person G.\n\n> H: みんなが来るって聞いてたからお菓子焼いてたんだ～ 絶賛仕上げ中{ちゅう}\n\nIt's an answer to unvoiced question of G to H about what M is doing since M\nwas not able to come and greet G and friends as they were entering the home.\n\nThe first bit is rather easy and should mean the following:\n\n> Since we heard everyone will be coming, we’ve been making sweets/candy.\n\nThe second bit I think means something like this:\n\n> She is putting finishing touches right now.\n\nsince 仕上げ is finishing touches and 中{ちゅう} probably indicates that M is right\nnow in the process of doing the finishing touches.\n\nWhat I wonder is what purpose does 絶賛 serve here. It's supposedly means high\npraise. But I for the love of me can't figure out what it would be doing in a\nsentence like this.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T21:35:32.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56098",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T00:58:33.263",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T00:58:33.263",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 絶賛 in 絶賛仕上げ中 mean?",
"view_count": 315
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is a wordplay on 絶賛販売中, a set phrase used in the same way as \"Now on\nsale\" or \"In store now\". 絶賛 literally means \"highly praised\" or \"great\nreview\", but marketers add this word routinely even when the item is not\nparticularly popular. 好評発売中 is similar.\n\nIn this case, 絶賛～中 is rather straightforwardly used to incite a sense of\nexpectancy. Sometimes this phrase is jokingly used even with something bad,\nfor example 絶賛残業中 or 絶賛失業中. See: [Help with the meaning of 大絶賛 in this\nsentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/17527/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T23:52:21.230",
"id": "56106",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T00:34:01.000",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T00:34:01.000",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56098",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56098
|
56106
|
56106
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "\"Tsh\" sound like someone would say, I'm not sure what to call it, a snort\nmaybe? Vegeta in Dragon Ball often makes this sound.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T22:17:40.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56099",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:08:11.483",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27396",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How to write \"tsh\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 203
}
|
[
{
"body": "Isn't it ちゅ? Sometimes like for ます、です う is not pronounced. I hope I helped you\n:) Maybe this onomatopoeias : ちゅっ [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zXqxd.png)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T22:23:25.793",
"id": "56101",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-21T22:30:31.523",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-21T22:30:31.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "27333",
"owner_user_id": "27333",
"parent_id": "56099",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -3
},
{
"body": "チェッ、ちぇ、ちっ、チッ、ちぇっ. A form of 舌打ち{したうち｝ As in 「チッ、くだらん、なにがホグワーツ魔法学校だ！」 Weblio\ndefinition link [here](https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%83%81%E3%83%83).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T22:44:19.647",
"id": "56103",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:08:11.483",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T01:08:11.483",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56099",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56099
| null |
56103
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56108",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When I learn new words in Japanese (using jisho.org), I often see a verb like\nfor example \"to drive\" as 乗り回す and 運転する, \"to study\" as 学ぶ and 勉強する, \"to\nunderstand\" 分かる and 了解する, why ?? Why is there for the same English verb both a\nverb and another as Noun+suru in Japanese ? Do we use both of them as we want,\nor is there a rule to know what verb to use ? Do they mean the same thing ? Is\nthere one that is more often used ?\n\nI'm confused, and because there is a lot of English verbs that has 2\ntranslation in Japanese, it makes the study of the language harder. Thank you\n:)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T22:19:56.057",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56100",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-04T23:27:54.913",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-04T23:27:54.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "27333",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"verbs",
"wago-and-kango"
],
"title": "U/RU verbs vs Noun+Suru verbs",
"view_count": 638
}
|
[
{
"body": "The verbs with する (aka suru-verbs) are part of [Sino-Japanese\nvocabulary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_vocabulary) (aka 漢語\n_kango_ ). Ones without する are part of native Japanese vocabulary (aka 和語\n_wago_ or [_Yamato kotoba_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_kotoba)). If\nyou already know _on_ and _kun_ readings of a kanji, you can see most suru-\nverbs use _on_ readings, and most u-/ru-verbs use _kun_ readings.\n\nTherefore, the basic tendency is that suru-verbs, as _kango_ , look stiffer,\nmore technical or academic. U-/ru-verbs, as _wago_ , are preferred in casual\nconversations. Unfortunately, there are some exceptions, and ultimately you'll\nhave to learn the usage of each verb from real examples.\n\nFinally, the verb pairs you listed as examples are not really the same in\nmeaning. I won't go into each example, but for 学ぶ vs 勉強する, see: [Differences\nbetween 勉強する、習う、学ぶ and 学習する?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/18645/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T01:11:50.407",
"id": "56108",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:42:20.433",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T01:42:20.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56100",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "As a couple of your examples did not actually have identical meanings, I will\nfocus on the one that better illustrates the nature of your question, namely\n了解 vs. 分かる.\n\n分かる is a general term for knowing something. It does not specifically imply\nfull comprehension.\n\n了解{りょうかい｝する is used with peers or people of lower status (corporate or social\nenvironments). Equivalent to saying ‘Roger’, ‘10-4’, or ‘Got it’. As 了解 is\ngenerally associated with military speech, it can be difficult to use it in\nmost formal situations.\n\n承知｛しょうち｝する means the same as 分かる, but is used with people who are above you in\nrank or status (customers, bosses).\n\nかしこまりました means the same thing as 分かりました and is used in the same context as\n承知しました. It is used as an affirmative that you have understood when addressing\nthose of higher position.\n\n理解｛りかい｝する is used to specify comprehension (full understanding).\n\nAs you can see, most of these have different meanings, nuances, or specific\nsituations to be used in.\n\nAs an example of a 訓読み and 漢語｛かんご｝ which mean the same thing, take the\nfollowing example:\n\n保持｛ほじ｝ is an amalgamation of 保つ｛たもつ｝ (to keep; retain; maintain) and 持つ｛もつ｝\n(to have, to hold). In English it would be ‘retain’ or ‘maintain’, usually\nused interchangeably with 保つ.\n\nThe reason that one or the other would be used is arbitrary, reflecting the\nenvironment that it is used in and/or the impression that the speaker wishes\nto convey. Aside from a simple literary inclination on the part of the speaker\nthere is really no substantive difference in nuance. \n漢語 usually sounds more educated, thus is preferred in academic surroundings.\nIf used in casual situations, however, it might sound stiff and too formal.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T01:31:40.963",
"id": "56109",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T01:31:40.963",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56100",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56100
|
56108
|
56108
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I am reading Cardcaptor Sakura in order to practice my comprehension. I see a\nlot of pre-masu form verbs followed by し, and I am not sure if they are the\n\"giving reasons\" し, the \"connecting ideas\" し, or something else entirely.\n\nHere are some example sentences that I have had trouble with:\n\n> カードに宿{やど}り **し** 魔{ま}力{りょく}をこの鍵{かぎ}に移{うつ}し我{われ}に力{ちから}を！ \n> (in this sentence, I want to know what the し in 宿{やど}りし does)\n>\n> 「クロウ」の創{つく}り **し** カードよ \n> (in this sentence I want to know what the し in 創{つく}りし does)\n\nThank you very much for your help",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-21T22:33:27.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56102",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-17T10:17:09.577",
"last_edit_date": "2019-09-17T10:17:09.577",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27397",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"auxiliary-き"
],
"title": "What does [Verb Pre-Masu Form] + [shi] do in this context?",
"view_count": 1344
}
|
[] |
56102
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In what situations would someone use one of the following forms over the\nothers when requesting the action やる?\n\n 1. やってくれる?\n 2. やってくれない?\n 3. やってくれ\n 4. やって(ください)\n\nMy assumption is that the first two would translate more along the lines of\n\"Could you do it?\" while the last two would translate to \"Please do it.\" (Am I\ncorrect?) But between (1) and (2) and between (3) and (4), what are the\ndifferences?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T02:26:35.010",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56111",
"last_activity_date": "2018-09-29T22:01:12.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances",
"giving-and-receiving"
],
"title": "Different inflectional forms of くれる",
"view_count": 301
}
|
[
{
"body": "Not 'can', but 'will'.\n\n 1. Would you do it (for me)? (Spoken by a girlfriend, close female relation)\n 2. Won't you do it (for me)? (Spoken by friends, classmates, co-workers) \n 3. Please do it [gruff]. (Spoken by authority figures)\n 4. Please do it [straight]. (Same as 3, with a slight attempt to not sound so gruff)\n\nThere is no great substantive difference in meaning between (1) and (2). (1)\njust sounds more cutesy. (3) sounds bossy or angry, while (4) just sounds\n'direct'.\n\nFor (4), you wrote やって（ください）. If we are assuming that only やって is uttered, it\nis yet more direct and aggressive than やってくれ, but not as much so as やれ.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T03:27:52.563",
"id": "56112",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T16:14:33.793",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-01T16:14:33.793",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56111",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56111
| null |
56112
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56114",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've had two vocabulary lists where _wakarimasu_ is written as 分かります. However\nmost of the time in news articles and manga I find it back as just わかります. So I\nwondered what is commonly used among Japanese people.\n\nIs it like writing _ohayou_ as お早う or is it just a matter of preference?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T06:34:09.637",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56113",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T15:06:36.453",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T15:06:36.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "5464",
"owner_user_id": "17921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"kanji-choice"
],
"title": "Is it more common to write \"wakarimasu\" with or without kanji?",
"view_count": 5950
}
|
[
{
"body": "Here are the hit counts from\n[BCCWJ](http://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/en/).\n\nAll entries (1971-2008):\n\n * わかった: 6492 分かった: 1739 解った: 130\n * わかります: 2834 分かります: 1065 解ります: 109\n * おはよう: 1300 お早う: 84\n * ありがとう: 7090 有難う: 420 有り難う: 102\n\nRecent entries (2000-):\n\n * わかった: 4162 分かった: 1327 解った: 92\n * わかります: 2164 分かります: 989 解ります: 100\n * おはよう: 1140 お早う: 47\n * ありがとう: 5573 有難う: 332 有り難う: 95\n\n(Note: these should contain a few false-positives such as こわかった and 随分かったるい)\n\nSo わかる is roughly 3 times more common than 分かる, but 分かる is not uncommon at\nall. While お早う is becoming less and less popular, the usage of 分かる is not\ndeclining.\n\nI personally think both わかる and 分かる are totally fine unless you are a\nprofessional writer who has to follow some opinionated guideline. I recommend\nyou write おはよう and ありがとう in hiragana.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T10:16:31.730",
"id": "56114",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T14:41:42.853",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T14:41:42.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56113",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
},
{
"body": "Indeed, わかる is mostly written in _kana_.\n\n[Corpus data](http://nlb.ninjal.ac.jp/headword/V.00015/) gives the following\nproportions:\n\n```\n\n わかる 58280 71%\n 分かる 17700 22%\n 解る 2964 4%\n 判る 2580 3%\n \n```\n\nA priori there seems to be no reason not to use the _kanji_ as わ・かる is a\n_jōyō_ reading of 分 (taught already in the second year of primary school).\n\nIndeed, [this publisher](http://www.mitsumura-\ntosho.co.jp/webmaga/kotoba/detail17.html) explains that for their _primary\nschool_ books, they use 分かる applying the principle \"use _kanji_ you have\nlearned wherever you can\". However, their secondary school books use わかる\nwhenever the intended meaning is \"to understand/realize\", since in this sense\n解る or 判る might be more suited, but these readings are not official _jōyō_\nreadings. They explain that many dictionaries associate 分かる to\n「はっきりしていなかったことに区別がつく」 — an English equivalent might be \"to differentiate\" —\nwhich is close in meaning to other readings of 分 such as 分ける \"to divide\".\n\n(Of course, the meaning of \"understand\" derives from \"differentiate\" and you\nare free to choose to write both in _kanji_ as 分かる without raising too many\neyebrows. The above just gives some numbers/reasons showing that and\nexplaining why わかる might be chosen over 分かる.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T10:37:19.467",
"id": "56115",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T10:47:12.063",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T10:47:12.063",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "56113",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] |
56113
|
56114
|
56114
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56137",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm reading [this interview with a voice\nactress](https://i.stack.imgur.com/niR1p.jpg), and this phrase came up pretty\nmuch out of context from the interviewer (in the sense that they weren't\ntalking about baseball or a literal ball).\n\n> -- さすがにもっといますよ！（笑）\n>\n> [interviewee] : でも、「私はファンめっちゃいる」って思っちゃって、天狗にはなりたくないし……。\n> 常に初心の心を忘れずに、感謝を忘れずに生きていこうと思っています。\n>\n> -- **球{たま｝が速｛はや｝いです** ！\n\nIs this perhaps an alternative to saying ” **ストレート** ” /the interviewee gave a\n\"straight\" answer?",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T17:18:53.710",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56120",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T05:26:33.903",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice",
"usage",
"nuances",
"expressions"
],
"title": "Is「球が速い」a common expression?",
"view_count": 217
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, this is a baseball metaphor.\n[剛速球](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%89%9B%E9%80%9F%E7%90%83),\n[直球](http://jisho.org/search/%E7%9B%B4%E7%90%83), ストレート or 速い球 refers to a\nstraight or unreserved statement from someone. The opposing idea is\n[変化球](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%A4%89%E5%8C%96%E7%90%83), which refers to a\ntricky statement. I think 変化球 is far more common as metaphorical expressions.\nNote that in baseball contexts, 球 is always read たま. 球 is read きゅう in\nmathematical contexts (\"sphere\"). 玉 (たま) refers to a precious \"orb\" or \"gem\".\n\nWhat she has said in the interview is not particularly a 速い球 to me because\nthat is almost a cliché used by many people near the end of interview\nsessions. Maybe the interviewer was surprised at the \"straight\" comment while\nhe had expected something more unique and \"fresh\" as an アイドル声優. (She is a new\nseiyu, and normally she doesn't have to worry about forgetting her 初心 and 感謝\nyet.)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T04:51:23.460",
"id": "56137",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T05:26:33.903",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T05:26:33.903",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56120",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56120
|
56137
|
56137
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have been working on these types of sentences, but I am having trouble\nfiguring out the difference between:\n\nIn this context it is an invitation to go eat.\n\n> [食]{た}べましょうか。\n\nand\n\n> [食]{た}べませんか。\n\nWhat is the difference?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T19:54:09.970",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56124",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T05:52:02.440",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T05:52:02.440",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18873",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances",
"expressions"
],
"title": "～ましょうか vs ～ませんか",
"view_count": 11262
}
|
[
{
"body": "Well I'm kinda lacking context, but for\n\n> 食べましょうか。\n\n食べましょう is [volitional\nform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_verb_conjugation#Usage_11) of\n[食べる](http://tangorin.com/general/%E3%81%9F%E3%81%B9%E3%82%8B) expressing\nvolition, Let's eat for example. With ka at the end I guess it becomes\n\n> shall (we?) eat?\n\nAs for\n\n> 食べませんか。\n\nIt's polite negative form of the same verb: (You/I/He) are/am/is not eating or\ndoesn't eat. With the question bit at the end:\n\n> You aren't eating?\n\nWould be one possible interpretation I guess.\n\nAgain it all depends on context, but I would imagine the first one is someone\nasking shell they start eating dinner or something, while the later is someone\npolitely asking if/why someone is not eating.\n\n**Edit:**\n\nYes, this form can [apparently](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-\nlessons/japanese-grammar-exercise-invitation/) be used for invitations.\n\n> Wouldn't you eat (lunch with me)?\n\nThe difference I would gather would lie in the fact that I guess ませんか is more\nabout inviting someone, and asking if they want to eat, while しょうか is [more of\na\nsuggestion](https://nihononthego.tumblr.com/post/98116585927/grammar-%E3%81%BE%E3%81%9B%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B-%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97%E3%82%87%E3%81%86-%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97%E3%82%87%E3%81%86%E3%81%8B),\nshall we eat.\n\nBut more definite guide on the nuance should probably be provided by someone\nmore competent and fluent than me.\n\n**EDIT 2:**\n\nAh, according to [this](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/how-to-\nmake-invitations-and-offers/),\n\n> When you use the volitional form with other people, your speech sounds like\n> an invitation and can be translated as “let’s” in English. This is a strong\n> invitation and is suitable for when you would like him or her to accept your\n> invitation regardless of his or her will.\n>\n> When you use negative questions with other people, your speech sounds like\n> an invitation and can be translated as “won’t you” in English. This is less\n> strong than the above (volitional) and is suitable for when you are willing\n> to accept his or her will.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T20:22:31.420",
"id": "56125",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T20:35:33.677",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"parent_id": "56124",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "One key difference is the context in which the suggestion is made, and the\nassumption(s) the asker has about the listener's response. Take the following\nsituation where a man is asking a woman on a date _(note that I'll use the\nplain forms ～ない and ～よう for such a familiar situation)_ :\n\n> お茶にでも[行かない]{LLLH}？ → \"Won't we go get tea or something?\" → \"Would you like\n> to go have tea (or whatever) with me?\"\n\nFrom this, the most likely context is that the man isn't certain of the\nwoman's response, and thus, he's probably asking her out for the first time.\nNow compare that to:\n\n> お茶にでも行こうか？ → \"Should/Shall we go get tea or something?\"\n\nIn this case, we can probably infer either, 1) He has already asked her out at\nsome time prior, she agreed, and they are just trying to solidify the plan, or\n2) They're already a couple, and he is making a suggestion of something to do\ntogether.\n\n* * *\n\nSo I think whether the topic of the suggestion has been previously discussed\nor not makes a big difference of which one you should use. If it's a \"brand\nnew\" topic, you'd use ～ませんか; if the topic has already been approached and\nyou're suggesting one possible option, then you use ～ましょうか.\n\nSo in your case, 食べませんか tells me that the suggestion is \"brand new\", out-of-\nthe-blue to the listener, while 食べましょうか tells me that they're already planning\nto do _something_ , so \"How about let's go eat?\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T21:26:09.313",
"id": "56128",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T21:26:09.313",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "56124",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
56124
| null |
56128
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56138",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The following is an excerpt from an explanation by my language partner about\nthe difference between \"simple past\" 送りました and 送っておきました。 She discussed a\nsituation where she first sent me new-years stickers on Skype before sending\nme another message on italki where she talked about her sending the stickers\non Skype before sending the message on italki with a 送っておきました construction.\n\n> 「送りました」 の場合、過去形になっているので、メッセージを書くよりも前に送ったことになりますが、メッセージとの関係は示されていません。\n\nI think that よりも前に means something along the lines of \"from before\", although\nI don't really know what this も does here. My attempt at translation:\n\n> In case of '送りました', because it is past form, even though it takes the\n> meaning of having it (=the Skype stickers) sent from before writing the\n> message, it doesn't demonstrate the relationship with the message.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T20:55:39.190",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56126",
"last_activity_date": "2022-08-09T07:00:50.593",
"last_edit_date": "2022-08-09T07:00:50.593",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Did I interpret the interaction of より and 前 correctly?",
"view_count": 367
}
|
[
{
"body": "The function of 「よりも」 in this case would indicate a meaning of 'more than', or\n'even more ____ '.\n\nThe use of も to mean 'even' is demonstrated below:\n\n> Aをしても Even if I do A.\n>\n> Aでもない Not even A.\n>\n> それよりも, A. Even more than that, A. /// Rather than that, A.\n\nMy interpretation of what your language partner was saying would be:\n\n> As regards my use of 「送りました」, as it is in the past-tense form, I was\n> indicating that I sent them (the stickers) EVEN before composing a message,\n> not referencing the actual message.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T22:58:12.023",
"id": "56129",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T22:58:12.023",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56126",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> メッセージを書く **よりも前に** 送ったことになりますが、\n\nThe 「よりも前に」 means \"before\" or \"earlier than\". (より means \"than\", and 前に means\n\"earlier\".)\n\nYou can rephrase the sentence without changing the meaning:\n\n> メッセージを書く **より前に** 送ったことになりますが、 \n> メッセージを書く **前に** 送ったことになりますが、\n\n\"although it would mean that (I) sent it before writing the message, ...\"\n\n「より前に」 sounds more explicit than just 「前に」, and 「よりも前に」 sounds a bit more\nemphatic than 「より前に」/「前に」.\n\nAs for the も:\n\n> よりも〘連語〙⇒ より（格助詞） \n> （明鏡国語辞典）\n\n* * *\n\nSidenote: You can't replace より(も)前に with 前に when it follows a noun, e.g.\n\n> 「山田さんより(も)前に着いた。」（×山田さん前に着いた。） \n> \"I arrived before Yamada-san. / I arrived earlier than Yamada-san.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T05:27:51.793",
"id": "56138",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T05:36:47.540",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T05:36:47.540",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56126",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
56126
|
56138
|
56138
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56130",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> そのとき海岸の近くでは、州の職員などがドローンを使って **溺れた** 人を助ける練習をしていました。 \n> At that time, near the coast, some people were practicing rescuing people\n> who **have drowned** using a drone. \n> 男の子たちが **溺れた** ことを知った人たちは、ドローンを沖に飛ばしました。 \n> The people who new the boys **had drowned** flew the drone to the open sea. \n> ドローンは、 **溺れた** 人を助ける道具を男の子たちのすぐ近くに落としました。 \n> The drone dropped a device to rescue the people who **had drowned** right\n> next to them.\n\nI don't understand why 溺れた is used in these sentences, rather than 溺れている, or\neven 溺れる. It seems to me that at the time of rescue the people are either\ndrowning now or will drown rather than having already drowned.\n\nI'm not sure if I'm having a problem with this specific verb or if it\nindicates a bigger hole in my understanding of aspect in relative clauses. I\ntried reading [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11975/what-\nare-the-general-principles-of-using-verbs-to-modify-nouns-\ne-g-%E7%84%A6%E3%81%92%E3%82%8B%E3%83%88%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88-%E7%84%A6%E3%81%92%E3%81%9F),\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/21422/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-\nusing-%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B-%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%9F-%E3%81%9F-in-\nrelative-clauses) and\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/%E5%A4%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B%E7%8C%AB-\nvs-%E5%A4%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E7%8C%AB/3364#3364.) but I have to admit to\nbeing completely mystified.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T21:07:27.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56127",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T10:47:41.277",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"relative-clauses",
"aspect"
],
"title": "Difference between 溺れた人, 溺れている人 and 溺れる人",
"view_count": 235
}
|
[
{
"body": "Your confusion is due to your translation of 溺れる to mean drown (to death).\nThis is a better translation:\n\n> 溺れる 水中に落ちこんで死にそうになる。Fall into water and potentially die.\n\nThe only definite thing that we can ascertain from the use of 溺れる is that they\nwere submerged. In this case, in water.\n\n> 溺れた人 Person who WAS under the surface (was drowning).\n>\n> 溺れている人 Person who IS under the surface (is drowning).",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-22T23:16:56.007",
"id": "56130",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T10:47:41.277",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56127",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56127
|
56130
|
56130
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56133",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The definitions/synonyms are kind of the same so I was wondering if they're\nbasically just the same word or if one of them means one thing more than the\nother?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T00:17:22.720",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56131",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T13:20:51.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27227",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 構成 and 編成?",
"view_count": 300
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 構成：いくつかのものを調整して統一的な全体を形成することで創造されるもの\n>\n> 編成：一まとまりとして機能する人や物の配列\n\nIn the case of the formation of a train, as cars in a row can be altered or\nreplaced, I think that 編成 would be better. In the case of things that are more\ncomplicated/difficult to assemble 構成 would be used. In terms of a structure,\nwhich cannot be easily reformed or broken apart, 構成 would be preferable.\n\nUsed Q&A references: [here](https://okwave.jp/qa/q8502611.html) and\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1215909372)\n\nUsed definition references:\n[here](https://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E6%A7%8B%E6%88%90) and\n[here](https://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E7%B7%A8%E6%88%90)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T02:18:39.797",
"id": "56132",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T02:18:39.797",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56131",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "編成 is the organization or formation of a team, a military unit such as a\nfleet, a train, an orchestra, etc. When you use 編成, each member is basically a\ncomplete and independent unit (e.g., a professional musician) which can work\neven in isolation. 編成 means putting them together and make a greater system.\nThe members are relatively homogeneous, and the resulting system can usually\nserve most of its original function even if some of its members are removed.\n\n構成 is similar, but it's used with a broader range of words. You can say the 構成\nof a sentence, software, a cell or a story, as well as a team of people. Each\nelement or component can be almost anything, but it can be a thing which does\nnot make much sense in isolation, like a tire and a CPU.\n\nIn places where 編成 can be used, 構成 could usually also be used without largely\nchanging the meaning. But sometimes the meaning would change. For example,\nテレビ番組の構成 means a construction/format of a single TV program, whereas テレビ番組の編成\nwould usually refer to constructing the lineup of multiple TV programs for a\nday or week.\n\nThere is also [組成【そせい】](http://jisho.org/search/%E7%B5%84%E6%88%90), which is\nused mainly in technical contexts when each component is amorphous material\nsuch as oil and metal.\n\nFinally, the definition of some online dictionaries such as jisho.org is often\nvery insufficient. If you're an advanced learner, you can find many examples\nusing [ALC](https://eow.alc.co.jp/) or Weblio.\n\n * [Examples of 編成](https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/%E7%B7%A8%E6%88%90)\n * [Examples of 構成](https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/%E6%A7%8B%E6%88%90)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T02:44:59.457",
"id": "56133",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T03:00:07.717",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T03:00:07.717",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56131",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56131
|
56133
|
56133
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There was a similar question here, but it was more along the lines of \"Should\nwe do something together?\", and I'm not sure it fits my case. For example, how\ndo you say \"Should I bring something to the meeting?\" \nI came up with these options:\n\n> 1) 会議で何か必要な物はありますか？ \n> 2) 会議に何か必要ですか？ \n> 3) 会議に持っていくべき物はありますか？ \n> 4) 会議に何か持っていきますか? \n> 5) 会議に何か持っていきましょうか?\n\nCan you please tell me a) which ones are correct/more natural and b) which are\nthe nuances of each? \nI'm especially confused by ~ましょうか because I usually see it used as \"shall we\n[do something]?\" in the sense of an invitation, but I can't figure out whether\nit's ok to use it in my case.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T03:27:24.410",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56135",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-03T22:44:50.597",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T04:15:55.493",
"last_editor_user_id": "22242",
"owner_user_id": "22242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances"
],
"title": "How to say \"Should I [do something]?\"",
"view_count": 3125
}
|
[
{
"body": "If I understand correctly something like this:\n\n会議に何か持って行ったほうがいいでしょうか。\n\nor\n\n会議に準備しておくものが要りますか。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-03T22:44:50.597",
"id": "56388",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-03T22:44:50.597",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27579",
"parent_id": "56135",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
] |
56135
| null |
56388
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56140",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the story I'm reading, a girl is given a gift from her boyfriend, after\nwhich she says,\n\n> 「それをもらったの… **私だけなの** が幸せなのです…」\n\nI'm at a complete loss as to how to parse this.「私だけなの」is happy? \"Only I am\nhappy\"? Somehow I find that interpretation unlikely, as the boyfriend isn't\npopular and the girl isn't the jealous type.\n\nCould someone shed some light on this?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T08:16:24.210",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56139",
"last_activity_date": "2021-02-24T06:05:03.487",
"last_edit_date": "2021-02-24T06:05:03.487",
"last_editor_user_id": "37097",
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of 私だけなのが?",
"view_count": 764
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「それをもらったの…私だけなの」が、幸せなのです… \n> →「それをもらったの **は** 私だけである(という)こと」が、幸せなのです。\n>\n> (literally) Happiness is that it was only me who received it. \n> What is happy is that I am the only person who received it (from the boy).\n\nThe second の before が is a nominalizer. The part in the brackets is a cleft-\nsentence, but は (or が) is replaced by an ellipsis (presumably because she is a\ntaciturn character).",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T08:46:05.120",
"id": "56140",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T09:45:45.290",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56139",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
56139
|
56140
|
56140
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56145",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I can not understand very well this \"～とでもいうのか\" found in Dragon Ball.\n\nThe context in this: Goku and Frieza begin to fight, and Goku say:\n\n> \"いいかげんにしろ。。。このクズやろう。。。罪もない者をつぎからつぎへと殺しやがって。。。クリリンまで。。。\"\n\nFrieza reply:\n\n> \"えらそうなことをいいやがって。。。きさまらサイヤ人は罪のないものを殺さなかったとでもいうのか?\"\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2rvc.jpg)\n\nI found here on japanesestackexchange some topics in which has been discussed\nabout this \"～とでもいうのか\".\n[Here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12202/can-anyone-explain-\nthe-grammar-behind-the-sentence-ending-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82) is stated\nthat is a expression for add emphasis.\n[Here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/21363/what-\ndoes-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82-mean) and\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/21156/function-\nof-%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82-in-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86%E3%81%B9%E3%81%8D%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86%E3%81%8B)\nit is says that \"～とでもいうのか\" stands for \"or something\".\n\nSo, which is the correct answer? And, is this translation correct?\n\n\"You wouldn't be saying that you saiyan never killed innocent people?\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T11:01:59.587",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56142",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T12:03:59.117",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25405",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "\"～とでもいうのか\" meaning in this sentence",
"view_count": 2713
}
|
[
{
"body": "I'll make my answer short, as it doesn't appear you are requesting too much\nexplanation.\n\nThere are a few different interpretations of ～とでもいう that are very context\ndependent. The closest I found to this context would be a Weblio definition\nfound\n[here](https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86),\nnamely:\n\n> とでもいう － as if to say; as if; as though\n\nI would translate it as:\n\n> 'As if you damn Saiyans never killed any innocents!'\n\nor\n\n> 'Are you trying to tell me that you damn Saiyans never killed any innocent\n> people!'\n\nor something along those lines.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T11:24:51.723",
"id": "56144",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T11:24:51.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56142",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "As you can easily see in your [first\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12202/can-anyone-explain-\nthe-grammar-behind-the-sentence-ending-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7%E3%82%82), the\nsentence-end `～とでも(言うのか)?` is used almost as a set expression, and almost\nalways has a fairly accusatory overtone; \"Are you really saying ～?\" I could\nnot find a perfect explanation of this でも in monolingual dictionaries, so I\nthink you can memorize this as a fixed pattern. But the closest definition in\ndictionaries was \"～ or something like that\", as your remaining answer says.\n\nSee also:\n\n * [Meaning of \"でも\" in \"食事でもどうですか？\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/21519/5010)\n * [Sentence ending with -とでも](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/12200/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T12:03:59.117",
"id": "56145",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-23T12:03:59.117",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56142",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
56142
|
56145
|
56145
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 真ん中、真ん前、真後ろ、真上、真下、真横 (*)\n>\n> 中, 前, 後ろ, 上, 下, 横 (**)\n\nI think this is an easy question, but I wanna hear your opinions about them.\n\nHow different between (*) and (**) when there's a 真 right before?\n\nI've seen a lot of words starting with 真 which're not included above, such as:\n真っ白, 真っ赤,...\n\nIs there a common way to understand the usage of 真 generally?\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T12:30:14.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56146",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T04:43:05.760",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19758",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "真ん中、真ん前、真後ろ、真上、真下、真横 - How different when there's no 真 right before?",
"view_count": 503
}
|
[
{
"body": "Let's take the answer from [the explanation of this\nsite](https://okjiten.jp/kanji505.html). Though I remember there was an expert\nin both Japanese and Chinese. mine would not be a far away from his.\n\nI assume questions in your question .... etc are equivalent with the the\nmeanings of the below from the above site.\n\nFor 真ん中、真ん前、真後ろ...\n\n> ウ：「正確・中央などの意味」(例：真正面｛ましょうめん｝、真夜中｛まよなかまよなか｝)\n>\n> ウ: 「To denote accuracy, the center」（ Ex:Right in front, In the middle of the\n> night )\n\nFor 真っ赤、真っ白\n\n> (11) エ\n>\n> エ：「完全な」、「まじりもない」(例：真水、真っ白)\n>\n> (11) エ\n>\n> エ：「perfect」, 「mixed with impurities」( ex : purest water, pure white )\n\n**In the case of direction**\n\nPlease take a look at the below picture which I made with Excel, and please\ntake it as 3 dimensional.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/XPMDQ.jpg)\n\n> 真ん中、真ん前、真後ろ、真上、真下、真横 (*)\n\nThese 6 stands for direction.\n\n**In English** , the below 6 words denote directions as is defined above as ウ.\nI would like to explain using the above picture.\n\nThe \"center\" is either yourself, or someone else, or something else. The\nmatter is if it is objective ( = yourself ) or subjective ( someone else,\nitself ( as if you are watching them from outside )), I would like to explain\nwith the former, yourself.\n\n> 真ん中\n>\n> right in the middle of **yourself**\n>\n> 真ん前\n>\n> right ahead of **yourself**\n>\n> 真後ろ\n>\n> right behind **yourself**\n>\n> 真上\n>\n> right above **yourself**\n>\n> 真下\n>\n> right beneath **yourself**\n>\n> 真横\n>\n> right beside **yourself**\n\nThe matter in concern is if what you see at is at \"right ahead, or right\nbeneath\" etc. As I marked ×真ん前（まんまえ） or ×真下（ました）, they should not be slanted.\nIn the case of yourself, the object you see at 真下（ました） must exist just right\nstraight beneath yourself. ( even 1 or 2 degree adjustment is not allowed (\nstrictly speaking )) Now, 真ん中、right in the middle of yourself, when what you\nsee at in the middle of yourself ( for example. your belly ), it exists at the\nsame position of yourself.\n\n**Example sentence**\n\n> 彼｛かれ｝が私｛わたし｝の真ん前｛まんまえ｝にいる.\n>\n> He is just right ahead of me.\n\nHere, he, must be **right ahead of you**. ( even 1 or 2 degree position\nmovement is not allowed ( strictly speaking )). But in reality, there will\nmany cases that he would be at about 10 degree right side from **right ahead**\n, so virtually, it it up to how you describe.\n\n> 中, 前, 後ろ, 上, 下, 横 (**)\n>\n> They are respectively as I explained above\n>\n> middle, front, behind(back), above, beneath(below), side ( either left or\n> right unknown )\n\nAnd,\n\n> 真っ白, 真っ赤\n>\n> **Pure ( entirely )** white, **Pure ( entirely )** red.\n\nfrom the above definition エ.\n\nLastly,\n\n> Is there a common way to understand the usage of 真 generally?\n\nI don'think so.\n\nBecause as I quoted above definitions, they are different. ( But the nuance,\nboth meanings, \"accuracy\", \"pure\" have common ( or near ) semantic meanings (\nin my opinion )).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T12:59:21.740",
"id": "56148",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T04:43:05.760",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56146",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56146
| null |
56148
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 高温の鉄板には、垂らした水さえも弾け散る。\n\nI looked up in a few dictionaries but I don't find the word anywhere. How\ncome?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T12:56:59.107",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56147",
"last_activity_date": "2021-07-28T08:06:55.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 弾け散る mean?",
"view_count": 179
}
|
[
{
"body": "散る is used with various motion verbs and forms intransitive compound verbs. As\nfar as I can remember for now, it almost always adds the meaning of \"for\nfragments/particles to scatter\". Relatively common ones are:\n\n * (水などが) [飛び散る](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/159954/meaning/m0u/%E9%A3%9B%E3%81%B3%E6%95%A3%E3%82%8B/)\n * (爆発などで物が) 砕け散る\n * (花びらや雪が) 舞い散る\n\nAnd uncommon ones found on BCCWJ are:\n\n * (煙が) 流れ散る\n * (鳥の羽が) 羽ばたき散る\n\nThe only exception on BCCWJ was (戦場で兵士が)果て散る, where both 果てる and 散る mean \"to\nperish\" or \"to die a noble death\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T01:42:21.697",
"id": "56157",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T01:42:21.697",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56147",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56147
| null |
56157
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Our teacher has given as an example question:\n\n> なに いろ が すきですか？\n\nBut has told us that we cannot use the same construction for asking a question\nabout food, instead we have:\n\n> 食べ物 は なに が すき ですか\n\nWhat is going on here?\n\nElsewhere I've read things that suggest that 'naniiro' is a question word and\nthat 'nani' can combine with some words like that.\n\nIs there a good linguistic explanation of what is going on?",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T15:09:02.437",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56150",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T05:09:43.677",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-23T16:12:06.427",
"last_editor_user_id": "25922",
"owner_user_id": "25922",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"questions",
"interrogatives"
],
"title": "Combining なに with a noun",
"view_count": 177
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think maybe this doesn't have an answer yet because it's been answered in\nthe comments and also because your presumption is right: [何]{なに} can't\nreliably be combined with just any noun, but it does so in certain compounds\nsuch as [何]{なに}[色]{いろ} and those mentioned in the comments. In addition,\n[何]{なに} combines with counters and temporal nouns to produce words like\n[何]{なん}[台]{だい} and [何]{なん}[月]{がつ}. What you can't do is say, e.g.:\n\n> 何[食]{た}べ[物]{もの}が[好]{す}きですか。X\n\nThis, however, is okay:\n\n> [何]{なん} **の** [食]{た}べ[物]{もの}が[好]{す}きですか。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T22:06:12.340",
"id": "56153",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T05:09:43.677",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T05:09:43.677",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "56150",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "It's worth separating the two examples as examples of different constructions\nto ask the same type of question. It will make more sense if you comprehend\nthe following:\n\n> **X が (adjective/verb) か。** \n> (X as subject「が」) (adjective/verb question「か」)\n>\n> なにいろが すきですか。 \n> ( _what color_ is the subject) ( _do you like_ is the question) \n> What color do you like?\n\nAs you mentioned before, なにいろ is a sort of question expression asking _which\ncolor_ or _what color_ or something to that effect.\n\nThis is related to, but not exactly the same as:\n\n> **X は Y が (adjective/verb) か。** \n> (X as topic「は」) (Y as subject「が」) (adjective/verb question「か」)\n>\n> 食べ物は なにが すきですか。 \n> ( _food_ is the topic) ( _what_ is the subject) ( _do you like_ is the\n> question) \n> As for food, what do you like?\n\nThat being said, it is possible to rewrite なにいろがすきですか as いろはなにがすきですか but it\nsounds more natural in the first form whenever it is available depending on\nthe question. Likewise, it is possible to rewrite たべものはなにがすきですか to\nなんのたべものがすきですか。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T22:33:43.690",
"id": "56154",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T00:28:23.087",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T00:28:23.087",
"last_editor_user_id": "21684",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "56150",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56150
| null |
56154
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56384",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the following sentence\n\n> ダーズリー一家【いっか】が目【め】を覚【さ】ます **と** 、外【そと】はどんよりとした灰色【はいいろ】の空【そら】だった。\n\n「と」is used in a place where I'd rather use 「とき」 or 「たら」. I know that 「と」is\nused for inevitable conditions like facts of nature but it doesn't fit that\nsentence.\n\n 1. Does particle 「と」has another meaning similar to 「とき」in the context of the above sentence? If so, is there a difference between the two?\n\n 2. Similarly「と」and 「たら」(I think the difference here would be 「と」being more formal than 「たら」).",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-23T22:59:47.507",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56155",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-03T20:12:45.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26539",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Usage of 「と」in a sentence from Harry Potter",
"view_count": 177
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's very subtle.「とき」puts more emphasis on time so usually reserved for more\nmemorable occasions which often happened further back in time--like \"the time\nwhen Sarah turned 30\" would be a time to bust out「とき」.\n\n * 「と」= \"When the Dursleys woke up, the sky was...\" \n * 「とき」= \"That time when the Dursleys woke up, the sky was...\"\n\nCheers!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-03T20:12:45.713",
"id": "56384",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-03T20:12:45.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27576",
"parent_id": "56155",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56155
|
56384
|
56384
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56176",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I encountered the following sentence in the chapter introducing conditionals\nfrom the online grammar guide\n[Imabi](http://www.imabi.net/theconditionals.htm).\n\n> 休んだら、元気になった \n> When I rested, I got better.\n\nEarlier, the article explained that たら can have either a hypothetical or a\ntemporal meaning. When the verb in the main clause is in the non-past form,\nthis is not an issue since the たら verb hasn't happened yet either way. To\nillustrate my meaning, take the following.\n\n> 帰ったら、食べる。 \n> When I go home, I'll eat. OR If I go home, I'll eat.\n\nRegardless of which one is correct (most likely the first one), the action of\n\"go home\" has not yet happened.\n\nHowever, in the case when the main verb is in the past (た形), I'm wondering if\nwhether or not the conditional verb happened is clear or not. In other words,\n**is the following translation possible?**\n\n> 休んだら、元気になった \n> If I had rested, I would have gotten better.\n\n**If not, how could the type of conditional above be translated?**\n\nAnd\n\n**If the main clause had a different subject than the conditional clause,\nwould anything in the answer change?** I'm only asking this because I have a\nfeeling that a sentence like 「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びました」where the speaker would be\nspeculating about someone other than himself would change things (ignore this\nif it is too unclear).\n\nSource: [Imabi - 第109課: Conditionals I: The Particles と, なら(ば), たら, &\nば](http://www.imabi.net/theconditionals.htm)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T00:50:17.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56156",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T13:48:47.870",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T13:48:47.870",
"last_editor_user_id": "3296",
"owner_user_id": "3296",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "How to know if ～たら is hypothetical or temporal",
"view_count": 2005
}
|
[
{
"body": "The past conditional usage that you are attempting assumes that the desired\nresult did not occur. This is referred to as counterfactual conditional. This\nrequires that both the condition and the result be conjugated correctly. If A,\nthen B (would have happened). For this reason you should use a form that\nindicates condition in the latter part of your sentence as well as a certainty\nmodifier like もし.\n\nIn your sentence 「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びました」, the tenses do not match. 'If you read\n(present tense form) him a book, he was happy (past tense).\n\n「元気になった」 and 「弟が喜びました」are simple statements (statements of fact). Change them\nto past-presumptive forms and you have a winner.\n\nSome common usages:\n\n> 「もし休んだら、元気になっていたでしょう。」\n>\n> 「もし弟に本を読んであげてたら、喜んでいたでしょう。」\n\nOther possibilities:\n\n> 「元気になれたでしょう」\n>\n> 「喜ばれたでしょう」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T02:53:40.367",
"id": "56175",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T02:53:40.367",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56156",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> 「休んだら、元気になった。」 \n> 「本を読んであげたら、弟が喜びました。」\n\nI would interpret them as...\n\n> \"When I rested, I got better.\" \n> \"When I read a book for my little brother, he was delighted.\"\n\n(In these examples, the たら verb happened and caused the main verb)\n\n* * *\n\nIf I wanted to say:\n\n> \"If I had rested, I would have gotten better.\" \n> \"If I had read a book for my little brother, he would have been delighted.\"\n\nI would say like...\n\n> 「休んだら(or休んでいたら)、元気になった **のに** / なった **だろうに** / なった **だろう（なあ）** / なった\n> **だろうけど** 。 etc...」 \n> 「本を読んであげたら(orあげていたら)、弟が喜んだ **のに** / 喜んだ **でしょうに** / 喜んだ **でしょう** / 喜んだ\n> **でしょうけど** 。 etc...」\n\n(In these examples, the たら has a hypothetical meaning)\n\n* * *\n\nIn the examples below, the たら verb has not yet happened:\n\n> 「休んだら元気に **なる** よ / 元気に **なる** だろう。」 \n> If you rest, you will get better. \n> 「本を読んであげたら、弟が **喜びます** よ / **喜ぶ** でしょう。」 \n> If you read a book for your little brother, he will be delighted.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T03:15:58.573",
"id": "56176",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T09:24:01.283",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T09:24:01.283",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56156",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
56156
|
56176
|
56176
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56160",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In a manga about boxing, a character is explaining what the famous [Muhammad\nAli's phantom/anchor\npunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Sonny_Liston#The_phantom/anchor_punch)\nis. The phantom punch is basically a fast punch landed over the opponent's\npunch, but I can't entirely understand the character explanation:\n\n> ファントムパンチかよ… パンチより早い〝引き手〟に合わせるカウンター…\n\nWhat is the meaning of 引き手? I understand it has to do with pulling something,\nbut I can't see how it fits the context. Also, being between quotes, I think\nit could have a metaphorical meaning. Here you can see [the whole\npage](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SQdbJ.jpg), while here you can se [a video of\nthe phantom punch in slow motion](https://youtu.be/qFA3DFFavwk). Thank you for\nyour help!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T02:51:56.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56158",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T06:17:36.543",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"manga",
"sports",
"metaphor"
],
"title": "Meaning of 引き手 in the following sentence",
"view_count": 126
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think this 引き手 pretty straightforwardly refers to the movement of the fist\nreturning to the body after a punch was thrown. When you throw a punch, it's\nalways followed by a 引き手. A normal counter punch starts being thrown when the\nopponent's fist is still coming toward you. But this \"phantom punch\" starts\n_after_ the opponent's punch was thrown. It needs to be extremely fast, as you\ncan see in the video. Note that パンチより早い modifies 引き手に合わせるカウンター as a whole, not\n引き手 alone. This パンチ is actually パンチに合わせるもの or パンチに合わせるカウンター.\n\n> パンチより早い〝引き手〟に合わせるカウンター… \n> A counter punch that is thrown over (the opponent's) 引き手, which is (a\n> counter punch) faster than (one thrown over an approaching) punch...\n\nThese quotes are used to indicate 引き手 is not a common established term. They\nadd the nuance of \"so to say\", \"as one might call it\" or \"so-called\". 引き手\nseems to mean something else in karate, but it's not a common boxing term.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T03:34:49.157",
"id": "56160",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T06:17:36.543",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T06:17:36.543",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56158",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56158
|
56160
|
56160
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In English, it is not uncommon to come across a sentence such as \"One's\noutlook on life depends on one's personal experience.\" In this case, \"one\" is\nreferring to people in general. So the above sentence could just as easily be\nwritten as \"A person's outlook on life depends on that person's experience.\"\n\nMy question is, how close of an approximation to the above use of the word\n\"one\" is the word「人」such as in「人の人生観は（その人の？）個人的な経験によって違う」? Are there cases\nwhere the word「人」is better replaced by some other word (or nothing at all)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T03:06:24.857",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56159",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T05:20:44.747",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27427",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How to say \"one\" as in \"anybody in general.\"",
"view_count": 174
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think the Japanese sentence.\n\n> 「人の人生観は（その人の？）個人的な経験によって違う」\n\nwas very accurately translated to your\n\n> \"One's outlook on life depends on one's personal experience.\"\n\nThis is kind of the difference of experience how much you used be to the use\nof the Japanese 人.\n\nHere, 人, **in Japanese too** denotes **every each person in general in the\nentire world**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T04:52:16.030",
"id": "56161",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T05:20:44.747",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T05:20:44.747",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56159",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56159
| null |
56161
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56163",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm trying to translate this\n[blog](https://lineblog.me/nagatatakato/archives/932547.html).\n\nThe blogger talked about the album of Abe Mao called \"Pop (ポっぷ)\".\n\n> 阿部真央 **史上** 、一番聞いてるアルバムだなぁ。名曲揃いだ\n>\n> ちなみに今流れてるのは\"もうひとつのMY BABY\"です\n>\n> 初めて聞いた阿部真央さんの曲は\"貴方の恋人になりたいのです\"なんだよね。それもポっぷに入ってる！！\n\nAccording to [Jisho](http://jisho.org/search/%E5%8F%B2%E4%B8%8A),\n\n> 史上 = in history; ever; historical\n\nSince this album is just another studio album and was not classified as \"best\nalbum\",\n\nI was quite confused what does 阿部真央 **史上** mean in his blog?\n\nIs it possible that it was an abbreviation of some sorts?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T06:43:33.050",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56162",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T07:42:02.077",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "19458",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of 史上 in this blog",
"view_count": 101
}
|
[
{
"body": "史上 on its own can mean \"in the history\", but it can be combined with many\nnouns to mean \"in the history of ～\". For example you can say アメリカ史上最も偉大な大統領\n(the greatest president in the history of America).\n\nSo 阿部真央史上 also literally means \"in the history of Mao Abe,\" which is already a\nbit colloquial usage of 史上 (it can be used in ads but not in formal\ndocuments). However, in this context, it doesn't even refer to her actual\ncareer as a musician, but refers to the author's own personal experience\nconcerning Mao Abe. The author is comparing his memory concerning Mao Abe to\n\"history.\" This is not a proper way of using 史上, but we can feel he has liked\nthe musician for a long time. 一番聞いてる means the author himself is listening to\nthe album most as compared to her previous albums.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T07:04:03.217",
"id": "56163",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T07:42:02.077",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T07:42:02.077",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56162",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56162
|
56163
|
56163
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56165",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Below is a paragraph from a Japanese light novel. (Classroom of the Elite -\nVolume I)\n\n> そして、その教えは少なくとも２０１５年を迎えた現代においても何一つ事実として変わっていない。もっとも、事態は **より** 複雑 **かつ**\n> [深刻化]{しんこくか}しているが。\n\nWhat exactly 「より」and 「かつ」do in the second sentence?\n\nAlso, what kind of meaning does 「が」 at the very end add to the\nsentence/pragraph?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T08:37:43.987",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56164",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T09:04:22.360",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27431",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "What is the role of 「より」 and 「かつ」 in this sentence",
"view_count": 1840
}
|
[
{
"body": "> もっとも、事態はより複雑かつ深刻化しているが。 \n> Well, the situation has become _more_ complicated _and_ serious, _though_.\n\n * より right before an adjective is \"more\". See: [Different versions of より?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5556/5010)\n * かつ is a stiff way of saying \"and\". It's 且つ in kanji, although this kanji is rarely used. 複雑かつ深刻化している is \"複雑化している and 深刻化している\" ([right-node raising](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17744/5010)).\n * Sentence-end が (or けど, けれど, けれども) is \"..., though.\" It makes a contrast with what has already been mentioned in the previous sentence.\n * Just in case you didn't know, this もっとも is not 最も but 尤も, which is like \"that being said\" or \"although\". See: [Learn JLPT N2 Grammar: もっとも](http://japanesetest4you.com/flashcard/learn-jlpt-n2-grammar-%E3%82%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82-motto-mo/)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T08:49:27.287",
"id": "56165",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T09:04:22.360",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T09:04:22.360",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56164",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
56164
|
56165
|
56165
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56167",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "It seems like 大丈夫 and いい can be used interchangeably when asking or giving\npermission.\n\nFor example when asking for permission, you might use:\n\n * 「...てもいいですか」 vs 「...ても大丈夫ですか」\n * 「...はいいですか」 vs 「...は大丈夫ですか」\n\nSimilarly, when answering such a request (with a positive response), one might\nsay:\n\n * 「いいです」 vs 「大丈夫です」\n\nIs my understanding correct that they are indeed interchangeable? If they are,\ncan I reply to the request with the \"other\" word (e.g., 「...てもいいですか」 ->\n「大丈夫です」; or 「...は大丈夫ですか」 -> 「いいです」)?\n\nIf they aren't interchangeable, when should I use one or the other?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T13:55:46.993",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56166",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T03:32:02.107",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1497",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Choosing between 大丈夫 or いい when asking/giving permission",
"view_count": 887
}
|
[
{
"body": "「...てもいいですか?」 and 「...ても大丈夫ですか?」 are as you said. For example, when you are\nasked \"これ飲んでもいいですか?\" or \"これ飲んでも大丈夫ですか?\", you can say both \"いいです\" and \"大丈夫です\".\nHowever I think you don't need to change the word.\n\n「...はいいですか?」 and 「...は大丈夫ですか?」 generally mean \"Is ～ OK?\", \"Is ～ all right?\"\nand \"Is ～ good?\", not asking for permission. In this case, I think you\nshouldn't use the \"other\" word. For example, when you are asked \"体の具合はいいですか?\",\nyou should say \"いいです\". When you are asked \"体の具合は大丈夫ですか?\", you should say\n\"大丈夫です\". When you are asked like \"体の具合はどうですか?\", you can say both \"いいです\" and\n\"大丈夫です\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T17:12:39.460",
"id": "56167",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T03:32:02.107",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T03:32:02.107",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "56166",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Your post is actually two questions.\n\nAs regards the first question, about asking permission, I would say they are\ninterchangeable and refer you to @Yuuichi Tam's answer.\n\nAs far as your question applies to using either 「大丈夫です」 or 「いいです」 as a reply\nto a question (even one involving said words), it is often better to use less\nambiguous terms. Both 「大丈夫です」 and 「いいです」can have dismissive or even negative\ntones, similar to 「結構です」. To signify the affirmative by affixing a positive\nexpression before these terms, such as using 「はい」 or 「うん」 would be better.\n\nEven answering a question about your health with either expression can sound a\nbit abrupt, as if you are trying to steer the conversation away from that\ntopic.\n\nIf you incurred a minor injury and someone asked you 「大丈夫ですか」 it would be\nappropriate to use 「うん、大丈夫です」 as you are indeed trying to deflect attention.\n\nHowever, answering the question 「体の具合は大丈夫ですか？」 with 「うん、大丈夫です。」 still sounds a\nlittle short to me. I would recommend using something along the lines of\n「お陰様｛かげさま｝で元気です。」 or just 「元気です。」\n\nWhile it was not specifically addressed in your question, answering an offer\nquestion such as 'Is it alright if I bring you some water?' with either\nexpression might sound confusing for the other party and likely sound\nnegative. You might get a befuddled look.\n\n> 「水を持ってきてあげましょうか？」\n>\n> 「大丈夫です」or 「いいです」 - 'It's alright.' or 'I'm fine.'\n\nIn these cases, saying 「はい、お願いします。」 or a simple affirmative should be much\nclearer.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T22:55:10.507",
"id": "56171",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T02:30:50.100",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56166",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56166
|
56167
|
56167
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the set phrase used to apologize for not corresponding regularly?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T20:52:00.160",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56168",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T21:22:19.403",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-24T21:22:19.403",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "27439",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "Polite phrase apologizing for irregular (written) correspondence",
"view_count": 79
}
|
[
{
"body": "> ご無沙汰しております。\n\nmeans something like \"I apologize for not contacting you for such a long\ntime\".\n\nIt is a set phrase which is polite and suited for written correspondence and\nthereby satisfies almost all your requirements, except for the fact that it\ndoesn't mention that you _regularly_ fail to keep in touch. But then, I don't\nsee how mentioning this would have any positive effect.\n\nAs you haven't given a clear context for your question, I should just like to\nmention that the above is better suited if the \"late\" correspondence was\ninitiated by your letter or email and you are not simply replying late to a\nparticular letter or email. (For the latter, something like\n「返事が遅くなり、申し訳ございませんでした」 would probably be more suited.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T21:20:52.977",
"id": "56169",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T21:20:52.977",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "56168",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56168
| null |
56169
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56172",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "E.g. How much longer are you staying in the country for your holiday?\n\n残る sounds wrong. So is 住む。 Help appreciated.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T21:25:27.127",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56170",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T02:15:42.907",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "How do you say \"remaining\" in the sense of asking how long someone is staying in the country?",
"view_count": 289
}
|
[
{
"body": "In general, when asking how long someone will stay in a certain place, one\nwould use 居る｛いる｝.\n\n住む implies long-term (permanent) residence. 残る would imply remaining beyond\nwhat was expected or allowed as a length of stay. 居残｛いのこ｝る = To stay behind,\nto be left behind. Even if you are asking someone how much longer they will\nremain, you would still normally use:\n\n> 「あとどれぐらい日本にいますか？」(How much longer will you be in Japan?)\n\nFor stay at accommodations specifically, 滞在｛たいざい｝ would be appropriate.\n\nAs was mentioned in one of the comments, people will often just ask when you\nare returning to 'your' country, à la 「国にはいつ帰｛かえ｝るの？」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T23:08:00.413",
"id": "56172",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T02:15:42.907",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T02:15:42.907",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56170",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56170
|
56172
|
56172
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56174",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have the following bit of dialogue:\n\n> 儚くて優しい――\n>\n> どこまでも母親を愛する女の子の事を、\n>\n> 私はとても好きだったから。\n\nBasically this dialogue is composed of 3 parts, which I have helpfully split\ninto different lines.\n\nFirst bit is an adjective nominally meaning \"fleetingly kind\" which I'lll get\nback to.\n\nSecond bit describes a daughter that loved her mother despite everything.\n\nThird bit is almost irrelevant to the talk at hand, where the narrator\nexpresses how much they liked that girl (BTW, the narrator is not the mother).\n\nMy question here is, who does the adjective bit (the first bit) refer to? I'm\nassuming the mother, because it certainly would fit the context of the mother\nwho was kind, for only a short while to the girl.\n\nAlso am I right in my interpretation of 儚くて優しい that it means to be short-\nlively kind to the girl.\n\n**EDIT: Additional context.**\n\nThis line is part of recollections of a nanny/teacher of the girl in question.\n(well she is actually a magical being that... but that's besides the point,\nsince her role was to teach the girl) Girl's mother hired her to teach a\ncertain type of skill to the girl, at which point her contract would be over\nand the teacher would depart. The mother in question, never really took to the\ngirl, and was REALLY cold towards her, even though the girl loved her very\nmuch. So, since the girl was lacking motherly role figure, the nanny, while\nshe was with the family, kinda took the role of the mother and got attached to\nthe kid. Which is hardly surprising given that the girl was honest, hard\nworking, strong etc. But even though she REALLY liked the girl, once her job\nwas done, once she had taught the girl what she was contracted to teach her,\nshe HAD to go away.\n\nSo now, you might think of this as her end of the line thoughts, she is\nlooking back at the time with the girl, she is remembering how much she loved\nthe girl, but is also being sad and worried. Sad that she was never able to\nrepair the bridge between the mother and daughter, and worried because she was\nnot given the time to learn what happened of the girl.\n\nOH and YEAH. One kinda important note, the girl DOES/DID remember of a time,\nbefore the nanny when her mother was kind and nice to her, but then suddenly\nshe almost discarded her and put the teacher to be in charge of her. Note, the\nchange of attitude happened BEFORE the teacher came. And this weighted heavily\non the girl, who at the time didn't know what caused the change in her\nmother's behavior, yet still earnestly wanted to please her despite the cold\ntreatment. Which is why I thought fleetingly kind was a better description of\nthe mother than the daughter.\n\nThe daughter herself survives it all, despite the abuse that is going to get\nworse later on, and escapes and becomes strong, caring and kind individual.\nThe nanny doesn't know this eventual fate (or about the later abuse, since\nwhile she was there she was a buffer and the mother was just cold, not\noutright physically abusive), but saying that girl was insubstantial and\nfleeting would be doing her a disservice.\n\nThe problem in my mind is that between this adjective and mother is the adverb\nどこまでも and it didn't feel right grammatically that the adjective could be\ndescribing an object of an action THROUGH the adverb. Even though context wise\nthe fleeting bit doesn't really apply to the daughter.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-24T23:12:20.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56173",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T23:59:57.370",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"interpretation"
],
"title": "Need help with interpretation of 儚くて優しい",
"view_count": 234
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's referring to the girl.\n\nThe source of your confusion seems to be interpreting\n\n> 儚くて優しい\n\nAs \"fleeting **ly** kind\", but it is \" **fleeting** and kind\". This is\nreinforced by the fact that the immediately following sentence talks about how\nnice she was.\n\n> どこまでも母親を愛する女の子の事を、\n\nIn regard to `くて` and why I am translating it as \"and\", see\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/11300/7705) and\n[here](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/compound#Expressing_a_sequence_of_states).\n\nEdit: it is worth noting that 儚い does not always literally mean \"short lived\",\nand can also be used to refer to a certain type of beauty/appeal. See\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/55451/7705).",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T00:23:00.010",
"id": "56174",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T23:59:57.370",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T23:59:57.370",
"last_editor_user_id": "7705",
"owner_user_id": "7705",
"parent_id": "56173",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56173
|
56174
|
56174
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56193",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Playing a game I encountered two different shop keeps that say the same line.\nOnly one says a line with a comma, the other says it without. I do know that\ncommas can help in breaking up clauses in Japanese, but do commas have any\nimpact on meaning in small sentences like these? Or does it more describe how\nit would be spoken?\n\n> また、来て下さいね。\n>\n> また来て下さいね。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T03:45:26.913",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56177",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T02:01:06.627",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "26867",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Do Commas Have Any Impact On Meaning In Smaller Sentences?",
"view_count": 571
}
|
[
{
"body": "> (A) また、来て下さいね。 \n> (B) また来て下さいね。\n\nBoth (A) and (B) are used mainly in conversation having similar meanings, but\nas expected by the questioner, the nuances are slightly different between\nthem.\n\nSince (B) has no \"読点｛とうてん｝ _comma_ , it is pronounced continuously as a single\nphrase. This is a greeting that is normally used by the host side at the time\nof parting, both cases where the host really hopes the partner to come back to\nsee the host again, and where it is told as mere formality.\n\n(A) has a 読点｛とうてん｝, so a pause is placed after \"また\", then the following phrase\nis pronounced. In this case, there is a nuance that the host really hopes for\nthe partner to come back to see the host again.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T08:24:43.910",
"id": "56178",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T13:13:58.667",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T13:13:58.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56177",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "In general, using commas more than usual emphasizes a sentence (for example\n\"Do, it, right, now.\"), and of course they affect how the sentence is read.\nBut what is usual depends on the word. In this case, whether to put a comma\nafter また is pretty arbitrary, and the difference between the two sentences is\nnot really significant. Maybe the one with a comma would sound a little more\nemphatic or emotional, but I doubt the person who wrote this was thinking\nabout the comma.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T02:01:06.627",
"id": "56193",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T02:01:06.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56177",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56177
|
56193
|
56193
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56187",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is there any difference in meaning between these three structures? I think\nthey all roughly mean \"whether or not\" but are they interchangable? Examples\nbelow:\n\n> 両親は **賛成するかしないか** にかかわらず、僕は君と結婚します。\n\nvs\n\n> 明日 **来る来ない** にかかわらず、必ずわたしに電話してください。\n\nvs\n\n> 明日は仕事を **守れるかどうか** が不安だった。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T13:02:34.803",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56180",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T10:35:23.753",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-26T10:35:23.753",
"last_editor_user_id": "4404",
"owner_user_id": "4404",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"embedded-question"
],
"title": "VかV-negか vs. V | V-neg vs. Vかどうか",
"view_count": 331
}
|
[
{
"body": "All of the forms that you have listed have the same effective meaning and are\ninterchangeable, so long as they follow the proper context. Cross-searching\nthese examples on\n[Weblio](https://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E3%81%97%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84),\nthey are pretty much all listed as synonyms, with some seemingly trivial usage\ndifferences that I do not think will actually dissuade most speakers from\nusing them interchangeably.\n\n> するかしないか standard colloquial\n>\n> するしない casual colloquial\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> するかどうか standard (spoken or written)\n>\n> するか否｛いな｝か formal (usually written); somewhat pedantic\n\nTo use as an example some advice once given by Master Yoda:\n\n> 「やる」か、「やらない」かだけだ → OK\n>\n> 「やる」、「やらない」だけだ → OK\n>\n> 「やる」かどうかだけだ → a little strange (not quite casual enough)\n>\n> 「やる」か否かだけだ → strange (mixing formal with casual)\n\nFinally, 「するのかしないのか、」or 「するのしないの、」 could be used to carry a separate nuance;\none of impatience and frustration; e.g. ‘So, are you going to do it or not!?’.\n\nIf someone has another take I will be happy to consider editing.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T22:04:50.360",
"id": "56187",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T23:49:06.340",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56180",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56180
|
56187
|
56187
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Trying to get a grasp of how to use the word **豊富な** , I found a phrase saying\n「タンパク質が豊富な」 from a Japanese website. I’m not sure if が must be used for it to\nbe correctly mean “protein-rich” or “rich in protein” And then there’s my own\nphrase: 「豊富なタンパク質」. If I mean “abundant protein”, is this correct?\n\n**EDIT:** The full sentence is \"タンパク質が豊富な食材13選\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T15:09:19.847",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56182",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:01:57.320",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-25T18:40:42.940",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27445",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"relative-clauses"
],
"title": "Does「豊富なタンパク質」 mean “abundant protein” and「タンパク質が豊富な」mean “rich in protein”?",
"view_count": 176
}
|
[
{
"body": "I don't know where you found the phrase, but if you know about \"conjugated\npart ending\" of Japanese, you also know that \"な\" of the word of \"豊富な\" is used\nwhen the word is before some noun. It's called \"attributive form.\" If you\ncan't find noun after the word \"豊富な,\" it must be omitted. You can infer what\nthe noun is by reading context.\n\nSo the answers: Both expressions you proposed can be correct and “abundant\nprotein” is also able to be translated into \"豊富なタンパク質.\"\n\nAnd you've questioned about \"が,\" haven't you? \"が\" is one of Japanese\npostpositions, \"joshi,\" that means the noun before itself is subject, and also\nyou can use it to supplement noun with verb, like \"relative pronoun.\" So\nprecisely, \"タンパク質が豊富な食材\" is \"ingredients which is protein-rich\" or\n\"ingredients which is rich in protein.\" This is the closest expression for\nthis Japanese phrase, I think.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T16:15:23.940",
"id": "56184",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:01:57.320",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T08:01:57.320",
"last_editor_user_id": "27447",
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56182",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "豊富 is a rather simple na-adjective meaning _abundant_ , and you can say both\n豊富なタンパク質 and タンパク質が豊富な食材, just as you can say the following:\n\n * 綺麗な人 a beautiful person\n * 心が綺麗な人 a person with beautiful heart\n * 有名な人 a famous person\n * 絵が有名な人 a person whose paintings are famous\n * 必要なお金 money needed\n * お金が必要な人 a person who needs money\n\nGrammatically, these ～が～な form [relative\nclauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/14550/5010) that modify a noun.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T00:59:48.497",
"id": "56191",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T00:59:48.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56182",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56182
| null |
56191
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56185",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is a quote from a book.\n\n> 差が生まれるのは、学問に励んだのか励まなかったのか。そこに違いが生じてくる、と綴ってある。\n\nWhat does 「学問に励む」 mean?\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T15:58:44.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56183",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T16:32:41.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27431",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "What does the phrase 「学問に励む」 means in this sentence?",
"view_count": 148
}
|
[
{
"body": "To put it simply, it means \" **study hard**.\"\n\n * 学問⇒ **study**. \n * に⇒ **at** , **on** , **to** and etc.\n * 励む⇒ **make an effort**.\n\nSo the phrase directly means \"make an effort at studying\" or \"focus on\nstudying.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T16:32:41.280",
"id": "56185",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T16:32:41.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56183",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56183
|
56185
|
56185
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In this story, the speaker is trying to figure out the nature of a stranger's\npowers, he makes comparisons with the powers of an acquaintance but comes to\nthe conclusion they're quite different. But before he comes to this conclusion\nhe says:\n\n> 似てる似てない以前の問題だ。\n\nI'm not sure what the speaker is saying here, is someone could break it down\nfor me that would be awesome.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T20:36:27.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56186",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T01:23:13.337",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27451",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 似てる似てない mean?",
"view_count": 203
}
|
[
{
"body": "似てる似てない is just 似ているか似ていないか or \"whether they are similar or not similar\". See\n[this recent question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/56180/5010), too.\nFor example 生きる死ぬの問題 is roughly the same as 生きるか死ぬかの問題 (a matter of life or\ndeath).\n\n[～以前の問題 is a set phrase](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/24561/5010),\nwhich in this context means the mentioned \"problem\" is not the actual problem.\nThis sentence says they are so obviously different that it's not worth\nquestioning or wondering if they are similar or not.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T00:36:31.863",
"id": "56190",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T01:23:13.337",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-26T01:23:13.337",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56186",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56186
| null |
56190
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "What is a good translation of 'hashiri ni hashirimashita'?\n\nI'm familiar with the general masu-stem-ni-iku construction: kai ni iku, \"go\nin order to shop\" - but this sounds like \"run in order to run\", which sounds\nstrange.\n\nThis is from \"stories you can read in 10 minutes - first grade\". A hare and\nhedgehog are racing, and the hedgehog keeps tricking the hare, and the hare\nwants to race over and over.\n\nA Japanese friend said it is something like \"to run over and over\", but that I\ncould not make my own constructions i.e. \"mi ni miru\", so I am missing\nsomething.\n\n(btw I don't have kanji - it's a first grade book - mostly kana).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T22:28:52.530",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56188",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-25T22:28:52.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21736",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "meaning of 'hashiri ni hashirimashita'?",
"view_count": 101
}
|
[] |
56188
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56197",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've been looking at the structure of sentences like \"They're both cute\" and\n\"I want this one\" 「どちら」 and 「どっち」 meaning which one but how would I say the\nfollowing:\n\n> \"I don't know what I want\"\n\nAnd\n\n> \"Why can't I have them both\" / \"Can't I have them both\"\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-25T23:44:22.893",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56189",
"last_activity_date": "2018-06-24T19:53:31.040",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T04:48:21.910",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27452",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "How would you say, \"Why can't I have them both?\"",
"view_count": 2236
}
|
[
{
"body": "Maybe\n\n> どちらも どっちも neither\n>\n> どちらでも どっちでも both\n\nwould be appropriate for the respective cases.\n\n> どちらも好き。 I like neither.\n>\n> どっちでも欲しい。 I want both.\n\nJust as in a conversation:\n\n> どっちが食べたい？どっちでも美味しそうだから好きに選んで。\n>\n> Which do you want to eat? Both seem delicious so choose what you want.\n\nSo if you want to go for both, why not go with:\n\n> どっちでも欲しいから買ってね？ I want both, so buy them (for me) okay?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T08:32:39.040",
"id": "56197",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T04:46:04.380",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "56189",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "First, some basic examples:\n\n> どちらとも欲｛ほ｝しい / どちらも欲｛ほ｝しい / 両方｛りょうほう｝欲｛ほ｝しい I want both\n>\n> どちらも欲しくない / 両方とも欲しくない I don't want either / I want neither\n>\n> どちらでもいい Whichever one is fine どちらでも欲しい I want either one (sounds strange)\n\nAs for your specific questions:\n\n> \"I don't know what I want\" どっちを選んだらいいかわからない (I don't know which I should\n> choose)\n>\n> \"Why can't I have them both?\" どうして両方もらえないですか？\n>\n> \"Can't I have them both?\" 両方もらえないの？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T18:40:48.067",
"id": "56217",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T04:52:58.013",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56189",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56189
|
56197
|
56217
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56196",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Compare the following two sentences, \"ため\" is used to express 原因 in both\nsentences:\n\n> 寒さの **ために** 死んだ。\n>\n> 日本は島国の **ため** 、陸上には国境がない。\n\nI wonder if I can choose to add the particle \"に\" as I want,\n\nbut one of my Japanese friend told me\n\n> 寒さの **ため** 死んだ。（✕）\n>\n> 日本は島国の **ために** 、陸上には国境がない。（✕）\n\ndon't sound natural.\n\nDoes anyone know the rule when we should add \"に\" or not?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T01:00:38.633",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56192",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-06T20:23:39.947",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "When is the particle \"に\" redundant in the phrase \"ために\"",
"view_count": 639
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 寒さ **のために** 死んだ。\n\nThe のために means \"due to~\" \" _all_ because of~\" \" _only/primarily_ for the\nreason of~\". \n～ために has a nuance of \"the result was caused **only/primarily** for this\nreason\", and its main clause, or apodosis, (「死んだ」 here) should usually be an\n**unfavorable/unwelcomed result**. \nThe sentence can be rephrased as: 寒さ **のせいで** 死んだ。 \n「～のせいで～」「～のために～」 could have a blaming or regretting tone. \n(I think 「寒さのため死んだ。」 is also acceptable.)\n\nWhereas...\n\n> 日本は島国の **ため** 、陸上には国境がない。\n\nThe ため means \"because~\" \"~so\" or \"therefore\". \n日本は島国のため **に** 、陸上には国境がない wound sound a little unnatural because 陸上に国境がない is\nnot really an _unfavorable_ result. \nIt can be rephrased as: 日本は島国な **ので** /だ **から** 、～～。 \nWhen using 「～のため、～」「～なので・だから、～」, the connection of the \"reason/cause\" and the\n\"result\" tends to sound weaker than 「～のために」「～のせいで」.\n\n* * *\n\nSimilar examples...\n\n * 「道が狭い **ために** 、車が入れない。」(≂道が狭い **せいで** ～) (Example taken from 明鏡国語辞典) \nMy car can't go through due to the fact that the street is narrow. -- the\n_unfavorable_ result is caused _all because_ / _only for the reason_ that the\nstreet is narrow. \n(I think 「道が狭いため、車が入れない」 is also acceptable.)\n\n * 「道が狭い **ため** / [狭路]{きょうろ}の **ため** 、[迂回]{うかい}してください。」(≂道が狭い **ので** ～ / 狭路 **なので** ～) \nThe street is narrow, so please take a detour. \n(×「道が狭いため **に** /狭路のため **に** 、迂回してください。」 doesn't sound right.)\n\nAlso compare:\n\n * 「無理をしたため **に** 病気になった」 I got sick _all because_ I pushed myself too much. \n * 「美しさのため **に** 人から妬まれる」 Others are jealous of me _only for/all because of_ my beauty. \nand...\n\n * 「家が手狭なため、改築する」 Our house is small, so we'll rebuilt it. \n(Examples taken from 明鏡国語辞典)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T07:04:10.387",
"id": "56194",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T07:38:48.853",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T07:38:48.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56192",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "\"に\" is used to emphasise the reasons in these sentences. All expressions\nyou've picked up are linguistically right, but the problem they two sound\nunnatural is here and it depends on what the speaker really want to tell us.\n<http://blog.livedoor.jp/s_izuha/archives/2427356.html>\n\n> 寒さのために死んだ。\n>\n> 日本は島国のために、陸上には国境がない。\n\nIt makes us focus on the reasons.\n\n> 寒さのため死んだ。\n>\n> 日本は島国のため、陸上には国境がない。\n\nIt makes us focus on the facts.\n\nInstance translation:\n\n```\n\n 寒さのために死んだ。 → It is because it was too cold, the person died.\n \n 寒さのため死んだ。 → The person did die because it was too cold.\n \n```\n\nAnd I also feel not only \"日本は島国のために\" but \"日本は島国のため\" to be odd. \"寒さ\" is a\noutside cause and the noun could be the reason, but \"島国\" is not the cause. No\nisland can erase Japanese border on land. Of course, \"being island\" is the\ncause. I mean \"日本は島国のため\" is not enough and, strictly, it should be \"日本は島国\n**である** ため.\" Both of \"日本は島国のために\" and \"日本は島国のため\" aren't precisely right,\nalthogh we Japanese often use it.\n\nThe reason why your friend said it sounded wrong is the emphasis effect of\n\"に\".\n\n> 日本は島国のために、陸上には国境がない。\n\nAs I said, \"に\" in this sentence emphasises the reason. To be precise, I meant\nit was the reason which was a noun. So this \"に\" emphasises only \"島国\" even\nthough the actual reason is not \"island\" but \"being island.\" I think it makes\nitself a little odd.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T07:28:59.920",
"id": "56196",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T13:24:31.197",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56192",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "The existing answers here focus on native speakers' understanding of emphasis,\nwhich are very useful.\n\nI'd also like to propose a grammatical explanation for the use of に in ために.\nFrom page 450 of _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ ,\n\n> The _ni_ of _tame ni_ can be dropped, if a phrase intervenes between the\n> main verb and _tame ni_.\n\nFor example,\n\n> 日本人は会社のためによく働きます。(に is required, the verb is right after ために)\n>\n> 雪のため（に）学校が休みになった。(に is optional, 学校 is between ために and the verb)\n\nThere may indeed be a difference in nuance when the に is optional. Also,\n[Geika's answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/56196/12216) states that\n`寒さのため死んだ` is a valid sentence, which apparently is grammatically incorrect,\nbut may be a colloquial wording.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-06T20:23:39.947",
"id": "56445",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-06T20:23:39.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12216",
"parent_id": "56192",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56192
|
56196
|
56194
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56214",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm guessing that the causative form only works with animate agents, so how\nwould I say something like:\n\n> Learning Japanese **makes** life interesting.\n\nThis is my attempt, but I'm not at all convinced by it:\n\n> 生活が面白くなるから日本語を勉強している。\n\nIs it correct? What better ways can I express the phrase \"X makes Y\" where X\nis not a person?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T10:22:55.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56199",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T09:08:44.720",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"causation"
],
"title": "How to say that an inanimate agent makes something happen",
"view_count": 221
}
|
[
{
"body": "Generally, \"X makes Y ～\" is translated as \"Xは、Yを～にする(or ～にさせる)\".\n\nI translated your example as \"日本語を学ぶことは、人生を面白くする。\"\n\nI translated 生活が面白くなるから日本語を勉強している into English as \"I am studying Japanese\nbecause my life becomes interesting.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T17:04:35.673",
"id": "56213",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T09:08:44.720",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T09:08:44.720",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "56199",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "As your English example for life implies not daily life or manner of living,\nbut life in general, I would use 人生 instead of 生活.\n\nYour attempt: 「生活が面白くなるから日本語を勉強している。」Means (My) daily life becomes (sic)\ninteresting, so I am studying Japanese.' Aside from the tenses not agreeing,\nthe cause/effect order is reversed.\n\nI would suggest the following:\n\n> 「日本語を勉強することが人生を面白くする。」'Studying Japanese makes life more interesting.'\n> (using が here instead of は underlines Japanese as opposed to other areas of\n> study)\n>\n> 「異国語を勉強すると世界が広がる。」'Studying foreign languages broadens (your) world.'\n>\n> 人生を面白くするために日本語を勉強しています。I study Japanese in order to make life more\n> interesting.\n\nIn the original order that you used, it would work as a\nsuggestion/recommendation:\n\n> 「人生が面白くなるから、あなたも日本語を勉強した方がいいよ。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T17:33:21.450",
"id": "56214",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T17:33:21.450",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56199",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56199
|
56214
|
56213
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "May I know the meaning of this mark which is found under a vase. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ycumZ.jpg)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T10:38:24.813",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56200",
"last_activity_date": "2020-07-02T19:53:26.323",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27457",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"handwriting"
],
"title": "Translate Mark under Japanese satsuma vase",
"view_count": 631
}
|
[
{
"body": "The mark which has a plus sign in a circle is a family crest of clan of\nShimazu. About a family crest, it is explained\n[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_\\(emblem\\)), and about the clan of\nShimazu it is explained [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimazu_clan).\n\n薩摩｛さつま｝ was located in the southernmost part of Japan as a territory dominated\nby clan of Shimazu in feudal age of Japan.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T10:58:57.737",
"id": "56201",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T10:58:57.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56200",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56200
| null |
56201
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56204",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following is a sentence in 新完全マスターN2.\n\n> 高い服をもったいない **からと** 着ないでいるのは、それこそもったいないというものだ。\n\nI don't understand what is happening with からと, or how the meaning would be any\ndifferent if the と were removed like this:\n\n> 高い服をもったいない **から** 着ないでいるのは、それこそもったいないというものだ。\n\nWhat is the function of the と here?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T12:08:44.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56202",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T13:56:44.837",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7953",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "Meaning of からと？",
"view_count": 872
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is a quotative と, and when used with から like this the difference in\nmeaning is often quite subtle. In this case it's quoting the phrase\n「もったいないから」as the justification for 着ない. It's essentially equivalent to saying\n\n> 高い服を「もったいないから」と言って着ないでいるのは、それこそもったいないというものだ。\n\nHowever since it's used with と alone (without the 言って or the quotation marks)\nit's not a direct quote indicating that someone actually said the quoted\nphrase, but an indirect quote indicating a statement that the person might be\nthinking or feeling as their justification for not wearing the clothes.\n\nIn the end, the resulting meaning is pretty close to what you would get\nwithout including the と at all, but the nuance and flow of the sentence feels\nsubtly different. In this sentence, the speaker evidently doesn't fully agree\nthat it is もったいない to wear the expensive clothes, since he's arguing against\nthat line of thought, so it feels more natural to treat the もったいないから as a\nquoted opinion of the hypothetical owner of the clothes, rather than\npresenting it as a plain から statement which sort of implies it's a\njustification the speaker himself is providing.\n\nAlso, in this particular case, separating out the もったいないから from the rest of\nthe sentence as a quote makes the sentence easier to parse - it helps to\nclarify that 高い服を and もったいないから are both separate elements modifying the\n着ないでいる, rather than being connected to each other somehow. I'm not sure if\n高い服をもったいないから着ないでいる… is strictly ungrammatical, but it sounds like quite an\nawkward construction that would probably be better avoided (My first instinct\nwould be to replace the を with a が, so that the first two elements _are_\nconnected, though awkwardly this would change the meaning of the sentence\nsomewhat). The use of the the quotative と makes the existing construction\nperfectly natural.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T13:56:44.837",
"id": "56204",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T13:56:44.837",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "56202",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] |
56202
|
56204
|
56204
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56210",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've looked this up in a few different dictionaries and the only word I got\nwas 「か国語」written in a few different ways. but all of them contain 「国語」which I\nhave come to understand means national language. Does this only refer to\nnational languages for example:\n\n> スイスは三か国語があります。ドイツ語とフランス語とイタリア語。\n\nor can this be used in other contexts\n\nI am looking for a way to talk about how many languages one knows, and I don't\ntrust google translate enough to believe what it says about just using 「言語」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T12:23:16.470",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56203",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T04:24:42.433",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-26T19:57:20.807",
"last_editor_user_id": "26263",
"owner_user_id": "26263",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"counters"
],
"title": "What is the counter for languages",
"view_count": 2532
}
|
[
{
"body": "> スイスは三か国語があります。ドイツ語とフランス語と英語。\n\n(1) 「三か国語」で合っています。 \n(2) 「スイスは三か国語があります」とは言わず、「スイスでは三か国語が使われています」と言います。 \n(3)\n[ここ](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1370593178)の説明によると「三か国語」より「三カ国語」と書いた方が新聞の書き方と同じようです。 \n(4)\n「国語」と「言語」とを使って質問者が提示した例を使って表現すると、「スイスで使われている言語はドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」と言いますが、「スイスで使われている国語はドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」とは言いません。また、「スイスで使われている言語はドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三言語です」とも言いません。不思議ですね。 \n(5)\n実際にスイスで使われている言語は、[ここ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Languages)の資料によると「ドイツ語とフランス語と英語」ではないようです。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n質問者の質問はChocolateさんのコメントで指摘されているとおり、私が勘違いしておりました。そして、Chocolateご自身の回答は、質問者の質問に的確に回答されているように思います。（+1）\n\n「スイスは三か国語があります。ドイツ語とフランス語と英語。」という例文が何だか変だと思いましたので、それの指摘に専念しておりました。専念したついでに、更に伝えたいことがありますので、追加したいと思います。\n\n(6)「あります」について \n世界にはたくさんの言語がありますが、仮に全部でドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語だけだとします。そのとき、「スイスには三カ国語があります」とは言えませんが、「\n**世界には** 三カ国語があります」とは言えます。但し、「スイスは」「世界は」ではなく、「スイス **に** は」あるいは「世界 **に**\nは」というのが正しい表現です。\n\n(7) 「公用語」について \n「スイスで使われている **言語** はドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」あるいは「スイスで使われている **言葉**\nはドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」と言えますが、「公用語」は「使われている」という表現と同時に使うことには適していません。従って「スイスで使われている\n**公用語**\nはドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」という表現は正しくありません。正しくは「スイスで定められている（または規定されている）公用語はドイツ語とフランス語と英語の三カ国語です」と言うべきです。「定められている」と「使われている」とを混ぜて表現すると、「スイスで定められている（または規定されている）公用語はドイツ語とフランス語とイタリア語（の三カ国語）ですが、実際に使われているのは、ドイツ語とフランス語と英語（の三カ国語）です」\nなお、例に挙げた言語はあくまでも仮定のものです。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T14:49:28.380",
"id": "56208",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T04:24:42.433",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56203",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "You can also use ２か国語, ３か国語 etc. to talk about how many languages one speaks,\nas in...\n\n> 「私は、 **３か国語** が話せます。」 \n> 「彼は、フランス語とドイツ語と英語の **３か国語** が話せます。」\n\nYou can also use 言語, as in...\n\n> 「僕は、フランス語とドイツ語と英語の **３つの言語** が話せます。」\n\nYou could also use terms like バイリンガル, トリリンガル, マルチリンガル, as in:\n\n> 「私は、フランス語と英語の **バイリンガル** です。」 \n> 「彼女は、フランス語と英語とドイツ語が話せる **トリリンガル** です。」",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T16:06:31.417",
"id": "56210",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T16:16:06.773",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-26T16:16:06.773",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56203",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
},
{
"body": "語 means \"a language\" and \"a word\". 三か国語 isn't divided into 三か and 国語 but 三か国\nand 語. And 国語 means \"nation language\" and probably it means official language.\n\nYour example is a bit unclear. We can't judge whether it means they are\nofficial languages or not. If you clearly want to tell that they are official\nlanguages, you can say \"スイスには三つの公用語があります。ドイツ語とフランス語と英語です.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T16:38:50.343",
"id": "56212",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T16:44:25.863",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-26T16:44:25.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "56203",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56203
|
56210
|
56210
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56207",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 気象庁は「まだ火山の活動が続いているので、これからどうなるか気をつけて **見ていかなければなりません** 」と話しています。 \n> The JMA said \"Because volcanic activity is still continuing, we'll have to\n> pay attention to what happens from now on, and go and look at it.\"\n\nI'm not 100% confident in my translation. My assumption is that なければなりません\napplies to both clauses 見ていく and 気をつける. If not, then I can't make the two\nclauses link together in any logical way.\n\nAssuming my assumptions are correct would it also be natural to swap the order\nof these clauses:\n\n> 見ていってこれからどうなるか気をつけなければなりません。 \n> We have to go and look at it and pay attention to what's happening.\n\nIn English this order feels more natural, but I have no idea about Japanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T14:01:07.627",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56205",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T14:44:36.300",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form"
],
"title": "Can なければなりません apply to previous clause joined with て",
"view_count": 97
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think the best way to think of the 気をつけて here is as a quasi-adverbial usage\nmodifying 見ていく. In other words, 気をつけて見ていく refers to the single action of\n\"carefully watching over it going forward\".\n\nNote that the いく in 見ていく here does not literally refer to going anywhere, but\nis part of the common ～ていく usage meaning \"to do something from now on\". If the\nmeaning was \"go and look at it\", it would have to be 見 **に** 行く.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T14:44:36.300",
"id": "56207",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T14:44:36.300",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "56205",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56205
|
56207
|
56207
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56211",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In trying to search for a Japanese equivalent to \"I hope~\" in English, I've\nfound two expressions 「といいね」and「ように（祈る/願う）」. However, I'm not sure how to use\nthem properly. (I feel that the latter construction is more similar to \"I\nhope\" purely in terms of structure, but that doesn't mean anything,\nnecessarily.) What is the difference between these two expressions?\n\nFor example, what's the difference between\n\n> (1) 試験に合格するように\n>\n> (2) 試験に合格するといいな\n\nin trying to say \"I hope you pass the exam\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T14:26:47.147",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56206",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:24:01.077",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T03:58:05.670",
"last_editor_user_id": "23869",
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"nuances"
],
"title": "\"I hope\" - といい vs. ように",
"view_count": 14347
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think you mean ますように rather than ように. 試験に合格しますように is more natural.\n\nThey are basically the same meaning. However I think 試験に合格しますように has a\nstronger wish than 試験に合格するといいな.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T16:08:49.777",
"id": "56211",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-26T16:08:49.777",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "56206",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "The main difference is whether you want it to sound like a wish/prayer/humble\nrequest (～ますように。), or like a simple hope/desire for an outcome (～といい～).\n\nTake this example:\n\n> 「彼が長生きし **ますように** 。」 ‘May he live long.’\n>\n> 「彼が長生きする **といい(です)ね** 。」 ‘It will be nice if he lives long.’\n\nIn trying to say 'I hope you pass your exam' I would use\n\n> 「試験に合格し **ますように** 。」 'May you pass your exam.', 'I pray that you pass your\n> exam'.\n>\n> 「合格する **といいね** ！」 'It would be nice if you passed!'",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T18:08:49.207",
"id": "56216",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:24:01.077",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56206",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56206
|
56211
|
56211
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across this english sentence tonight:\n\n> \"The rebel and government groups held talks mediated by the UN.\"\n\nWhich I loosely translated as:\n\n> 反乱の政府はUNで取り締まる会議を開催した。\n\nIs using で the correct way to introduce secondary actors into a sentence or\ncan が be used as well? Such as `反乱の政府はUNが取り締まる会議を開催した` or\n`ミキさんは神で/が作ったチョコを食べた。` （Micky ate chocolate made by God).\n\nIf が is not right, is there an ambiguity in the first sentence that the talks\nwere being mediated **at** the UN rather than **by** the UN and how would I\ncommunicate explicitly that its the organisation of the UN doing the thing\nwithout using that particle?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-26T23:42:44.460",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56219",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T03:23:17.110",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"particle-が",
"particle-で"
],
"title": "Is で the primary way of introducing a modifying actor into a sentence?",
"view_count": 134
}
|
[
{
"body": "First, I think that you should use 反乱軍代表(者), 反乱代表(者), 反政府軍代表(者), etc. instead\nof just 反乱.\n\nAのBは pattern is inappropriate for the first part. AとBは or simply inserting a\ncomma between A and B would be correct （反乱代表 と 政府代表）.\n\nUN could also be 国連, the Japanese abbreviation for the UN, or the full\nJapanese name 国際連合.\n\nAs で is more colloquial, you should probably use the more literary にて in this\ncase:\n\n> 反乱代表者と政府代表者はUN（国際連合）の調停/仲裁/仲介にて会談を開催しました。\n\nThere is likely already a determined format for saying this in Japanese\nnewspapers. I will yield to more Japanese newspaper savvy commentators on this\nsubject.\n\nAddressing your question about using が, it is allowable with a past indicative\nverb. For で/にて you would use the passive form:\n\n> 「AさんはBさんが作ったチョコを食べました。」'Mr. A ate chocolate made by Mr. B.'\n>\n> 「AさんはBさんの秘伝レシピ で/にて 作られたチョコを食べました。」'Mr. A ate chocolate made using Mr. B's\n> secret recipe.'\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> 反乱代表と政府代表は国連が仲裁した会談を行いました。\n>\n> 反乱代表と政府代表は国連にて仲裁された会談を行いました。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T01:25:08.760",
"id": "56221",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T05:33:04.750",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T05:33:04.750",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56219",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> \"The rebel and government groups...\"\n\nLiteral 「反乱軍グループと政府グループ」 might be okay, but I think it can translate to\n「反乱軍[側]{がわ}と政府[側]{がわ}」 ( _lit._ \"rebel side and government side\").\n\n> \"...held talks...\"\n\nI would translate it as 「[会談]{かいだん}を[行]{おこな}った。」\n\n> \"... mediated by the UN.\"\n\nLiterally, 「[国連]{こくれん} **に** [仲裁]{ちゅうさい}される～」 (using passive voice), or 「国連\n**が** 仲裁する～」「国連 **の** 仲裁する」 (\"~~ that the UN mediated\") ... but I think it\nmight sound more natural if you said it as 「国連の仲裁で」 (\"with the UN's\nmediation\").\n\nPut together:\n\n> \"The rebel and government groups held talks mediated by the UN.\" \n> 「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連 **に** 仲裁される会談を行った。」 (← literal, using passive) \n> 「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連 **が** / **の** 仲裁する会談を行った。」 (← using active) \n> or 「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連の仲裁で会談を行った。」\n\n* * *\n\n> Is using で the correct way to introduce secondary actors into a sentence or\n> can が be used as well? Such as 反乱の政府はUNが取り締まる会議を開催した or\n> ミキさんは神で/が作ったチョコを食べた。(Micky ate chocolate made by God).\n\nI would say...\n\n「国連 **が** / **の** 仲裁する(した)会談」 A talk that the UN mediates (mediated) \n「国連 **に** (orによって/により)仲裁される(された)会談」 A talk that is (was) mediated by the UN \n「神 **が** / **の** 作った(作る)チョコ」 Chocolate that God made (makes) \n「神 **に** (orによって/により)作られた(作られる)チョコ」 Chocolate that was (is) made by God\n\n> Is で the primary way of introducing a modifying actor into a sentence?\n\nYou'd use が or の to mark the subject in a relative clause.\n\nで as a subject marker is used in limited contexts, eg:\n\n> 当社 **で** 負担いたします。 \n> 私どものほう **で** 処理させていただきます。\n\n「～～ **で** 仲裁する会談」「～～ **で** 作ったチョコ」 would usually be used to say \"A talk\nmediated **at** [place]\" \"Chocolate made **at** [place] / **from**\n[ingredients]\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T16:08:11.870",
"id": "56255",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T03:23:17.110",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T03:23:17.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56219",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56219
| null |
56221
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56222",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It's in the title. からには is translated as 'now that, because' and から as\n'because, from'. What's the difference?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T01:20:44.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56220",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T03:26:16.760",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T03:25:43.603",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27227",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What's the difference between から and からには",
"view_count": 228
}
|
[
{
"body": "～からには has the following basic meanings: Since; due to the fact that; because\n\nThis is a colloquial usage and should not normally be used in written form, in\nwhich case you could use 以上（は）. See\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1135793721).\n\nIt functions similarly to ～であれば、だったら in the example below:\n\n> やるんだったら、ちゃんとやりましょうよ。’If you’re gonna do it, do it right.’\n>\n> やるからには、ちゃんとやりましょう。 “ “\n\nMore examples of ～からには can be found [here](https://j-nihongo.com/karaniwa/).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T02:01:58.963",
"id": "56222",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T03:26:16.760",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56220",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56220
|
56222
|
56222
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56275",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is there a term that means that something isn't _gairaigo_ , words recently\nderived from (predominantly European) foreign languages?\n\nFor example, I'd like to say that 踊り is a non- _gairaigo_ word, which could be\n_kango_ or _wago_ (also known as _yamato kotoba_ ), as opposed to the\n_gairaigo_ word ダンス.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T05:05:50.543",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56223",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T09:37:41.587",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T09:37:41.587",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"loanwords",
"terminology"
],
"title": "Is there an opposite of gairaigo, covering both kango and wago?",
"view_count": 336
}
|
[
{
"body": "Without knowing in what situation you would like to use the word, I will give\na few suggestions. I think that the top three are all pretty serviceable.\n\n日本の言葉 －OK\n\n日本語 －OK\n\n普通の日本語 - OK, not as good as the one's above\n\n外来語じゃない言葉 －OK\n\n固有語 －OK, but not so common\n\n在来語 －pretty obscure, but if it's for a thesis it's OK\n\nCheck [this site](http://www.hantaigo.com) out.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T06:29:46.090",
"id": "56226",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T17:28:19.523",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T17:28:19.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56223",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "I think a natural/obvious choice for \"non- _gairaigo_ \" would be just\nliterally 非外来語. Of course it covers both _kango_ and _wago_ , as these aren't\n_gairaigo_.\n\nThe term is being used, for example in [this draft paper title\n(PDF)](https://www.ninjal.ac.jp/event/specialists/project-\nmeeting/files/JCLWorkshop_no4_papers/JCLWorkshop_No4_35.pdf)\n\n> 現代日本語書き言葉における非外来語のカタカナ表記事情 \n> Frequency of Katakana Representation for Japanese Non-loan Words as\n> Observed in the BCCWJ Corpus",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T09:36:32.700",
"id": "56275",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T09:36:32.700",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "56223",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56223
|
56275
|
56275
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56225",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> おれの財宝か？欲しけりゃくれてやるぜ。。。(One Piece)\n\nEspecially the part \"欲しけりゃ\" (from what I gather, it's an inflection of 欲しい?)\nIs this a common construct? How can I break it down?\n\nHow can I better search for this kind of thing?\n\n * someone on hinative translated the second sentence as \"if you want I'll give it to you\";\n\n * Google translator seems to ignore 欲しけりゃ completely if I don't put a comma in the middle.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T05:23:48.560",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56224",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-23T01:28:33.033",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-23T01:28:33.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "27467",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"conjugations",
"manga"
],
"title": "Breakdown 「欲しけりゃくれてやるぜ」meaning",
"view_count": 1598
}
|
[
{
"body": "In case the links that have been provided to you in the comments below your\nquestion do not satisfy your curiosity:\n\n.....\n\n欲しけりゃ means the same thing as 欲しければ\n\n～けりゃ is an informal variation on ～ければ. Examples can be found\n[here](https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/%E3%81%91%E3%82%8A%E3%82%83).\n\nThe phrase in question would be standardized as:\n\n> 「欲しければあげるよ。。。」’I’ll give it to you if you want it.’\n\nThe translation for くれてやる reads thus:\n\n> 自分より目下の者や、いまいましく思っている者に物を与える - Said when giving something to someone who is\n> either below you in status or who you do not think kindly of.\n\nIn this case, it can be read as ‘I will grant you my treasure.’\n\nThis question was asked on Yahoo 知恵袋. You can find it\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1127606591).\n\n> My treasure?\n>\n> If you want it I’ll give it to you.\n>\n> Search for it!\n>\n> I’ve amassed there the entire world.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T06:11:52.527",
"id": "56225",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T06:59:03.063",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56224",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56224
|
56225
|
56225
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56229",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I heard it a couple of times after I thought that I understood it to mean \"I'm\nhome\".\n\nThe other contexts I've heard it were in the context of preparing food either\nto go or right away, I wanted to know a more precise meaning.\n\nAre there other contexts in which ただいま is used?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T07:39:14.537",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56228",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T07:53:06.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25682",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"usage"
],
"title": "What does ただいま Mean in the Context of Preparing Food?",
"view_count": 191
}
|
[
{
"body": "\"ただいま\" is commonly used as the shortened version of \"ただいま帰りました\" meaning \"I'm\nhome\" or \"I just came home\".\n\nThe exact meaning of \"ただいま\" is \"right now\" or \"just now\". In this context it\nis written as \"只今\" in Kanji rather than Hiragana.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T07:53:06.040",
"id": "56229",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T07:53:06.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27470",
"parent_id": "56228",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56228
|
56229
|
56229
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56248",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I can not understand very well the meaning of \"になるほど\" in this sentence, from a\nJapanese Dragon Ball Guide Book.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SXPRU.png)\n\n> (合体によるパワーアップは、)２人の戦闘力の合計ではなく、掛け算 **になるほど** の凄まじさ！\n\nIs it maybe something similar to the construction \"The more... the more...\"?\nOr does it have relations with \"I see\" なるほど?\n\nAnd, in your opinion, can this translation be correct?\n\n\"The Power-Up of the fusion (context: by means of\n[Potara](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88_\\(%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB\\))\nearring), it's something impressive closer/more similar to multiplication\nrather than a sum of the power forces of the two warriors.\"",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T10:59:16.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56230",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T03:24:46.063",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T03:24:46.063",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25405",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "になるほど in this sentence",
"view_count": 496
}
|
[
{
"body": "`XほどY` (or `XくらいY`) in this context means \"Y to the point where X\" or \"so Y\nthat X\". The \"the more ～, the more ～\" construction is not relevant. [This\nなるほど](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%88%90%E7%A8%8B) is not relevant, either. You\nhave to add の if the following modified word is a noun. 凄まじい is an adjective,\nand 凄まじさ is its nominalized form (\"-ness\").\n\n * 目で見えないほど小さい so small that it's invisible; too small to see\n * 驚くほどの値段 the price so expensive/inexpensive that it's surprising; surprising price\n * 問題になるほどの大きさ the size big enough to be problematic\n\nSo かけ算になるほどの凄まじさ is \"intensiveness to the point where it becomes a\nmultiplication\" or \"the tremendous power going up in a multiplicative manner\n(rather than the usual additive manner)\". The sentence says the fused power\nincreases in a way the fusion of 100 and 100 becomes 10000 rather than 200,\nfor example.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T01:57:23.890",
"id": "56248",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T02:15:03.300",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T02:15:03.300",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56230",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56230
|
56248
|
56248
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56237",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Just wondering how you would say \"I'm so confused\" or just, \"I'm confused\",\nfor context it (if needed) would be for deciding something, if someone\ncouldn't decide what they wanted, what would be the Japanese equivalent of\n\"I'm so confused\" or \"I don't know, in so confused!\" (\"What is going on!?\"\nWould also be helpful! Which I think is something along the line of 何ですか？)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T12:05:36.547",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56231",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T20:03:38.403",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T15:51:46.567",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "27452",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How would you say \"I'm so confused\"",
"view_count": 2601
}
|
[
{
"body": "Maybe 「よくわからない」is what you need. It expresses the feeling of confused. The\ntranslation of what is going on should be 「何が起こっているの?」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T13:20:31.077",
"id": "56232",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T13:20:31.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22245",
"parent_id": "56231",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I would say, that when presented with a difficult choice and cannot decide,\nmany people would use some form of 迷う (迷っている、迷う、迷うなぁ, etc.）. While the more\ncommon definition is 'to be lost', another of it's definitions is to waver,\nhesitate, vacillate.\n\n> 「どれにしようか迷っている。」I can't decide which to choose.\n\nAnother option would be 悩む: to be anxious, unsure, distressed.\n\n> 「決められなくて悩む」I'm unsure and can't decide.\n\nThese expressions can be shortened to utterances of 「迷う」and 「悩む」to express\nuncertainty.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T20:03:38.403",
"id": "56237",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T20:03:38.403",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56231",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56231
|
56237
|
56232
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56246",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The full form should probably be 「さぁ…さっぱりわからない」, but is it OK to omit the\nlatter part in informal conversations and will that cause any confusion or\nwill it sound strange? I suppose it should be OK but I just want to make sure\nbecause there seem to be multiple explanations to さっぱり。\n\nRelated: [Way to Use さっぱり (sappari) and すっかり\n(sukkari)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1507/way-to-\nuse-%E3%81%95%E3%81%A3%E3%81%B1%E3%82%8A-sappari-\nand-%E3%81%99%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8A-sukkari).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T13:32:06.960",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56233",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T06:29:30.380",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T06:29:30.380",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"colloquial-language"
],
"title": "Can I use 「さぁ…さっぱり。」 to express that I don't understand at all?",
"view_count": 221
}
|
[
{
"body": "Insofar as the other party understands the context (in response to a request\nfor information or opinion), it is not uncommon to omit the latter part in\ncasual conversation. I can only provide anecdotal evidence, as I couldn't find\na source.\n\nThe same holds true for あー、すっきり（した）to convey a feeling of relief or being\nrefreshed.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T19:52:46.953",
"id": "56236",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T19:52:46.953",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56233",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "さっぱり mainly means:\n\n 1. refreshed; neat; clean\n 2. (as a [negative polarity item](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/16060/5010)) completely (not); entirely (not); (not) at all \n\nPlease read the link. Since さっぱり is an NPI like 全然 and ちっとも, the latter half\nof the sentence including ない can often be omitted.\n\n> In many cases, this signal is strong enough that you can leave out the\n> actual part of the predicate containing the negation (as long as it can be\n> inferred from context)\n\nさっぱり can be さっぱり売れない, さっぱり聞こえない or anything, depending on the context.\n\nすっかり is not an NPI, so saying only すっかり can often be confusing. Also note that\nさっぱりと (with と) is not an NPI.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T01:37:30.347",
"id": "56246",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T06:18:46.700",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T06:18:46.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56233",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56233
|
56246
|
56246
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56245",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 山下さんはその映画を見ようと思う\n\nis the speaker here Yamashita-san?\n\nDoes this sentence mean:\n\n> \"Yamashita-san thinks he(Yamashita-san) will see that movie\"\n\nor\n\n> \"Yamashita-san thinks I will see that movie\"\n\nShouldn't it be 山下さんはその映画を見ようと思っている for it to mean the former?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T16:05:02.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56234",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T07:30:08.840",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-27T22:16:33.933",
"last_editor_user_id": "17515",
"owner_user_id": "17515",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"perspective"
],
"title": "Who is the speaker in this sentence",
"view_count": 188
}
|
[
{
"body": "> Yamashita-san thinks he(Yamashita-san) will see that movie\n\nis correct. If you want to say \"He thinks I will see the movie\", I think it\nshould be\n\n> 山下さんは私がその映画を見ると思っている\n\n,\n\n> 「～と思っている」 and 「～と思う」\n\nThese two are \"basically\" same. You can use both of these as same meaning in\nthe first person. but, in the third person, it should be\n\n> 彼は映画を見たいと思っている\n\nnot\n\n> 彼は映画を見たいと思う\n\nSometimes, they are explained like these,\n\n> I think = 「思う」 \n> I've been thinking = 「思っている」\n\nbut, unfortunately, 思う is sometimes used as \"I have been thinking\"\n\n**EDIT:** \n思う in the third person\n\n> A 「(あなたは)彼が何をしたいと思う？」 (What do you think he wants to do?) \n> B 「(私は)彼はピザを食べたいと思う」 (i think he wants to eat pizza)\n\nThere is a hidden subject 「私」 \nActual subject is hidden, so it looks like that [third person]+思う. but it is\nnot.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T01:24:33.100",
"id": "56245",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T03:26:32.487",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T03:26:32.487",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56234",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The answer: Yamashitasan is going to see the movie.\n\n> 山下さんはその映画を見ようと思っている\n\nYou suspected it was also able to mean \"Yamashita-san thinks I will see that\nmovie\" because we can cut subjects off sentences in Japanese, didn't you? It\nis, however, beyond the possibility this time. There is no reason to assume\nthe another subject exists, and you must not do it on this sentence.\n\nIf you want to say \"Yamashita-san thinks I will see that movie\" in Japanese,\n\"山下さんはその映画を見ようと思っている\" is not enough because \"(subject) + その映画を見よう\" is not\nfull-sentence, it needs \"と思っている\" or some.\n\n\"(verb) + よう\" tells us the subject's will, \"going to (verb)\" in English, which\nyou know that you need a \"be-verb\" before. What you need in both languages are\nalike.\n\nYou also need \"と\" and \"～する,\" \"～思う\" or something for \"その映画を見よう,\" and that works\nas a \"be-verb.\" And you know that the subject of \"be-verb\" and \"(verb)\" is\nexactly the same one. In Japanese, too.\n\n> 山下さんは（私が） **その映画を見る** と思っている\n>\n> 山下さんは（私が） **その映画を見ようとしている** と思っている\n\nWhen you say so, it means \"Yamashita-san thinks I will see that movie.\" As you\nsee, boldface ones are clearly full-sentences, \"I will see that movie.\" You\ncan finally presume there is another subject in the sentence which conteins\nanother sencence in itself.\n\nAnd I wonder how you picked up exactly \"I\" from the Japanese sentence. Anyone\nor anything can be subject if it was omitted, I think.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T07:30:08.840",
"id": "56249",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T07:30:08.840",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56234",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56234
|
56245
|
56245
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56247",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For those who are versed in both Korean and Japanese. To add a bit of context,\nI've searched info on Korean hanja usage for some time, but none of the\nsources clearly stated that hanja may serve the same purpuse as kun'yomi does\nin kanji. As far as I'm concerned, modern hanja usage is limited only to\nrepresent some ambiguous and/or homophonous vocabulary of Chinese origin (with\nthat corresponding to on'yomi) or abbreviations (\"Sino-American Relations\" and\nso on).\n\n* * *\n\nIn short, could or can hanja \"encode\" native Korean words? And if so, does\nKorean have words which were rendered on Chinese model but have native Korean\npronunciation (like Japanese 宝籤｛たからくじ｝) or words which have mixed Chinese and\nKorean phonetic parts (like Japanese 豚肉｛ぶたにく｝)?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T19:24:07.777",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56235",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:51:33.640",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T08:47:02.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "27474",
"owner_user_id": "27474",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"chinese",
"comparative-linguistics"
],
"title": "Does Korean hanja usage correspond to Japanese kun'yomi and on'yomi kanji usage?",
"view_count": 1347
}
|
[
{
"body": "_For ease of comparison, most Japanese Kanji text in this answer will be\nrendered in[Kyūjitai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABjitai), which are\nalmost 100% identical to Korean Hanja._\n\n* * *\n\n**Short answer**\n\n_No_ , [Korean mixed\nscript](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_mixed_script) (「[國漢文混用]{국한문혼용}」,\n漢字ハングル混じり文) does not employ the equivalent of Japanese _kun'yomi_ (「[訓讀]{훈독}」,\n_hun-dok_ ).\n\n**Longer answer**\n\nThey do exist, but you wouldn't come across any of significance if you were\nbeginning to learn Korean in mixed script. Korean actually doesn't classify\nthese as such anyway, as all _Hanja_ readings for vocabulary that can be\nwritten in _Hanja_ are classified as _on'yomi_ ([音讀]{음독}, _eum-dok_ ) **by\ndefinition** , while Japanese would sometimes classify these as other\nreadings. These universally come from three sources, which are:\n\n 1. Historical misreadings. For example, the counter「個」(equivalent to Japanese usage) has a reading of「개」( _gae_ ), which is really the reading of「介」; this misreading came from the confusion of「介」with「个」, which was a historical shorthand version of「個」. The proper 音讀 reading that fulfils Middle Chinese to Korean sound shifts would be「거」( _geo_ ), but this is not the standard reading in dictionaries so cannot be considered as 音讀.\n\n 2. The Korean equivalent of _ateji_ , in the sense of phonetic loans for unrelated words. For example,「[寸]{촌}」( _chon_ ) is used throughout East Asia as a unit of distance measurement, while in Korean it has an additional meaning of _degree of kinship_ ;「[三寸]{삼촌}」( _sam-chon_ ) means _uncle_.\n\n * In [Chinese character classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#Principles_of_formation), this is exactly the Korean situation of [假借]{かしゃく}. This is most likely a leftover from the Korean equivalent of [Man'yōgana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27y%C5%8Dgana), which is called 「[[吏讀]{이두}](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idu_script)」( _Idu_ ). \n 3. Phonological corruptions. The origins of this kind of vocabulary is shrouded in mystery, and may or may not be Chinese or \"Korean\"* at all, attested in extremely old proper nouns; for example, there are various hypotheses of the origin of two of the names of Korea,「朝鮮」and「韓」, both speculated to be of non-Chinese in origin.\n\n * Note that Japanese has this type of corruption too; 「うま」and「うめ」, although treated as _kun'yomi_ , are almost definitely cognate to Chinese「馬」and「梅」.\n\nRegardless, there is one rule that is always applied to _Hanja_ without\nexception, and that is each _Hanja_ is always one _Hangeul_ syllable block\nlong.\n\nThere is also the far more numerous case of Chinese-originated vocabulary in\nKorean (「[漢字語]{한자어}」) **not** being rendered in _Hanja_ , which makes them\n_anything but on'yomi_ . These are also phonological corruptions. For\nexample,「[김치]{キムチ}」( _kimchi_ ) comes from the _Hanja_ 「[沈菜]{침채}」( _chim-chae_\n, meaning _soaked vegetables_ ), but is not written or pronounced this way\nanymore.\n\n* * *\n\n音讀 and 訓讀 are exactly analogous between Korean and Japanese dictionaries for\n漢字 entries. In both, 音讀 is treated as largely a Chinese-originated sound\ngloss, while 訓讀 is treated as largely** a native-originated meaning gloss.\nHowever, Korean 訓讀 does not extend outside of dictionaries, unlike _kun'yomi_\n; only 音讀 can be written in _Hanja_ , while 訓讀 can never be written in\n_Hanja_.\n\nThis also means that the misreadings and phonetic loans, and phonological\ncorruptions mentioned above are treated as 音讀, and all of the Chinese-\noriginated vocabulary not rendered in _Hanja_ are not treated as any kind of 讀\nfor _Hanja_ at all.\n\nLastly, as in Japanese, Korean spoken language and written language differ in\nvocabulary usage; the former tends to use more native vocabulary while the\nlatter has a higher degree of 漢字語.\n\n * This means that sometimes when reading off a piece of text with _Hanja_ , 訓讀 may be used; for example,「[二時]{이시}」( _i-shi_ , same meaning as Japanese) may be read aloud as「두시」( _du-shi_ ), where「두」is the native Korean number for _two_. However, this probably shouldn't be considered as a proper way of reading _Hanja_.\n * This also means that, as the degree of technicality or formality increases in a piece of text, Korean and Japanese greatly converge in form. See, for example, the following [Sōshi-kaimei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dshi-kaimei) notice during the Japanese occupation of Korea, where it was only necessary to convert between _kana_ and _hangul_ , keeping all 漢字 the same: \n[](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Japanese_Name_Change_Bulletin_of_Taikyu_Court.jpg)\n\n* * *\n\n*Quotes are put here because, unlike Chinese, the origin of the Korean (and Japanese) languages is extremely uncertain from ancient times.\n\n** _Kun'yomi_ , even minus the readings from borrowings from western\nlanguages, is not exclusively restricted to native Japanese vocabulary. There\nare instances of Kanji where it is treated either as if (1) the _kun'yomi_\ndoes not exist, or (2) the _kun'yomi_ is exactly the same as the _on'yomi_. A\ncommon example would be「茶」.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T01:50:02.297",
"id": "56247",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T08:51:33.640",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T08:51:33.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "26510",
"owner_user_id": "26510",
"parent_id": "56235",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
56235
|
56247
|
56247
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56239",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to search the internet for an instruction for building a traditional\nkyudo quiver (矢筒). So far my search term is \"ビル命令 矢筒 弓道\" but I \"ビル命令\" seems to\nbe no good translation for instruction.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T21:49:29.167",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56238",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T23:16:55.687",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27478",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What's the japanese word for manual/building instruction",
"view_count": 108
}
|
[
{
"body": "ビル means 'a building', not 'building' as in 'to build something'. 命令 is an\norder or command. ビル命令 is gobbledygook.\n\n自作 is the word for 'self-made'. Or you can use the other words that you have\nalong with 作り方 (how to make).\n\nThere are a lot of resources out there.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T22:12:22.133",
"id": "56239",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T22:12:22.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56238",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The Japanese word which naturally came to my mind was 組み{くみ}立て{たて}, although\nit may be more about assembling than building.\n\nAnyway, googling 矢筒の組み立て gave me a link to [矢筒【イカヨプ・イカヨピコロ】 -\nアイヌ文化振興・研究推進機構](https://www.frpac.or.jp/manual/files/2008_19.pdf) which looks\nquite appropriate (page 34: 矢筒を組み立てる).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T23:16:55.687",
"id": "56242",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-27T23:16:55.687",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56238",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56238
|
56239
|
56239
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56243",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a question about the following sentence fragment.\n\n> その巨体は残り少ない緑と僅かばかりの生物を食い荒らし\n\nContext: It's talking about a gigantic sand worm thing, that is in process of\ntrying to eat someone. It's living in a desert with scarce greenery and life.\n\nWhat I'm wondering about is the\n\n> 僅かばかりの生物\n\nI'm wondering whether 僅かばかりの means little, as in small creatures, or could it\nmean more along the lines of really scarce animals, since those would be more\nrare than scarce greenery. I'm also assuming that ばかり is here just to\nintensify 僅か.\n\nI'm asking because small animals would not really gel with later comments\nabout them devolving to cannibalism in case food is missing and it's currently\ntrying to devour whole a human. So I don't know if this is the writer making a\nmistake or me.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T22:58:17.337",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56240",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T09:20:49.763",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T09:20:49.763",
"last_editor_user_id": "7944",
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"interpretation"
],
"title": "Interpreting 僅かばかりの生物",
"view_count": 80
}
|
[
{
"body": "わずか never means small _size_. It always means \"scarce\" (small _quantity_ ) or\n\"slight\" (small _degree_ ). And yes, in this case ばかり intensifies how scarce\n生物 are.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T00:50:19.747",
"id": "56243",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T00:50:19.747",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56240",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56240
|
56243
|
56243
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56244",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence: \"息子は一年浪人しました。\"\n\nThe translation provided(I don't know if this translation is really correct\nthough) :\"My son failed his university exams so he's retaking them in a year.\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-27T23:07:25.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56241",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T02:53:40.230",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25980",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "Why the ta-form is used here?",
"view_count": 120
}
|
[
{
"body": "浪人する means to become a 浪人生. 浪人生 is a person who failed an entrance exam and is\npreparing for the exam next year, usually enrolled in some\n[予備校](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yobik%C5%8D). If this sentence was said\nright after the son failed the first year's exams, \"My son became a 浪人生 for a\nyear\" automatically means he _will retake_ entrance exams next year. If this\nsentence was said after he entered a university, the same sentence can mean\n\"He _retook_ entrance exams after a year (and finally succeeded)\". It depends\non the time when this sentence was made.\n\nLikewise, 2年浪人しました would mean either \"He failed twice and will give a third\ntry next year\" or \"He tried three times (and finally succeeded or gave up).\"",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T01:02:27.197",
"id": "56244",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T02:53:40.230",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T02:53:40.230",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56241",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56241
|
56244
|
56244
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "For full context:\n<https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180125/k10011302761000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question: 高さが１３３メートルある「那智の滝」は、那智勝浦町にある熊野那智大社のご神体とされています。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"Concerning the nachifalls with a height of\n133meters, they are made (together) with \"Kumano Nachi Taisha\" which is\nNachikatsuura.\"\n\nObviously, the way I interpreted と here doesnt make much sense. But I simply\nhave no idea what it is supposed to do there.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T10:29:14.470",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56250",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T10:29:14.470",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "What does this と do?",
"view_count": 69
}
|
[] |
56250
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56253",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a following sentence (probably):\n\n> この惑星はもう「生命{いのち}を育む船」としては既に…終わってしまっているのだと\n\nIt's from a manga and the narrator is speaking. I don't EXACTLY know who the\nnarrator is supposed to be. Context wise it's happening on a dying desertified\nworld and a character (character A) just fought a monster caused by the\ndesertification.\n\nOn the next page we are then shown seemingly another character (character B)\nand there the narration boxes seem to stem from them and they are rejecting\ngiving up on the world.\n\nWhat I'm first wondering is:\n\n1) what is the function of もう here? I know from dictionary that it means now;\nsoon; shortly; before long; presently, but those are kinda different\nmeanings. So which one would be applicable here. Is it now, or soon so to\nspeak? Or something third.\n\n2) 既に…終わってしまっている this bit. Does it mean together with もう that the world is\nalready completely ending. OR is this more, _world as life bearing vessel has\nno already completely ended_ , and いる is there just to say that end happened\nand is continuing to present an into future.\n\n3) I assume と here is some kind of quoting with the verb (presumably think)\nbeing left out. Kinda weird for narration.\n\n4) The very next text on the next page is Character B saying:\n\n> 諦めてたまるもんですか…っ\n>\n> No way am I just gonna stand by and give up…\n\nCould the と from 3) be some kinda conjunction to this? And this would all be\nB's narration? I'm thinking no, since A previously did agree that leaving the\nworld would be for the best, so I'm thinking she is saying this world is done\nfor and that is being contrasted with B saying that they won't ever give up.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T12:03:35.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56251",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T13:00:55.197",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"interpretation"
],
"title": "Interpreting 既に終わってしまっている",
"view_count": 88
}
|
[
{
"body": "1. This もう is \"already\". \n\n> * もう出発する。 I'll depart soon.\n> * もう出発した。 I already departed.\n\n 2. This ている is not progressive. 終わる is an instant state-change verb (aka punctual verb) described [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3122/5010). \"This planet is already (completely) finished.\"\n 3. Yes this と is quotative. This と probably connects to a verb _before_ this sentence. Sometimes the word order can be changed for emphasis like this. See: [What does と mean in 「ここにおいで」と?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/38645/5010) Is there a verb such as 知っていた or 理解していた before this sentence?\n 4. I don't think they're connected. \"諦めてたまるもんですか…っ\" is a fairly colloquial line, and it's unlikely to be a continuation of the sentence in question.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T13:00:55.197",
"id": "56253",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T13:00:55.197",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56251",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56251
|
56253
|
56253
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56256",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 「使徒になってもらったけど、私はアヴァロのことまだ全然知らないなぁって思って」 \n> 「そうだなぁ。まだ知り合ったばっかりだし仕方ないんじゃないか？」\n\nThese are some lines from a game I'm currently playing. Does the second line\nmean \"There's still a lot to find out about each other[...]\", まだ知り合った being an\nimplicit negative? Thank you in advance.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T12:24:59.567",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56252",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T16:41:01.813",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T16:39:42.837",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25123",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"particle-ばかり"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of まだ知り合ったばっかりだ?",
"view_count": 230
}
|
[
{
"body": "Let's break this up into parts. The whole clause:\n\n> まだ知り合ったばっかりだし\n\n> 知り合った\n\nmeans \"we met/made each other's acquaintance\".\n\n> 知り合ったばっかりだ\n\nAdding ばっかり to a verb in past tense means it just happened. So this means\n\"only just met\" (plus the copula だ).\n\n> まだ知り合ったばっかりだ\n\nまだ means \"still.\" We've still only just met. (This is hard to translate\ndirectly into English, but it intensifies the ばっかり. まだ知り合った by itself doesn't\nmake sense.)\n\nFinally, the particle し just means, \"and/so\". I would translate the whole\nsentence as follows:\n\n> I mean, we've only just met, so what are you gonna do, right?\n\nThere's no negative in this sentence.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T16:10:23.607",
"id": "56256",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T16:41:01.813",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T16:41:01.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "56252",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56252
|
56256
|
56256
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "On jisho.org, words like ''達する'' are marked as ''Suru verb - special class''.\nWhat is this so called ''special verb class?''",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T19:52:41.707",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56257",
"last_activity_date": "2020-05-18T01:33:10.593",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20228",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "What are the ''special class'' suru verbs on the jisho dictionary?",
"view_count": 2309
}
|
[
{
"body": "[From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_irregular_verbs):\n\n> These are single kanji suru forms. ‘While 〜する suru verbs following a two-\n> kanji compound are regular (using the admittedly irregular conjugation of\n> suru), behaving as a kanji noun followed by an independent verb, there is\n> irregular behavior for single kanji suru verbs, and they behave as a single\n> fused word, with various forms and sometimes irregular conjugation. ‘\n\nBelow are some examples of single-kanji ‘special’ forms, compound forms, and\nregular verb forms. Note that meaning/nuance can change between the different\nforms:\n\n> Single - Double - Regular form\n>\n> 旅する - 旅行する - X\n>\n> 反する - 対抗する - 反る\n>\n> 与する - 供与 - 与える\n>\n> 休する - 休憩する - 休む\n>\n> 生ずる - 生起する - 生きる\n>\n> 禁ずる - 禁止する - X\n>\n> 要する - 要求する - 要る\n\nIn Japanese, these are called サ行変格活用 (irregular conjugation suru-form verbs).\n\nThere are pages of examples of these verbs and their meanings that can be\nfound [here](https://www.japandict.com/lists/vs-s?page=1).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T21:27:30.543",
"id": "56260",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T03:50:50.803",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T03:50:50.803",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56257",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think they are special because they have different conjugations from normal\nする-verbs, for example...\n\nRegular する-verbs conjugate like...\n\n> 勉強する → 勉強できる(potential) 勉強しよう(volitional) 勉強しない(negative) \n> 理解する → 理解できる(potential) 理解しよう(volitional) 理解しない(negative)\n\nThe \"special\" する-verbs (i.e. verbs with ～す variants), conjugate like...\n\n> 達する → 達せられる/?達せる(potential) 達しよう(volitional) 達しない/達さない(negative) \n> 愛する → 愛せる(potential) 愛そう(volitional) 愛さない(negative) \n> 訳する → 訳せる(potential) 訳そう(volitional) 訳さない(negative)\n\netc...",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T04:49:25.720",
"id": "56268",
"last_activity_date": "2020-05-18T01:33:10.593",
"last_edit_date": "2020-05-18T01:33:10.593",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56257",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
56257
| null |
56268
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've looked up the 「たら〜のに」grammar, and the site says it means \"would\nhave/could have\" but I'm having trouble with the potential verb 食える. I know it\nmeans \"can eat\" but I don't know the English equivalent. Also I know that\n「別に」when paired with a negative verb it means not particular/not necessary.\nBut how do you use with 「たら〜のに」+ potential verb? I came across this sentence\nreading today and I don't know what it means...\n\n別にミーティング終わったら、一緒に食えるのに...\n\nIt would be super helpful if someone could help me with this!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T20:03:01.517",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56258",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T14:18:46.607",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T07:18:05.980",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "27489",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"usage",
"nuances",
"potential-form"
],
"title": "「たら〜のに」Grammar help!",
"view_count": 1310
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's not the hypothetical 「～たら～のに」 \"If ~~, ~~ would ~~\" structure. I think you\nshould parse it this way...\n\n> ［ミーティング終わったら、一緒に食える］のに... \n> \"Even though [we can eat together when the meeting is over / after the\n> meeting]...\"\n\nThe ～たら here is \"When~\" or \"After~\" rather than \"If~\".\n\nThe のに at the end usually represents the speaker's feeling of discontent or\nregret.\n\nA clause might be left out as implied after the のに..., for example\n「～～のに、先に食べちゃうのか。」 depending on the context.\n\nThe 別に is here to add the nuance of \"It's _not particularly_ a problem\" →\n\"Nothing to worry about, right?\" (別に気にしなくても), \"What's the fuss?\" (別に怒らなくても),\n\"No reason for behaving/talking like that\" (別にそんなことしなくても/言わなくても), etc.,\ndepending on the context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T07:28:18.300",
"id": "56271",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T14:18:46.607",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T14:18:46.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56258",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56258
| null |
56271
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56265",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context, see\n[here](https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180125/k10011302761000.html).\n\nThe sentence in question:\n\n> 厳しい冷え込み **となった** ２５日朝、滝つぼが一面凍りついた **ほか**\n> 、流れ落ちる滝の周りにはつららができていて、岩場が氷で白く染まっていました。\n\nI already posted a fairly similar question\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/56250/what-does-\nthis-%e3%81%a8-do?noredirect=1#comment97449_56250).\n\nBut I cant really find out how to apply the regularities lined out in the\nanswers can be applied to なる here. \nSo basically, I dont know how と in 厳しい冷え込み **と** なった２５日朝 is used here. I also\ndon't really know what to do with ほか in 滝つぼが一面凍りついた **ほか**.\n\nMy attempt at translation:\n\n> \"There was intense cooldown on the 25th morning, and one side of the\n> waterfall basin froze over (ほか???) and concerning in the surroundings of the\n> waterfall, there appeared icicles and the rocky area was dyed white.\"\n\nTo make this translation, I just jused \"and\" constructions to cover the parts\nI didnt understand, but I would definitely like to know how these parts work\n^^",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T21:12:36.980",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56259",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T03:32:21.967",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T03:32:21.967",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does this となった express?",
"view_count": 163
}
|
[
{
"body": "I'd like to answer just the question about ほか. I assume you're familiar with\nthe clause-initial phrase/word そのほか, meaning \"aside from/in addition to\nthat...\" (If not, here are [examples on\nJisho](http://jisho.org/search/%E3%81%9D%E3%81%AE%E3%81%BB%E3%81%8B%E3%80%80%23sentences).)\n\nThe usage in your example in the same, except that the pronoun その is replaced\nby a concrete phrase. In short, Aほか、B means \"Aside from A, B.\" This can be a\ndisjunctive meaning (\"Aside from the fire, it was a great party.\") but it\ndoesn't have to be, and it this case it isn't.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T01:02:16.110",
"id": "56265",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T01:02:16.110",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "56259",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56259
|
56265
|
56265
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context:\n<https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180125/k10011302761000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question: 熊野那智大社によりますと、２５日午前７時の滝の周辺の気温は氷点下３度まで下がったということです。\n\nMy attempt at tramslation: \"When it becomes evening at 熊野那智大社, concerning the\natmosphere of the surroundings of the waterfall at 7a.m on the 25th day (of\nthe month), it came down below freezing 3 times.\"\n\nMy translation is quite clumsy, but thats also because I struggled to resolve\nthis huge nominal phrase ２５日午前７時の滝の周辺の気温. Im also not sure wether\ngrammatically ５日午前７時 should be parsed as an adverb or part of the attribute\n滝の周辺 to 気温. I mainly want to know if ３度まで should be interpreted as \"three\ntimes\" like in \"did X 3 times\" or \"was three times X\" here. Id also like to\nknow wether it can actually be interpreted in both ways or just in one of the\ntwo.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T21:41:20.020",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56261",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T21:55:50.380",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Does this ３度まで refer to quantity or frequency?",
"view_count": 99
}
|
[
{
"body": "度 in this instance means 'degrees' （何℃）. 氷点 is the 'freezing point' and 下 is\n'below'. 氷点下 means sub-zero or below-freezing. 氷点下3度 is 3° below.\n\n> 熊野那智大社によりますと、According to Kumano Nachi Taisha,\n>\n> ２５日午前７時の滝の周辺の気温は the air temperature around the waterfall on the 25th at\n> 7:00 am\n>\n> 氷点下３度まで下がったということです。dropped down to 3 degrees below the freezing point.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T21:55:50.380",
"id": "56262",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T21:55:50.380",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56261",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56261
| null |
56262
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have couple of issues/questions about a certain piece of monologue from a\nmanga. Because it's from a manga I will be separating the lines based on boxes\nin which they are in, and using / to separate columns (where I think that\ninformation is needed), because I'm not entirely sure they even use\npunctuation in places where they should but can simply split the text into\nanother box or column. So that's the question 1:\n\n**1)** Do manga dialogues even use punctuation? Because I have been reading\nthis one issue and I have yet to see a single comma or full stop. I have a\nfeeling they tend to simply skip to the next column when they might have\nplaced a comma or skip to the next box where a sentence ending full stop might\nbe?\n\n> 私は絶対に諦めない\n>\n> この星も諦めない / \n> パパだって諦めない\n>\n> お行儀よく諦めてなんかやらない\n>\n> そう……\n>\n> その為だったらなんだって…っ\n\nMost of it is rather clear and is here for context. If additional context is\nneeded, a planet is facing disaster and it is right now pretty certain it's\ndoomed. Also narrator's father has been trying to avert it but he is now ill\nand isn't likely to live long.\n\nSo, question time:\n\n**2)** what purpose do も and だって serve in この星 **も** 諦めない / パパ **だって** 諦めない? As\nit was at first I read it as\n\n> Because of papa, who didn't give up on this world (too?/even?), I won't give\n> up\n\nthat is I'm assuming the この星も諦めない is a descriptor of her father. BUT, I have\nsearched some, and it seems, (based on a previous answer) if だって is used after\na noun it means even? So in that case is it:\n\n> Even my papa didn't give up on this world, so I won't\n\nOR these two are separate fragments and there should be a full stop or a comma\nat least between them. So it's actually:\n\n> I won't give up on this world, and I won't give up on papa either!\n\nAnd yeah, what does も do here. Because I don't really see anything to too at\nthat point, unless it's chaining into that だって down there?\n\n**3)** Finally I have this line: その為だったら **なんだって** and I'm wondering if I'm\nright in assuming なんだって means ANYTHING here so the translation is:\n\n> If it's for the sake of that/them, I'll do ANYTHING...\n\nI'm wondering because I feel that I might be wrong there...",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T22:11:14.983",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56263",
"last_activity_date": "2023-05-18T07:06:55.833",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26839",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "だって, なんだって and some other interpretation questions",
"view_count": 934
}
|
[
{
"body": "1. Many manga artists do not follow conventional punctuation norms. Liberal use of commas where one (non-Japanese speaker) wouldn't expect them, high use of exclamation points, question marks, etc is commonplace.\n\n 2. You have two questions here (making your post a total of 4 questions). Please see Japanese StackExchange questions [55521](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/55521/what-does-%E4%BD%95%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6-mean-in-this-case), [35831](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/35831/what-does-%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6-do-in-%E3%81%9D%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AF%E5%83%95%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E7%9F%A5%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B), and [5336](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5336/%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6-datte-meaning) for uses on だって and なんだって\n\nMy take on a general translation below:\n\n> 私は絶対に諦めない I'll never give up.\n>\n> この星も諦めない / I won't give up on this planet either.\n>\n> パパだって諦めない Dad won't either.\n>\n> お行儀よく諦めてなんかやらない I won't just be a good little girl and walk away.\n>\n> そう…… Is that right?\n>\n> その為だったらなんだって…っ To accomplish that goal I'll do whatever it takes.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-28T22:50:28.313",
"id": "56264",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-30T05:59:57.597",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56263",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56263
| null |
56264
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56279",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was reading this Haiku behind a tea bag:\n\n> 恋愛の\n>\n> 方程式解く\n>\n> 春うらら\n\nI actually have to questions:\n\n 1. Why is it considered a haiku although the second verse has actually 8 syllables? In my understanding, except in some cases.\n 2. What is a good way to explain in English 春うらら? It is not in my dictionary and it seems to be a word expressing some sort of special feeling related to spring. I asked a couple of Japanese people and I get the overall idea but none of them seemed to be able to give a clear explanation.\n\n**Edit:** answer to 1.\n\nI think this pretty much answers question 1. Is this one of such cases? From\n[wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BF%B3%E5%8F%A5):\n\n> **韻律[編集]**\n>\n>\n> 俳句は定型詩であり、五・七・五の韻律が重要な要素となっている。この韻律は開音節という日本語の特質から必然的に成立したリズムであって、俳句の制約とか、規則と考えるべきではない。五の部分が6音以上に、または七の部分が8音以上になることを字余りという。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T04:36:51.700",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56267",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T16:27:26.810",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"haiku"
],
"title": "Meaning of 春うらら",
"view_count": 462
}
|
[
{
"body": "To answer to 1, yes, you're right. It's an exception, \"字余り.\" There're many\nhaiku with extreme exceptions called \"free-style haiku.\" Here's a famous one.\n\n> せきをしてもひとり ---尾崎 秀雄(Housai Ozaki)\n\nI think it's no longer haiku, but it's haiku. According to Japanese wiki, when\nan author makes free-style haiku, the author has intention to make it free\nfrom fixed-style. The problem the short poem is either haiku or not depends on\nwhat auther intended to make.\n[https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/自由律俳句](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E5%BE%8B%E4%BF%B3%E5%8F%A5)\n\nAnd \"うらら\" has its original form, \"うらうら.\"\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%86%E3%82%89%E3%81%86%E3%82%89-441734>\n\nSo, it could be translated into English like: \"daintiness of spring\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T10:08:00.153",
"id": "56276",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T10:45:11.987",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T10:45:11.987",
"last_editor_user_id": "27447",
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56267",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "[実用日本語表現辞典](https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E6%98%A5%E3%81%86%E3%82%89%E3%82%89)\nexplains 春うらら as:\n\n> 春うらら 春のうららかな様子。明るく朗らかで、のどかなさま。\n\n明鏡国語辞典 explains うらら as:\n\n> うらら【麗ら】〘形容動詞〙うららか。『うららに照る日』『春のうららの隅田川〈花〉』\n\nand うららか as:\n\n> うららか【麗らか】〘形容動詞〙①空が明るく晴れて日がのどかに照っているさま。うらら。『うららかな日和』\n\nI think 春うらら is a word that describes... a sunny, clear, bright, mild, lovely,\nhappy, and peaceful spring day.\n\n* * *\n\nI see that you've already found the answer to your first question. Yes, it's\n[字]{じ}[余]{あま}り.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T12:34:24.677",
"id": "56279",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T16:27:26.810",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T16:27:26.810",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56267",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56267
|
56279
|
56279
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56274",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For example:\n\nI noticed what the name of the game Nekopara (ネコぱら) is half-written using\nkatakana(ネコ - neko) and half-written using hiragana(ぱら - para). I'm wondering\nwhy so. Сould you explain this to me? Maybe I'm wrong about something, I'm\ncurious to know.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T05:31:46.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56269",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T10:30:34.507",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27495",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"katakana",
"orthography",
"hiragana"
],
"title": "Is it correct/appropriate to write a word using katakana and hiragana at the same time?",
"view_count": 296
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, it would be accepted. For example, あずきバー, なでしこジャパン and いちごミルク, though\nthere may not be many and it may not be accepted for formal names. Only the\nauthor knows why he wrote the name like that.\n\nGenerally, katakana is used for loan‐words and onomatopoeic words, and we feel\nmore affinity and softness for hiragana than kanji.\n\nNames of animals and plants are generally written in katakana in the case of\nacademic names.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T09:06:53.020",
"id": "56274",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T10:30:34.507",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T10:30:34.507",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "56269",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56269
|
56274
|
56274
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56293",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Recently I looked up an explanation for 文節【ぶんせつ】 on here\n[国語文法](http://%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E6%96%87%E6%B3%95.com/%E6%96%87%E7%AF%80%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AF.html),\nwhich I learned are the phrases/units that make up sentences while\ntheoretically still standing on their own out of context.\n\nDuring that explanation they used the concept of ネ・サ・ヨ to illustrate their\npoints, by separating each 文節 of a sentence with one of these. E.g.\n\n> 「机のネ/上にネ/バッグをネ/置いてネ/おく。」\n\nI didn't understand why at first as this seemed rather specific for an\narbitrary separator, so I searched for other mentions of ネ・サ・ヨ on the net.\nWhat I found was only a mention of some movement around 1958 in some\nelementary schools to avoid using these sounds at the end of sentences, as\nthey were supposedly not part of standard language. See\n[here](http://d.hatena.ne.jp/oomesikurai/20071003).\n\nFrom that I pieced together that in the initial 文節 explanation ネ・サ・ヨ were used\nbecause conceptionally they could be appended at the end of each basic phrase\nin a sentence so Japanese people might have a natural feel for what a\nphrase/文節 is.\n\nThat's all just my limited speculation however, thus my question: \n**Is ネ・サ・ヨ used with any frequency in Japanese grammar explanations, and if\nyes, to what end?**",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T07:26:41.143",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56270",
"last_activity_date": "2018-03-03T04:22:22.067",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T07:32:17.580",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What's the role of ネ・サ・ヨ in Japanese Grammar?",
"view_count": 351
}
|
[
{
"body": "ネ・サ・ヨ (and ナ) are basically meaningless fillers. See: [What does さあ (saa)\nmean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/14922/5010) Some of the fillers\nare indeed dialectal, but at least ネ and サ are fairly commonly used in\nconversations in modern standard Japanese. In English, fillers sometimes come\nbetween a preposition and a noun (e.g., \"at, _you know_ , school\", \"in spite\nof, _well_ , his opinion\"), but in Japanese you cannot insert a filler between\na noun and a case particle.\n\nI think all students learn \"[trying to insert ネ is a quick way to separate\n文節](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/27624/5010)\" at grammar classes at\naround 7th grade or so. As you can see, people who try to explain 文節 of 国語文法\nwould usually explain this method, too. Of course this method works only for\nthose who are already fluent Japanese speakers, though. IMEs convert hiragana\nsentences into kanji by separating 文節 first, so I believe most Japanese people\nroughly remember the idea of 文節 they learnt at school.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T02:46:47.523",
"id": "56293",
"last_activity_date": "2018-03-03T04:22:22.067",
"last_edit_date": "2018-03-03T04:22:22.067",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "56270",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56270
|
56293
|
56293
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56277",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I already found '汚染除去' or '除染' for the English 'decontamination' but it seems,\nboth imply cleansing from radiation. Radiation can be, but is not\nautomatically implied in 'decontamination'. I'm looking for a word in Japanese\nthat doesn't automatically imply radiation. Specifically, I'm looking for a\nmedical term to decontaminate instruments, implants and such after usage in\nsurgery. Hope, someone can help!\n\nEdit: A colleague of mine mentioned '蒸気滅菌', does anyone know whether that's\nused for 'decontamination' when radiation is not involved?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T08:23:42.133",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56272",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T13:37:07.433",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T08:54:48.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "27498",
"owner_user_id": "27498",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-requests"
],
"title": "'Decontamination' - word that doesn't imply radiation",
"view_count": 189
}
|
[
{
"body": "Are you perhaps looking for the word 'disinfect'?\n\nAntiseptic agent 消毒剤｛しょうどくざい｝\n\nAntiseptic liquid 消毒液｛しょうどくえき｝\n\nAntibacterial agent 殺菌剤｛さっきんざい｝\n\nAntibacterial liquid 殺菌液｛さっきんえき｝\n\nAntibacterial/Antiseptic 殺菌消毒剤｛さっきんしょうどくざい｝\n\n* * *\n\nUsually products are branded with the catch-all 消毒剤/消毒液, but when reading the\n'type of product' definition, it will be listed as 殺菌消毒剤.\n\nIn verb form, the word for 'disinfect' is either 殺菌する or the more common 消毒する.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T08:47:27.723",
"id": "56273",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T08:47:27.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56272",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "The meaning of \"decontamination\" is written\n[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decontamination). \nAccording to the article, decontamination doesn't always mean to remove\nradioactive substances. Neither does 汚染除去｛おせんじょきょ｝ or 除染｛じょせん｝. As for 汚染除去 or\n除染, there may be a large proportion of meaning to remove radioactive\nsubstances compared to decontamination, but as with 汚染除去 or 除染, they mean not\nonly to remove radioactive pollutants but also to remove various substances\nharmful to human health. The harmful substance differs depending on the field,\nbut I think that it is germs or infectious diseases at the site of surgery.\n\nIn this sense, Japanese \"滅菌｛めっきん｝\", \"殺菌｛さっきん｝\" or \"消毒｛しょうどく｝\" written in\nuser27280's answer is more suitable than \"除染\" which has a broader meaning.\n\nMedical or chemical liquid/agent that realizes 滅菌/殺菌/消毒 is called\n消毒剤｛しょうどくざい｝/消毒液｛しょうどくえき｝/殺菌剤/殺菌液/殺菌消毒剤 written in user27280's answer and\ninstruments that realize 滅菌/殺菌/消毒 are called \"滅菌器具｛めっきんきぐ｝/殺菌器具/消毒器具 including\n\"蒸気滅菌器/蒸気滅菌器具\". The part of \"蒸気\" varies depending on the means by which \"滅菌\"\nis carried out. If germs or bacteria can be killed with ultraviolet light\ninstead of steam, there is an instrument called 紫外線｛しがいせん｝滅菌器/紫外線滅菌器具.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T12:25:16.537",
"id": "56277",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T13:37:07.433",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T13:37:07.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56272",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56272
|
56277
|
56273
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56280",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm reading a manga. Two sisters have just lost their father. Sister A laments\nthat she doesn't know what to think, and sister B is just staring into the\nvoid. Then sister A says to sister B\n\n> やけにカラっとしてるじゃないか。\n\nQuestion: what on earth does she mean? In the dictionary, I find \"dry\", but\nthat doesn't make much sense. Googling around, I've also found 明るい, but sister\nB doesn't look happy. My interpretation would be \"You look like you don't care\nat all.\" or something like that, but that doesn't fit any dictionary entry\nI've seen.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T12:30:27.263",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56278",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T13:05:18.887",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27499",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What makes a person カラッと?",
"view_count": 177
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「やけにカラっとしてるじゃないか。」\n\nYour interpretation of \"You look like you don't care at all.\" is actually\nspot-on.\n\nEven though you do not seem to think that it fits the \"dictionary\" definitions\nyou have found, it does to a large extent according to me.\n\n\"Dry\": Sister B is not crying, correct? Dry ≒ No tears, no weeping, etc.\n\n\"明{あか}るい\": While B may not be being cheerful, she is not all that depressed,\neither, about her father's passing. B does not look like she is left in the\ndark. So, in that sense, she looks (too) 明るい considering the occasion.\n\nFor the beginners, 「じゃない」 here is being used affirmatively. This has already\nbeen explained multiple times here, so I will not talk about it.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T13:01:33.190",
"id": "56280",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T13:05:18.887",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T13:05:18.887",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56278",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56278
|
56280
|
56280
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 「恋愛成就のお守りを託されたくらいで、自己改革が出来る程度のものだったとは思えないの。」\n\nWhat purpose does くらいで serve in this sentence? How would you translate it?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T13:33:56.850",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56281",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-27T04:02:18.523",
"last_edit_date": "2020-02-27T04:02:18.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"particle-くらい"
],
"title": "I'm not sure about this くらいで",
"view_count": 1636
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「恋愛成就{れんあいじょうじゅ}のお守{まも}りを託{たく}された **くらいで**\n> 、自己改革{じこかいかく}が出来{でき}る程度{ていど}のものだったとは思{おも}えないの。」\n\nIf this were a written sentence, I would simply ask its author to rewrite it\nas it is not very clearly written. The 「思えないの」 ending, however, suggests that\nit is a **_spoken_** line, so I will try not to sound too judgy here.\n\nUnless the larger context proves otherwise, the 「～～くらいで」 should describe how\ntrivial, unimportant, etc. the preceding part (~~) is in comparison to what\nfollows. Using the actual words, here is the structure of this \"sentence\".\n\n\"恋愛成就のお守りを託された was all that happened (which is quite trivial since a love\ncharm is a hit-or-miss kind of thing) and I still do not think that it was\n自己改革が出来る程度のもの.\"\n\n> \"Sure, a love charm was left in my keeping, but who could have thought that\n> it would be as super-effective as to make you accomplish self-reform? (Not\n> me!)\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T11:11:16.903",
"id": "56301",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T11:11:16.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56281",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56281
| null |
56301
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56284",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a couple of questions about the presumptive form.\n\n「それは誰が定めたの？」 「フュシィアに決まって居ろう。」\n\nAbove are some lines from a game that got me pondering about this:\n\n * Am I correct in that the V+おう form could formerly be used in place of Vだろう?\n * I've heard a phrase「控え居ろう」, which means \"get on your knees\", if I remember correctly. What is the meaning of the presumptive form here? In the modern language, you can use -おう only to suggest first-person actions.\n * Is おろう a presumptive form for both いる and おる?\n\nThanks in advance.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T14:32:50.127",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56283",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T17:36:36.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25123",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs",
"written-language"
],
"title": "Presumptive form and 居ろう",
"view_count": 420
}
|
[
{
"body": "```\n\n Am I correct in that the V+おう form could formerly be used in place of Vだろう?\n \n```\n\nYes, in the sense that it could be used both formerly and also contemporarily.\n\n```\n\n I've heard a phrase「控え居ろう」, which means \"get on your knees\", if I remember correctly. \n \n```\n\nI believe that your remembrance of this phrase’s meaning in its context\n(水戸黄門？）is clouding the actual meaning. In this usage, おろう serves as an\nimperative, and would probably use an exclamation point. This would mean\n‘Restrain yourself!’ and would be interpreted as ‘Show the proper respect!’ to\nindicate that the other party is being impertinent. It can be paraphrased as\n'Shut up and wait'. It is equivalent to hearing「控えなさい!」whereupon, the receiver\nof this rebuke is forced to show contrition by kowtowing.\n\n```\n\n What is the meaning of the presumptive form here? \n \n```\n\n「フュシィアに決まっているでしょう。」\n\n```\n\n In the modern language, you can use -おう only to suggest first-person actions.\n \n```\n\nI don't follow... It is often used when giving instructions or admonition to a\nsecond party, 「ゴミはゴミ箱に入れるだろう。」’We put our trash in the trash can, don’t we?’\nor 「もっと早くやりましょう。」'Do it faster.'.\n\n```\n\n Is おろう a presumptive form for both いる and おる?\n \n```\n\nIt can be used for either. いる and おる are just different pronunciations of the\nsame word.\n\nおる was once the more common way of pronouncing 居る and it has retained\ndominance in certain parts of the country (近畿、中国、四国）and especially among some\nolder denizens. In some areas, it is even considered honorific language.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T17:31:21.513",
"id": "56284",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T17:36:36.763",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-29T17:36:36.763",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56283",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56283
|
56284
|
56284
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "73724",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Recently, I came across this word: 正規品{せいきひん}\n\nNone of online dictionaries that I know had registered the term at all. I\ncould not find such word in [search result of\njisho.org](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E5%93%81) or [search\nresult of\ndictionary.goo.nee.jp](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/all/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E5%93%81/m6u/),\nfor example. Also, none of physical dictionaries that I have had anything to\ndo with the term.\n\nI found [this Windows support page in\nJapanese](https://support.microsoft.com/ja-jp/help/940084) that contain the\nterm (in bold):\n\n> Windows の使用中に「 **正規品** ではありません」のメッセージが表示される場合の対処方法\n\nThat is similar to [this Windows support page in\nEnglish](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2008385/windows-7-displays-\nwindows-is-not-genuine-with-an-error-code-of-0x8007) that describes the well\nknown message \"Windows is not Genuine\". Based on this, I am aware that 正規品\ncould mean 'genuine'.\n\nBut when I reverse look up the word 'genuine' in English-Japanese dictionary,\nthe term 正規品 was not suggested. Without notable reference, this definition is\nnot trustworthy.\n\nAnother clue I have is that the Japanese input method (Mozc) that I am using,\nwas able to suggest 正規品 when I start typing せいき, despite there are many words\nthat begin with 正規, which mostly translates to 'regular' or 'normal'. That has\nnothing to do with 'genuine'.\n\nSo what does 正規品 mean, really?\n\nI am looking for an answer that can explain the meaning, as well as the usage\nof this word i.e. whether 正規品 is a technical term in some fields, abbreviation\nof a more complete term, or something else that I may have missed.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T17:54:13.810",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56285",
"last_activity_date": "2020-01-04T06:06:48.993",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words",
"definitions",
"terminology"
],
"title": "What does 正規品 mean?",
"view_count": 651
}
|
[
{
"body": "Based on this Q&A:\n\n<https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1312139638>\n\n正規品 is another way of saying 本物. If you look at the Jisho definition of 正規,\nyou'll see that one of the meanings is \"legitimate.\" So 正規品 are legitimate\ngoods, rather than a knockoff or a pirated copy. \"Genuine\" is another\nreasonable definition.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T19:45:27.740",
"id": "56286",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-29T19:45:27.740",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "56285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Two years later, looking back at my own question and the comment by @kuchitsu,\nI may have understood why I thought 正規品 means different from the given\nexample.\n\n> comment: some info and examples:\n> ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E5%93%81 – kuchitsu Jan 29 '18 at\n> 18:24\n\nAs per referenced comment, [正規品 on\nWeblio](https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E5%93%81) hinted\nthat the word does not simply mean 'genuine products' or 'real products' by\ndefault. Other translated meanings found in the list: correct parts, official\nproducts, box, retail.\n\n> [There] are many words that begin with 正規, which mostly translates to\n> 'regular' or 'normal'. That has nothing to do with 'genuine'.\n\nSuch varying translations may suggest that some retail products--notably [OEM\n(manufacturing)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_equipment_manufacturer)--can\nbe considered as 正規品 in appropriate context. OEM products should be understood\nas \"products that comply with certain specifications\" rather than \"products\nthat have been made exclusively by the rightful owner\".\n\nThat might explain why 正規品 is mostly translated as 'regular' or 'normal'\nrather than 'genuine' as noted in the question.\n\n> So what does 正規品 mean, really?\n\nThe included word 正規 might further explain why there are varied meanings as\ndiscovered above. From [正規 on\nWeblio](https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F), the word has\nmainly two branches of meaning: 正式の (regular, formal, proper) and 合法的な\n(legitimate, legal).\n\nThe given example of \"Windows is not Genuine\" was translated from the latter\nbranch of meaning, which is 合法的な (legitimate, legal). Therefore 正規品 can be\ntranslated as \"genuine product\" in this context; however this should not be\ntaken literally as the translation may vary by context.\n\nAnother word usage may be found in some product reviews. For example, a retail\nplastic model kit usually consists of molded parts surrounded by the frame\nthat is known as \"runner\" (see [Plastic\nmodel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_model) and\n[プラモデル](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%97%E3%83%A9%E3%83%A2%E3%83%87%E3%83%AB)\non Wikipedia). Such unassembled parts in the retail product can be referred as\n正規品 also.\n\nThe later example of \"runner\" was translated from the former branch of\nmeaning, which is 正式の (regular, formal, proper). Therefore 正規品 can be\ntranslated as \"regular parts\" in this context, which differs from and not\nreally \"genuine products\" that otherwise understood in the previous example.\n\n> I am looking for an answer that can explain the meaning, as well as the\n> usage of this word i.e. whether 正規品 is a technical term in some fields,\n> abbreviation of a more complete term, or something else that I may have\n> missed.\n\nThe given example is likely intended to show some research effort; however\nthat might also have caused people to answer solely based on the given example\nand disregard the context, unfortunately.\n\nHence the two branches of meaning may give different meanings as above. If one\nmust have a generic translation for that, then 正規品 may be translated as\n\"standard products\". That seems close enough to contain both meanings with\ngiven context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-01-04T06:06:48.993",
"id": "73724",
"last_activity_date": "2020-01-04T06:06:48.993",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56285
|
73724
|
56286
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56290",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "As practice I have been alternately translating short bits of writing both\nfrom Japanese to English and from English to Japanese. When most recently\nattempting the latter, it occurred to me that I have never (that I can recall)\nseen a way to specify 'will not' that isn't ambiguous with 'cannot' or 'does\nnot'.\n\nFor example, the stock translation of 'I will not forgive you' (許さない) is\ndistinguished from 'I cannot forgive you' (許せない) but not from 'I do not\nforgive you' (許さない again).\n\nSome of the time this isn't a problem, but especially when writing in a 3rd\nperson perspective, the implications of doesn't vs won't can be significant\n(i.e. 'The man didn't tell her his name' implies nothing in particular, but\n'The man would not tell her his name' implies that the question of the man's\nname was explicitly rebuffed, suggesting suspicion, secrecy, or just plain\nrudeness).\n\nIn that specific example, the distinction could be made with a sentence like\n'彼女は尋ねたのに男は名前を言わなかった', or '男は彼女に名乗らないと言った', these approaches cannot always be\nused and require more information than might be available. Is there a more\ngeneral way to distinguish between 'cannot'/'does not' and 'will not' in\nJapanese, either explicitly or by changing the sentence structure?\n\nEDIT:\n\nSince the current answerers seem to have misunderstood my question, I will\nattempt to clarify here. Firstly, I am not intending to conflate or group\ntogether 'cannot' with 'does not', except in that they are both alternatives\nto 'will not'.\n\nSecondly, the distinction I'm trying to make between the two and 'will not' is\nnot one of tense (present/past vs future) but one of intent. 'I cannot tell\nyou' implies a very different intent than 'I will not tell you', and it is\nthis difference which I am trying to express in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T21:12:17.003",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56287",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T04:28:55.923",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-30T01:33:16.503",
"last_editor_user_id": "27504",
"owner_user_id": "27504",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"phrases"
],
"title": "Is it possible to distinguish between 'cannot'/'does not' and 'will not'?",
"view_count": 2415
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think that the issue is ambiguity of the so-called present-tense in many\nlanguages in general. By saying 'will not forgive' does that imply that you\ncurrently forgive the person, but will not in the future? Or is it present\nprogressive, 'I am not forgiving you', which can be used colloquially as well,\nbut to mean indefinitely? 'I am not going to forgive you' implies that this\nnon-forgiveness is never-ending, so the nuance is equivalent to 'I will never\nforgive you.'\n\nEnglish verbs (non-auxiliary) also do not conjugate to future tense. You have\nto add a helping verb: will, won't, did, didn't, etc. 'I caught a fish' is\nfine but 'I catch a fish' is strange. Why is that? Because the present is\nfluid and the action of catching a fish either happened, is happening, or will\nhappen. Even if you stop time, you will be 'catching a fish' indefinitely.\n\nWhere exactly does the present end and the future begin?\n\nIt is much easier to just be specific when applicable, such as 「今はお前を許せない\n。」「決してお前を許せない。」Other than that, context and nuance are your guides.\n\n> 「彼女は尋ねたのに男は名前を言わなかった」\n>\n> 'She inquired, but the man wouldn't give his name.' [There is only past\n> tense here]\n\n-\n\n> 「男は彼女に'名乗らない'と言った。」\n>\n> (The man told her) 'I will not give you my name.' [indefinite]\n\nAs far as conflating 'cannot' and 'does not', I sincerely do not see the\nreason for this.\n\nYou also mention 'does not' is also indefinite. That is why we use the\ninfinitive form of verbs to indicate present tense. If you were to ask 'When\nexactly does he not forgive her?' the answer would be the same in English or\nJapanese: A confused look.\n\nAlso check out [Tae Kim's\nBlog](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/blog/2008/05/26/actually-japanese-has-\nfuture-tense-kind-of-2/).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-29T22:39:19.180",
"id": "56288",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T03:32:58.500",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-30T03:32:58.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56287",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I have to nitpick a bit to get to a plausible answer. First, I would not group\n_cannot_ and _does not_ as part of the same type of expressions. While\n_cannot_ refers to the possibility (in this case, lack of it, from the idea\nthat something that _cannot_ do something is _unable to do_ it), _does not_\nand _will not_ are more closely tied together, as something that is the\ninaction in its present and future tenses.\n\nSo, part of the problem with this is the fact that Japanese does not have a\nclear present/future distinction. Tenses regarding the present/future are\ndiscerned by mostly context. This is somewhat true of English as well, and is\ndependent on helping verbs to accomplish this distinction.\n\nUsing your examples, think on the following:\n\n> 男は彼女に **名乗らない** と言った \n> He told her that he **will not give her his name**.\n>\n> 男は彼女に **名乗れない** と言った \n> He told her that he **cannot give her his name**.\n>\n> 男は彼女に **名乗っていない** と言った \n> He told her that he **is not telling her his name (right this moment)**.\n\nLooking at the conjugation and presence or absence of helping verbs is\nprobably the most concise way of determining which is being said.\n\nIn addition, if your point is to try and express an action that does not\nhappen as part of a sequence of actions, or as an action that has no need to\nhappen, you might consider this form, though it is a bit irregular:\n\n> 男は彼女に **名乗ることはない** と言った \n> He told her that he **will not give her his name (as he has no need to and\n> so will not be done)**.\n\n**EDIT:** Adding the section below.\n\nIf the idea is to differentiate intent versus an action just not happening,\nyou'd mark intent with つもり. For example:\n\n> 男は彼女に **名乗るつもりはない** と言った \n> He told her that he **has no intention of giving her his name**.\n\n...or likewise:\n\n> 男は彼女に **名乗らないつもりだ** と言った \n> He told her that he **intends to not tell her his name** (which sounds a\n> bit strange in English).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T00:12:53.247",
"id": "56289",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T19:34:59.287",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "56287",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> Is there a more general way to distinguish between 'cannot'/'does not' and\n> 'will not' in Japanese, either explicitly or by changing the sentence\n> structure?\n\nHow about using 「～(よ)うとしない」 and 「～(する)つもりはない」 (or 「～(し)ないつもりだ」 depending on\nthe context)?\n\nFor example...\n\n> 「男は名前を言わなかった。」 \n> The man didn't/wouldn't tell her his name. \n> 「男は名前を言 **おうとしなかった** 。」 \n> The man would not tell her his name.\n\n> 「男は名前を言わない。」 \n> The man does't/won't tell her his name. \n> 「男は名前を言 **おうとしない** 。」 \n> The man will not tell her his name.\n\n> 「私は名前を言わなかった。」 \n> I didn't/wouldn't tell her my name. \n> 「私は名前を言 **おうとしなかった** 。」 \n> (?「私は名前を言うつもりはなかった。」 _lit._ I had no intention to / I didn't intend to say\n> may name.) \n> I would not tell her my name.\n\n> 「言わない。」 \n> I don't/won't tell you. \n> 「言う **つもりはない** 。」 -- or 「言わ **ないつもり** だ」 depending on the context \n> I will not tell you.\n\n> 「許さない。」 \n> I don't/won't forgive you. \n> 「許す **つもりはない** 。」 -- or 「許さ **ないつもり** だ」 depending on the context \n> (or maybe 「許さない **ぞ** 。」 ← sounds strong and masculine) \n> I won't forgive you.\n\n* * *\n\nWe also have 「～まいとする」 and 「～まいとした」 to mean \"(3rd person) won't~\" (「～ようとしない」)\nand \"wouldn't~\" (「～ようとしなかった」) , though they sound pretty literary. Using まい,\nyou could say like... 「男は名前を言うまいとしている。」「男は・私は名前を言うまいとした。」\n\n「～するつもりはない」( _lit._ I have no intention to do~ → I don't intend to do~) and\n「～しないつもりだ」( _lit._ I intend not to do~) are both used to mean \"I won't~\" \"I'm\nnot going to~\" \"I'll never~\", and one can be preferred over the other\ndepending on the context.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T01:51:36.707",
"id": "56290",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T04:28:55.923",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T04:28:55.923",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56287",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "```\n\n 'cannot'\n 許せない\n \n 'does not' \n 許していない\n \n 'will not'\n 許さない\n \n```\n\n`Does not` is talking about a state, the state of forgiveness. It doesn't\nimply it will forever hold true - one day he may forgive right?\n\nWe can use the grammar point ～ていません to say the current state of something.\n銀行に行っています, means he is at the bank - right now - because he went there and\nthat is now his current `state`.\n\nSo in your case:\n\n```\n\n 'Can't say'\n 言えない\n \n 'Not saying' \n 言ってない\n \n 'Won't say'\n 言わない\n \n```",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T02:57:41.200",
"id": "56294",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T02:57:41.200",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56287",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56287
|
56290
|
56290
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56292",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Is it best to simply use only the first name (in my cousin's case,\nRochelle/ロシイル), only the last name Stout (スタウト, I believe?)), or some sort of\nvariation of initials? And if initials are okay, what sort of formatting is\nacceptable?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T01:56:03.993",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56291",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T19:12:25.210",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27506",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"katakana",
"names"
],
"title": "How exactly is a foreign name written on a hanko?",
"view_count": 3673
}
|
[
{
"body": "A hanko is supposed to be a unique signature, you can style it however you\nwant as long as it's readable. Romaji, katakana or hirakana - but don't make\nup kanji unless you officially have that kanji registered as your by-name.\n\nRead the part about Jitsu-in:\n<http://www.city.kakamigahara.lg.jp/international/english/3101/003106.html>\n\n> As a rule, you can only register your name as stated on your alien\n> registration card. You can register a stamp of your family name, given name\n> or both. The stamp should print your name in the alphabet, katakana or\n> hiragana. You can register your name in kanji ONLY if you first register the\n> kanji name as a by-name first. This can also be done at the citizens’\n> service department.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T02:23:25.137",
"id": "56292",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T02:23:25.137",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56291",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "In some cases is better ask to you city office which one is better, in my case\nthe city office accept my hanko in katakana and i use that one for bank and\neverything that i need. In the case of my wife (half-japanese) she use the\nhanko with her family name in Kanji without any problem.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T08:05:43.117",
"id": "56297",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T08:05:43.117",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22344",
"parent_id": "56291",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "My experience as an American living in Japan is that you are not expected to\nuse hanko. My signature in the hanko space on documents (bank and other) was\nregularly accepted. (Yes, I did have to kind of squish my signature in, almost\nlike initializing instead of signing.) I have lived and worked in Japan\nmultiple times over the years, but have never had long-term resident status or\ncitizenship, so your situation may be different. But if you ask, you may not\nhave a need for a hanko.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T19:12:25.210",
"id": "56315",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T19:12:25.210",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19665",
"parent_id": "56291",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
56291
|
56292
|
56292
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56296",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Today I read a post here on this website (here is the post: [Meaning of\n～と言えよう](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/14751/meaning-\nof-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%81%88%E3%82%88%E3%81%86)) and in this post\nsomeone mentioned the following:\n\n```\n\n よい → よかろう = よいだろう\n 神だ → 神であろう = 神だろう\n 言える → 言えよう = 言えるだろう\n \n```\n\nApparently this is how one uses だろう in classical Japanese. I've tried finding\nwebsites on this topic but no luck. Can someone explain how the conjugation\nfor this works?\n\nFor example how would I turn the following words into this classical だろう form?\n\n```\n\n class 1 verbs: 書くだろう = ????\n class 2 verbs: 食べるだろう = ????\n exception verb: するだろう = ????\n exception verb: 来るだろう = ????\n i-adjective: 安いだろう = 安かろう\n an-adjective: 綺麗だろう = 綺麗であろう\n noun: 車だろう = 車であろう\n \n```",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T02:57:47.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56295",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T10:18:49.410",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19217",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How can I use the classical form of だろう",
"view_count": 552
}
|
[
{
"body": "They're NOT classical forms. We often use them.\n\nAnd the transforming is not good. It's not wrong, but, as you can't find\nanything about them on the internet, there's no law in these instances. You\nshould learn about conjugation of verb, adjective and NA-adjective, and you\ncan take sentences to pieces of words. \n[Appendix:Japanese\nverbs](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Japanese_verbs) \n[助動詞\n(国文法)](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E_\\(%E5%9B%BD%E6%96%87%E6%B3%95\\))\n\n> よかろう → よかろ う \n> 神であろう → 神 で あろ う \n> 言えよう → 言え よう\n\n\"う\" and \"よう\" always are after \"the imperfect form\" of declinable words and add\na meaning of _guess_ or _intention_ to the words, and \"だろう\" is a shorten\nversion of \"であろう,\" so all of \"だろう\" can be transformed into \"であろう.\"\n\n\"で\" is used after noun or \"attributive form\" and there's no distinct\ndifference between using \"the imperfect form + う/よう\" and using\n\"noun/attributive form + で\" when you use it as _intension_ , but just nuance.\n\nEdit: \n\"Noun/attributive form + で\" cannot be _guess_. \n\"VERB + う/よう\" can be _intention_ but adjective and NA-adjective CAN'T.\n\nConclusion:\n\n> よかろう ≈ よいだろう = よいであろう(sounds a bit odd) \n> 神であろう = 神だろう \n> 言えよう ≈ 言えるだろう = 言えるであろう \n> 書くだろう = 書くであろう ≈ 書こう \n> 食べるだろう = 食べるであろう ≈ 食べよう \n> するだろう = するであろう ≈ しよう \n> 来るだろう = 来るであろう ≈ 来よう (Verb, but only for _guess_. Look up \"行く\" and \"来る.\"\n> Their ranges of meaning are different from English ones.) \n> 安いだろう = 安いであろう ≈ 安かろう \n> 綺麗だろう = 綺麗であろう ≈ 綺麗だろう (As there're many theories of NA-adjective, you can\n> say either the left one and the right one is the same or not.) \n> 車だろう = 車であろう",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T07:33:30.383",
"id": "56296",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T10:18:49.410",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-30T10:18:49.410",
"last_editor_user_id": "27447",
"owner_user_id": "27447",
"parent_id": "56295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56295
|
56296
|
56296
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56306",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For example:\n\n> 事故にあって、あなたが無事なら、心配いらない。車は車でしかないよ。\n\ncan be swapped for\n\n> 事故にあって、あなたが無事なら、心配いらない。車は車にすぎない。\n\nwithout changing the meaning",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T10:18:44.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56300",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T05:49:59.983",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-30T16:37:27.763",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Are でしかない and にすぎない synonymous? Or is there some connotation?",
"view_count": 447
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, 車は車 **でしかない** can be swapped for 車は車 **にすぎない** without changing the\nmeaning.\n\nIn the given context, they have the same meaning as \"The car is only a car.\",\nwhich implies \"The car is only a car unlike your life. No matter how damaged\nit gets, it can be compensated by such as repairing it or replacing it with a\nnew one.\"\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n> ...are there instances where swapping is impossible?\n\nVery few, but certainly there are. \nThere is a corpus named \"少納言｛しょうなごん｝\"\n[here](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/), which collected a vast number of\nactual Japanese sentences. In this corpus, I searched for sentence examples\nwith \"でしかない\" as a keyword, and I examined whether they can be replaced with\n\"にすぎない\". \nIn many cases, I found they could be, but I found an example that couldn't be\nreplaced with にすぎない, which is shown below.\n\n> だが、自分の老後を頼れるのは朔太郎｛さくたろう｝ **でしかない** と、信じていた。\n\nThis sentence could be rewritten as: だが、自分の老後を頼れるのは朔太郎｛さくたろう｝\n**を除いて（他｛ほか｝に）いない** と、信じていた。 \n_However, I believed that there was no one except Sakutaro whom I could depend\non for the life of my old age._",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T14:00:19.970",
"id": "56306",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T05:49:59.983",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56300",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56300
|
56306
|
56306
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "Let's say someone says \"I'm traditional\", and I wanted to ask \"In what\nrespect/regard are you traditional?\" How would I translate this?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T11:57:10.983",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56302",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T15:16:10.863",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19109",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "How would I say \"In what regard\" or \"in what respect\"?",
"view_count": 955
}
|
[
{
"body": "Most commonly, people say:\n\n> 「どんな/どのような/どういう + 点{てん} + **で** 」\n\nSo, you could say:\n\n> 「どんな点で古風{こふう}なんですか。」\n\nYou will also hear:\n\n> 「どういう意味{いみ}で古風なの/なのですか/なんですか。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T12:12:50.787",
"id": "56303",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T12:12:50.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56302",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "I feel like you could also use\n\n> {何の・どんな}[面]{めん}で～\n\nalthough I'm not completely confident in that.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T15:57:58.067",
"id": "56310",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T15:16:10.863",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T15:16:10.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "56302",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "My immediate thought was どう言うふうに: \"In what way?\", or \"how so?\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T17:30:09.150",
"id": "56313",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T17:30:09.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20316",
"parent_id": "56302",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "A few more suggestions to add to the other answers:\n\n> （あなたの）どこが（Traditional)なの？\n>\n> （あなたは）どんな風に(Traditional)なの？\n>\n> （あなたの）どんなところが(Traditional)なの？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T17:42:36.323",
"id": "56314",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T17:42:36.323",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56302",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56302
| null |
56303
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56305",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> お館様に内密で **差し入れをお届けしたいとのことで** 、私が鍵をお貸ししました\n\nI don't understand this part. \"To do X (without you knowing it), I lent them\nmy key\" is all I can understand. I'm not satisfied with the translations I\nfound of 差し入れ and とのこと(で), it doesn't make sense when I try to put them\ntogether.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T12:44:56.823",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56304",
"last_activity_date": "2022-08-10T00:00:48.223",
"last_edit_date": "2022-08-10T00:00:48.223",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "差し入れをお届けしたいとのことで",
"view_count": 324
}
|
[
{
"body": "「差{さ}し入{い}れ」 means a present (often, if not always, of food/drinks) and any\nfree online monolingual dictionary would have it as it is a very basic and\neveryday kind of word.\n\n「～～とのこと」 means \"I am/was told ~~~.\"\n\n> \"I lent (someone) the key because I was told s/he wanted to secretly deliver\n> a present to the lord/master.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T13:02:04.103",
"id": "56305",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T13:02:04.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56304",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56304
|
56305
|
56305
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56309",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "E.g. 負けずに＆負けぬように Makezu vs Makenu",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T15:23:32.143",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56308",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T15:45:01.843",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Is \"-Nu\" same as \"-Zu\"when attached to end of words to mean \"without doing\" the attached verb?",
"view_count": 1190
}
|
[
{
"body": "Not exactly grammatically. According to\n[Wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E_\\(%E5%9B%BD%E6%96%87%E6%B3%95\\)),\nず is 連用形 while ぬ is either 終止形 or 連体形. In your case if we swap them and obtain\n負けぬに (I cannot even directly type this one out with my Japanese input) and\n負けずように it won't be grammatically correct. Also note the meaning of your two\nphrases are different. The first one means \"without being defeated\" while the\nsecond means \"so as not to be defeated\". The last thing to note is that they\nare all archaic forms of ない but still commonly used in contemporary Japanese.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T15:38:47.750",
"id": "56309",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T15:45:01.843",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-30T15:45:01.843",
"last_editor_user_id": "27389",
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"parent_id": "56308",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56308
|
56309
|
56309
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56331",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "For full context:\n<https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180127/k10011304581000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question: 日本で働く外国人労働者は去年１２７万人 **余りと** 、統計を取り始めた **平成２０年以降最** も\n**多くなった** ことが厚生労働省の **まとめで** わかりました。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"Concerning the foreigner employees who work in\njapan, through the conclusion of the ministry of health, labour and welfare we\nknow that last year it became more than 1270000 since 20 years heisei era\nwhere they began taking the statistics.\"\n\nSo I basically ignored the と in 余りと because I didnt know how to interprete it.\nThe entry on jisho didnt seem to fit either <http://jisho.org/search/amarito>\n.\n\nIm also not sure if I resolved the nominal phrase 統計を取り始めた **平成２０年以降最**\ncorrectly by making 統計を取り始めた a relative attribute.\n\nI think that 余り and 多くなった are somehow related, since the foreigners \"became\nmore than...\". However, the more semantics already is in the word あまり, which\nis why it seems like a doublette if 多くなった follows.\n\nUltimately, Im very skeptical about my interpretation of まとめで. I interpreted で\nas a particle indicating a means because it fit my interpretation well, but\nsince my interpretation had a lot of guesses, I feel like this is probably not\nright xD",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T21:53:46.047",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56316",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T11:40:26.307",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T13:10:48.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How to understand 余りと and 以降最も多くなった。",
"view_count": 304
}
|
[
{
"body": "と is and. It connects the two things that can be known from the summary (まとめ)\nof the statistics. 最{もっと}も多くなった means the number has reached the peak since\nthe statistics started. The translation is (see kandyman's answer for a better\ntranslation):\n\nThrough the summary of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare we know that\nlast year there were more than 1,270,000 foreign employees who worked in\nJapan, which is the highest number since 2008 (20th year of the Heisei Era),\nwhen they began taking statistics.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:15:00.903",
"id": "56317",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T05:06:08.647",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T05:06:08.647",
"last_editor_user_id": "27280",
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"parent_id": "56316",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "First of all the と goes with 分かる. The patterns is 。。。と分かった to mean something\nlike \"It became clear that...\".\n\nThe 統計を取り始めた is modifying 平成２０年, ie \"since statistics began to be recorded in\nHeisei 20\". The 以降 is the \"since\" part above.\n\n最も多くなった go together to mean \"(became the) largest amount of...\"\n\n余り in this case just means \"more than\" or \"over\".\n\nAnd まとめ is simply a \"summary\", ie a summary report published by the Ministry.\n\nI would translate as follows:\n\n\"According to figures published in a summary by the Ministry of Health, Labour\nand Welfare, the number of foreign employees working in Japan last year grew\nto more than 1,270,000. This is the largest number documented since records\nbegan in 2008.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:19:29.827",
"id": "56318",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T22:19:29.827",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "56316",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The と is a quotative particle. Here it continues to （最も）多くなった.\n\n> 『日本で働く外国人労働者は去年１２７万人余り』 **と** 、（統計を取り始めた平成２０年以降）最も **多くなった**\n\nIt can be roughly understood as 「～というふうに・というように・のように、多くなった」.\n\nSimilar examples:\n\n> * 参加者は200名 **と多くなった** 。 The number of participants grew to 200.\n> * 数値は80％ **と** 、今までで最も **高かった** 。 The number was the highest ever, being\n> 80%.\n> * 結果は５対０ **と** 、初出場ながら **健闘しました** 。 The team did well with a score of 5 to\n> 0, even though it was their first appearance in the tournament.\n>\n\n* * *\n\nAs the other posters said...\n\n余り means \"a little more than [a phrase with a number]\".\n\n> あまり【余り】 \n> （造）《数を表す語に付いて》それより少し多い意を表す。[余]{よ}。 \n> 「二百余りの申し込みがあった」「ひと月余りが経過した」 \n> (明鏡国語辞典)\n\nand まとめ is \"summary\" (or \"conclusion\" or \"report\", depending on the context.)\n\nAs for the other part and a full translation, please refer to the other\nposters' answers...",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T06:43:27.030",
"id": "56331",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T11:40:26.307",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-01T11:40:26.307",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "56316",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
56316
|
56331
|
56331
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56320",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I couldnt find any entry on jisho, and also googling and wikipedia didnt help.\nFrom: <https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180127/k10011304581000.html>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:23:12.197",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56319",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T22:37:45.403",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What does 在留資格別 mean?",
"view_count": 71
}
|
[
{
"body": "在留資格 is\n[this](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%A8%E7%95%99%E8%B3%87%E6%A0%BC). 別\nmeans \"Categorized by ...\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:37:45.403",
"id": "56320",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T22:37:45.403",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"parent_id": "56319",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56319
|
56320
|
56320
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am trying to read this passage from a novel:\n\n> 時に切り刻み、時に擦り潰し、時に生きたまま頭蓋に穴をあけ、時に人間に己の子を炙り殺させた『実験』の日々。\n\nBackground info: A mad, twisted scientist is reminiscing about all the\nhorrific experiments he carried out in the past. The world setting in the\nnovel compromises of different species of intelligent beings including humans.\nThis specific passage describes all the things he did to 人間.\n\nThe part that's giving me trouble is \"人間に己の子を炙り殺させた\". I have never come across\nthis specific combination of words 炙り殺す, I've tried looking in a dictionary\nincluding a monolingual one with no luck. If someone can help me interpret the\nmeaning I would be grateful!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:42:03.553",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56321",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T01:07:36.077",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T01:07:36.077",
"last_editor_user_id": "27518",
"owner_user_id": "27518",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"words",
"interpretation"
],
"title": "Help with interpreting \"炙り殺す\" in this passage",
"view_count": 104
}
|
[
{
"body": "It means 殺す by the means of 炙る. Similar words include 斬{き}り殺{ころ}す.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T22:47:10.527",
"id": "56322",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-30T22:47:10.527",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"parent_id": "56321",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "In meaning,\n\n「炙{あぶ}り殺{ころ}す」＝「炙って殺す」\n\nLiterally, \"to roast and kill\".\n\nMore naturally, \"to burn to death\".\n\nA nice question to answer at the peaceful breakfast table.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T00:30:58.247",
"id": "56327",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T00:30:58.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56321",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56321
| null |
56327
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context:\n<https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20180127/k10011304581000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question:\n\n> 厚生労働省は「人手不足や景気の回復を背景に、留学生のアルバイトや技能実習生の活用が進んでいる」 **としています** 。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"Concerning the ministry of health, labour and\nwelfare, they decide that the application of foreign students side-jobs and\ntechnical trainees for the labour shortage and support of business recovery is\nvoluntary.\"\n\nI asked about a lot of と constructions recently and Im already a bit paranoid\nthat I stumble across the same mistakes again, but I cant help it. I _think_\nthat I got it right here, since I looked up \"to decide to\" on jisho and I\nthink that it fits the context. But Im not sure ^^ A と B する means \"make A into\nB\", as far as I remember, so this one \"to decide to\" is kind of contained in\nthis more general interpretation. But nevertheless, Id like to confirm wether\nI got it right.^^",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-30T23:06:20.490",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56323",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-12T13:15:20.043",
"last_edit_date": "2019-10-24T08:44:42.407",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does this としています express?",
"view_count": 2442
}
|
[
{
"body": "「～～としています」, in this context, means \" _ **to judge and conclude**_ \" and it is\nfrequently used in news reporting. In plain words, it means \" _ **to assume\nthat ~~ is the case**_ \".\n\nIn other words, the phrase is used to describe one's (current) opinion or\nanalysis on a given matter.\n\n> \"It is 厚生労働省's (judgement and) conclusion that\n> 人手不足や景気の回復を背景に、留学生のアルバイトや技能実習生の活用が進んでいる.\"\n\n大辞林 gives the following definitions.\n\nと∘する （連語） 〔格助詞「と」に動詞「する」の付いたもの〕 （１）そのように仮定する意を表す。「君がそこに居合わせた―∘する」 （２）\n**そう考える，そう判断する，という意を表す**\n。「これでよし―∘しよう」「その可能性もある―∘しなければならぬ」「目標達成は難しい―∘されている」「万葉集は和歌集の最初―∘されている」\n（３）ちょうどそうしようとしている，の意を表す。「出かけよう―∘すると，きまって雨が降る」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T00:18:53.347",
"id": "56326",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-12T13:15:20.043",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-12T13:15:20.043",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56323",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] |
56323
| null |
56326
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56345",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following are taken from the 新明解国語辞書.\n\n> **取り** [接頭語的に] 動詞に冠し、「十分に、慎重に、確実に」などの意を加える。「ーあつかう・ーつくろう・ー調べる」\n>\n> **打ち** 動詞の上に冠して、「ちょっと・すっかり・よく」などの意を表わす。「ー見る・ー明ける・ー沈む・ー興ずる・ー砕く」\n\nand there are more examples like this. However, the corresponding verbs\n「取る」「打つ」 do not seem to have these meanings, nor do the kanjis (as I\nunderstand it from a native Chinese speaker's perspective).\n\nSo my question is, how do these stem forms acquire these meanings?\n\nTo elaborate, is it related to the history (classical Japanese perhaps) or how\nJapanese people understand these things? Do native Japanese consider 取る+調べる to\nnaturally have the meaning of 取り調べる, or is the 取り in 取り調べる understood as\n\"something different\" as well by native speakers? How to make the difference\nmore easy to understand for Japanese learners?\n\nPersonally I found it very confusing when I attempted to get the meaning of\n取り調べる from 取る+調べる (or 取って調べる). A even worse case is attempting to get the\nmeaning of 打ち明ける from 打って明ける which does not seem to be used at all in Japanese\naccording to\n[Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E6%89%93%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E6%98%8E%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%22).\nIt didn't seem clear to me until I saw the quotes above and learnt that they\ncan mean something different.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T05:53:49.730",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56330",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T15:20:56.217",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27389",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"compound-verbs"
],
"title": "Why some of the ren'youkeis (masu stem forms) have different meanings when they form compound verbs?",
"view_count": 222
}
|
[
{
"body": "質問者はN1取得者なので日本語で回答します。\n\n（１）質問者が挙げた接頭辞/接頭語である「取り」と「打ち」との組み合わせでできる単語に関してどのように理解して使用しているかだけを述べます。\n例えば「取り調べる」に関しては、「取る＋調べる」としてではなく、「取り調べる」という一つの単語として意味を理解しています。その理解の中には、「取る」や「調べる」という個々の意味を統合するような思考過程は何ら存在しない。 \n従って、新明解国語辞書が、「取り」に対して、 [接頭語的に]\n動詞に冠し、「十分に、慎重に、確実に」などの意を加える。と記述しているのは、「調べる」と「取り調べる」との差を分析的に記述しているだけで、「取り」に、このような意味合いがあることは、「取り調べる」という単語を使用する、あるいは読み書きするときに実際には考えていない。\n\n（２）質問者への完全な回答にはなりませんが、関連資料が[ここ](https://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/contentscinii_20180201234547.pdf?id=ART0008984963)にあります。 \n関係する部分を以下に引用します。\n\n> 『国語学大辞典』（551\n> ページ）が「接辞と複合語要素とは、本来、一つづきのものと考えられる」と指摘しているように、接頭辞と複合語前半要素の境界は明確ではない。以下に同書から引用する。（3）接頭語の「[うち]{LL}明ける」「[さし]{LL}出す」「[ひっ]{LL}越す」「[かっ]{LL}払う」「[つん]{LL}のめる」などはもと動詞の連用形からきたものである…\n> ［中略］ …コ＋ タカイ〉コダカイ、ヒキ＋\n> コス〉ヒッコスのように連濁その他の音韻変化を起こしたりする点も、複合語の場合と同様であって、その間に明確な一線を画することはむずかしい。たとえば、同一の「うちよせる」という語において、波が岸を打ってよせてくるとか、馬に乗って近づくとかという意味の場合には、この「うち」に実質的意味があって、複合語の前項としなければならないが、「敵がうちよせる」などという場合には「うち語らう」「うち見る」などと見比べて、単に強調のニュアンスを添える「うち」だと考えれば、接頭語ということになる。\n> このように接頭辞と複合語前項の境界を確定することは、日本語形態論固有の課題であると考えられる。あるいは、このような境界を画定する必要はないという論も一つの考え方として成り立つであろう。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T15:20:56.217",
"id": "56345",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T15:20:56.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "56330",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56330
|
56345
|
56345
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56342",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the difference between using のは and というのは in a sentence to describe a\npart of the sentence? I'm having a hard time telling when to use either one,\nbecause it seems you can use というのは to describe a verb/phrase the same way you\nwould use のは. Thanks!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T06:44:00.257",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56332",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T13:37:53.467",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-01T13:37:53.467",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "27525",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "のは Vs. というのは What is the Difference?",
"view_count": 1829
}
|
[
{
"body": "The main difference is in the level of (personal) interest, excitement, etc.\nthat the speaker wants to express regarding the subject matter.\n\nUsing 「というのは」 helps place a particular emphasis on what the speaker is trying\nto convey regarding the subject matter. It tends to express a higher level of\ninterest, emotional involvement, etc.\n\n「のは」 tends to make the statement sound quite neutral, factual and \"objective\"\nif you will. It does not carry the emphasis that 「というのは」 does.\n\nFor this reason, using 「というのは」 will often naturally necessitate the use of\nqualifiers within the sentence. In the sentence given in your comment above,\nthat qualifier is 「一番{いちばん}」, which is like the ultimate qualifier that\nexists.\n\nCompare:\n\n「スキーをする **のは** 楽{たの}しい。」 (\"Skiing is fun.\")\n\n「スキーをする **というのは** 、マジめっちゃ楽しい。」 (\"That thing called skiing is **_so_** much\nfun!\")",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T12:10:29.287",
"id": "56342",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T12:10:29.287",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56332",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] |
56332
|
56342
|
56342
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56334",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "1. ガラス窓のこちら、レジの内側に坐って、見るともなしに赤いアウディを眺めていた喜一は思わずそう呟つぶやいた。 \n\n 2. 運転席の男の話にしばらく頷いたり首を傾げたりしていたアルバイトが、困った顔になって喜一の方を見たからだった。\n\na) In the first sentence, 見るともなしに赤いアウディを眺めていた, I suppose it means looking at\nthe red car without looking, but doesn't this sound illogical?\n\nb) In the second sentence, 運転席の男の話にしばらく頷いたり首を傾げたりしていたアルバイトが, I am confused by\nthis phrase, does it mean nods and tilts one's head towards the words spoken\nby the man in the driver's seat? Then what does アルバイト mean here? Seems アルバイト\ncan't fit in this context.\n\nc) 困った顔になって喜一の方を見たからだった。Does it mean because he saw the troubled face of 喜一?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T08:55:20.610",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56333",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T10:49:31.620",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27310",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Breaking down of complex sentence",
"view_count": 127
}
|
[
{
"body": "> a) In the first sentence, 見{み}るともなしに赤{あか}いアウディを眺{なが}めていた, I suppose it means\n> looking at the red car without looking, but doesn't this sound illogical?\n\nIt is logical and natural-sounding. We even say 「見るともなく見る」, which I am sure\nwill drive you up the wall.\n\n「見る」, in this context, means \" ** _to look hard_** \", \" ** _to look with an\nintention_** \", \" ** _to really watch_** \", etc.\n\n「眺める」, however, means \" ** _to gaze casually (without an intention of any\nsort)_** \".\n\nThat is why you can 眺める an object without really/seriously 見るing it.\n\n> \"喜一, who was gazing at the red Audi without really watching it, murmured\n> ~~~\"\n\nHope this sounds logical to you as well.\n\n> b) In the second sentence, 運転席の男の話にしばらく頷いたり首を傾げたりしていたアルバイトが, I am confused\n> by this phrase, does it mean nods and tilts one's head towards the words\n> spoken by the man in the driver's seat? Then what does アルバイト mean here?\n> Seems アルバイト can't fit in this context.\n\nAgain, the phrase makes perfect sense. Here is why.\n\n「アルバイト」 here means a \" ** _part-time worker_** \"; It refers to a person and\n**not** a job/position. I suspect this is where you made a mistake. Why would\nprofessional authors just throw in words that do not fit in the context in any\nlanguage/culture?\n\n> \"(It was because) the part-time employee who had been nodding and tilting\n> his head towards the words spoken by the man in the driver's seat ~~~~\"\n\nFinally,\n\n> c) 困った顔になって喜一の方を見たからだった。Does it mean because he saw the troubled face of 喜一?\n\nNo, it does not. It is the part-time employee (with a troubled face) who\nlooked in the direction of 喜一.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T10:08:20.490",
"id": "56334",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T10:49:31.620",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-31T10:49:31.620",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56333",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
56333
|
56334
|
56334
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56338",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm trying to figure out how to ask where I can buy something. From the\nlessons I've taken so far, what comes to mind is どこに＿を買いますか？ Google says this\ntranslates to \"Where should I buy a ＿?\" which would be acceptable in English,\nbut I guess it's not conveying what I want to say exactly. Would this be the\ncorrect way to ask in Japanese or is there a better way to ask \"Where can I\nbuy [something]?\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T15:37:06.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56337",
"last_activity_date": "2019-03-27T11:38:47.127",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27531",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"questions"
],
"title": "How to ask where I can buy something",
"view_count": 5187
}
|
[
{
"body": "Most commonly (and simply), we would say:\n\n> 「Xはどこで買えますか。」\n\nNote that it is 「どこ **で** 」 and not 「どこ **に** 」.\n\nAlso, 「買 **え** ますか」 would be more natural than 「買 **い** ますか」 for \"can buy\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T15:53:40.480",
"id": "56338",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T15:53:40.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56337",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
},
{
"body": "You can also say\n\n> Xはどこで **売っています** か。 → Where do they _sell_ X?\n\nThe implication (obviously) is that if something is being sold, then you are\nable to buy it. That being said, you wouldn't use this form if you're wanting\nto buy something that is not commonly sold (rare/uncommon items, illegal\nitems, etc.)\n\nSo you have to use a bit of common sense here: if you know it's something that\nis not readily available to the general market, don't use **売っています**. Then\nyou'd need to use **買えます** (\"can buy\") as explained in the other answer.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-31T17:09:03.680",
"id": "56339",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-31T17:09:03.680",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "56337",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
56337
|
56338
|
56338
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Konnichiwa.\n\nJust a beginner here ; how do you say that sort of sentence wherein it\ninvolves a that-phrase that follows a verb?\n\nArigatou !",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T12:11:45.673",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56343",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T22:22:24.670",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27546",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "How do you say 'He said that he went there' in Japanese?",
"view_count": 1658
}
|
[
{
"body": "As a possible translation:\n\n> 彼は「彼がそこに行った」と言った \n> (Kare wa kare ga soko ni itta to itta)\n\nNotice the brackets; there are particular brackets you can use for speech\nspecifically which can denote a phrase such as you highlighted.\n\nThe \"to itta\" is \"he said\". You could substitute this with something else.\n\n\"kare ga soko ni itta\" is the action that the person supposedly did - \"he went\nover there\".\n\nThis can also be cut down further assuming the context is known (for example\nwe both know who \"he\" is and its obvious we are refering to him) to:\n\n> 「彼がそこに行った」と言った \n> (kare ga soko ni itta to itta)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T18:03:43.867",
"id": "56348",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T22:22:24.670",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-01T22:22:24.670",
"last_editor_user_id": "7944",
"owner_user_id": "27370",
"parent_id": "56343",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56343
| null |
56348
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56347",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "```\n\n 「ぐっ、これは‥\n 「呪いか！？\n 「の、呪いなどと‥\n 「自らを‥ 滅ぼしかねない‥ ものまでを‥使うと‥いうのか‥‥‥ヒトは‥？\n \n```\n\nIt's a monologue from the game. That's the role of の in this sentence「の、呪いなどと‥\n?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T17:09:06.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56346",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T17:16:18.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25396",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of の here?",
"view_count": 107
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is used to represent stuttering speech. 'No-noroi nado to...'.\n\nWithout the comma (pause-indicator) it would be more difficult to interpret it\nas a stutter.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T17:16:18.997",
"id": "56347",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T17:16:18.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56346",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
56346
|
56347
|
56347
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56350",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Regarding panda viewing times at Ueno zoo:\n\n> 動物園はたくさんの人に見てもらうために、シャンシャンを見ることができる時間を **２時間半長くしました** 。 \n> The zoo has made the time when you can see the panda two and a half hours\n> long(er) so that lots of people can see it.\n\nFrom the\n[context](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011311061000/k10011311061000.html)\nit's clear to me that this is supposed to be 2.5 hours **longer** rather than\n2.5 hours **long** , but how would the grammar change to express a fixed\nperiod of 2 hours rather than an extension of two hours?\n\nI guess I would have expected the current sentence to mean **long** and would\nhave expected something like 前のより長くしました for **longer**.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T19:15:29.670",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56349",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T16:20:55.333",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-02T02:58:15.030",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"comparative-constructions"
],
"title": "長くしました: Make long or make longer?",
"view_count": 218
}
|
[
{
"body": "As 長くする means 'to lengthen', I do not see any ambiguity in this phrasing.\n\n長くなる would be used to say 'become lengthened'. By comparison to 長くする the only\nreal difference is between direct and indirect (transitive/intransitive)\nusage.\n\n前より could be used, but would be unnecessary, as we can already glean that\ninference from the context.\n\nIf, on the other hand, you wanted to say that they 'changed it to' a viewing\nperiod of (only) 2.5 hours, you would say 「見ることができる時間を2.5時間にしました。」.\n\nTo say that they 'shortened the time' by 2.5 hours:\n「見ることができる時間を2.5時間短くしました。」or 「～時間を2.5時間短縮しました」 or 「～時間が2.5時間短縮されました。」.\n\nSo, ultimately, the translation should read more directly as:\n\n> 動物園はたくさんの人に見てもらうために、シャンシャンを見ることができる時間を２時間半長くしました。\n>\n> So as to increase attendance (viewership), the zoo has lengthened the hours\n> when 'Shan-Shan' can be viewed by 2.5 hours.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T20:20:03.040",
"id": "56350",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T16:20:55.333",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56349",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56349
|
56350
|
56350
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56352",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This is quite a specific question, and may make no sense out of context, but\nthe context may be hard to explain.\n\nIf you have a name such as Tertius, which is Latin for \"third son\", what is an\nalternative to translating that name to Japanese rather than simply converting\nthe syllables?\n\nTo put it another way, what is the Japanese equivalent of a name which means\n\"third son\"?\n\nThe closest I have got so far is \"San-nan\", but I'm not practiced enough to\nknow whether this is usable as a name or merely a description.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T20:31:48.117",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56351",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T20:56:44.437",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Alternative form of a Western name in Japanese",
"view_count": 280
}
|
[
{
"body": "Japanese already has a naming convention for the order you mention:\n\n> 一郎｛いちろう｝ - first son\n>\n> 次郎｛じろう｝ - second son\n>\n> 三郎｛さぶろう｝ - third son\n>\n> 四郎｛しろう｝- fourth son\n\n...etc.\n\nI would avoid using this as your 'Japanese name' and just use katakana テルシアス\nor テルシュス, then add that it means the same as 三郎.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T20:54:57.813",
"id": "56352",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T20:54:57.813",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56351",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "I think the ～[郎]{ろう}・～[朗]{ろう} names are typical for this.\n\n * [一郎]{いちろう}\n * [二郎・次郎]{じろう}\n * [三郎]{さぶろう}\n * [四郎]{しろう}\n * [五郎・吾郎]{ごろう}",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-01T20:56:44.437",
"id": "56353",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-01T20:56:44.437",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "56351",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56351
|
56352
|
56352
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "As the title says, I'm looking for some help understanding the following\nsentence:\n\n> あなたの学校に何がありますか。\n\nI'm really confused with this sentence, especially about the use of 何 here.\nCould someone help me translate / understand it better?\n\nAs far as I can tell, a direct translation would be:\n\n> your school what there is?\n\nWhich makes no sense.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T02:36:43.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56354",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T03:28:10.583",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-02T02:47:13.080",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27473",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Understanding the sentence あなたの学校に何がありますか",
"view_count": 812
}
|
[
{
"body": "You're not too far off. The に acts as 'at'.\n\nYour school / at / what / there is / ? As it it a question, the 'is' will come\nbefore 'there'.\n\n```\n\n 何がありますか？ What is there.\n \n 野球場｛やきゅうじょう｝があります。There is a baseball field.\n \n```\n\nAs far as what the person asking really wants to know, it is unclear from the\ncontext. One can assume, however, that they know what is normally provided at\na school, so they are likely asking 'What is there (that is special) at your\nschool.'\n\nJust to summarize, the translation to the phrase is:\n\n> 'What is there at your school?'",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T03:26:46.770",
"id": "56356",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T03:26:46.770",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27280",
"parent_id": "56354",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "To translate something, you have to not only get the word-by-word meanings\nright, you have to understand the difference in sentence structures and make\nsure to move the words around correctly.\n\nWhen trying to understand a sentence in Japanese, always start with the final\nverb and build on that. In this case, the verb is あります - \"[there] is\".\n\nBuilding on that, the two main things are the subject - 何 - and the fact that\nit's a question, thanks to the sentence-end particle か. So adding those in,\nyou get \"What is [there]?\".\n\nThen we add the \"fluff\" - the additional information marked with particles\nlike に, any relative clauses, and other stuff that adds detail to the main\nsentence. In this case, we have あなたの学校に - \"at your school\".\n\nSo our final sentence is \"What is there at your school?\", which depending on\ncontext might just become \"What does your school have?\" or something similar.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T03:28:10.583",
"id": "56357",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T03:28:10.583",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16022",
"parent_id": "56354",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56354
| null |
56356
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56360",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As in 'That cake was so good'. I know I could use とても or something similar but\nI feel like 'so' expresses a kind of excessiveness that とても doesn't.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T06:20:57.937",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56358",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T07:54:48.953",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27227",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "How do you say 'so' in Japanese?",
"view_count": 3685
}
|
[
{
"body": "「とても」 would actually be a valid translation in that context.\n\nOthers include:\n\n・「たいへん」\n\n・「実{じつ}に」\n\n・「非常{ひじょう}に」\n\nInformally, you could also use:\n\n・「すごく」\n\n**_Very_** informally, you could use:\n\n・「マジ（で）」\n\n・「超{ちょう}」\n\n・「めっちゃ」",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T07:54:48.953",
"id": "56360",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T07:54:48.953",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56358",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
56358
|
56360
|
56360
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "56362",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In a meeting, when someone has made a point and you want to add an additional\ncomment to what was said, is there a way to say 'just to add to that...' or\n'in addition to that...'?\n\nWould it be something like それに言い添えて...?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T08:50:56.543",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56361",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T09:54:06.660",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-02T09:02:41.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "17979",
"owner_user_id": "17979",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "How to say 'Just to add to that' in a meeting",
"view_count": 850
}
|
[
{
"body": "You will hear all of the following:\n\n・「（今{いま}の〇〇さんのご意見{いけん}/ご指摘{してき}に）付{つ}け加{くわ}えますと」\n\n・「（もう）ひとつ付け加えますと」\n\n・「ちなみに申{もう}しますと/申し上{あ}げますと」\n\n・「ちなみにですが」\n\nNote: Depending on the situation, you will need to use 「〇〇[課長]{かちょう}」,\n「〇〇[部長]{ぶちょう}」, etc. instead of 「〇〇さん」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T09:54:06.660",
"id": "56362",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-02T09:54:06.660",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "56361",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
56361
|
56362
|
56362
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came upon this sentence in a newspaper article:\n\n> 国の安全が重要なのは間違いないが、知る権利の **基盤があってこ** そ民主主義が成り立つことへの理解が、全く欠けている\n\nWhich I translated into:\n\n> Although there is no doubt that the safety of the nation is important, the\n> comprehension is totally missing that a democracy can only exist on the\n> foundation of the right to know\n\nFirstly, I am not 100% sure if I got it right that in that sentence, the right\nto know (知る権利) is the foundation for democracy, or whether it might be the\nother way round.\n\nSecondly, would you in this example even translate the word \"基盤\" literally, or\nis it just seen as a premise. If so, could I replace \"知る権利の基盤があってこそ\" with \"\n**知る権利ありき** \" ? Since, as I understood, ありき also follows a premise.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-02T12:52:55.830",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "56363",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-09T04:46:56.030",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-02T17:55:46.937",
"last_editor_user_id": "22352",
"owner_user_id": "27557",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Difference between ありき and 基盤 in a specific sentence",
"view_count": 125
}
|
[
{
"body": "As I am not a native speaker of Japanese I might be wrong about this, but the\nway I interpret the sentence is:\n\n_There is no doubt that national security is important, but the understanding\nthat it is the foundation of the right to know upon which democracy rests, is\nentirely lacking._\n\nSo, I would definitely translate 基盤 as _the foundation upon which democracy\nrests_. And, in response to your first question, I would say a democracy's\nfoundation is the right to know (i.e., public information).\n\nHowever, as I said before, I am not a native speaker. The reason I replied\nthis way is that I cannot \"add a comment\" due to insufficient points, or so it\nseems. Also, by \"refreshing\" your question this way, others who are native\nspeaker-levelled may notice it.\n\nI hope this helps you, if only slightly. (:",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-09T04:46:56.030",
"id": "56527",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-09T04:46:56.030",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11278",
"parent_id": "56363",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
56363
| null |
56527
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.