INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Can you use the "Ha, Heh, Hee, Ho" method for learning Japanese vowels?
In Spanish, you can use the "Ha, Heh, Hee, Ho" method for learning Spanish vowels.
For example, A in Spanish sounds like the 'a' in Ha!
E in Spanish sounds like the 'e' in Heh!
I in Spanish sounds like the 'ee' in Hee!
O in Spanish sounds like the 'o' in Ho!
and then U is like the OO in food.
Does this apply to Japanese vowels as well? I have listened to Japanese vowels and they sound identical. But I thought I should double check, so I don't learn them wrongly. | Unless you put stress on them, it works as well. (You may find "U" a little different in New Tokyo dialect, which is a virtual standard, but that's beyond the category of Standard Japanese.) If you put stress on a vowel, it's prolonged and includes pitch shift, which is taken as sequence of two sounds to ears of a Japanese speaker. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "vowels"
} |
"Masu" verb form vs "Imperfective" verb form
I'm trying to put together a chart for myself, to learn the rules for verb conjugation. However, I'm confused at the "Imperfective" and "Perfective" verb conjugations - aren't they just informal versions of the "Masu" verb forms? To my understanding, the "masu" verb forms are polite ways to say something is either happening or will happen - just like the "Imperfective" verbs(Which appear to just be the dictionary forms?)
* For example, "Tabemasu" vs "Taberu" - both mean that something is either being eaten or will be eaten.
Likewise, the "mashita" verb forms indicate that something has already happened - just like the "perfective" verb forms.
* For example, "Tabemashita" vs "Tabeta" - both mean something has been eaten? | > For example, "Tabemashita" vs "Tabeta" - both mean something has been eaten?
Yes. They do not differ in meaning, only usage.
Keep in mind there are some times when it's inappropriate to use ( _tabeta_ ); typically these are in more formal (or less familiar) situations. Conversely, there are times when it is inappropriate to use ( _tabemashita_ ); typically these are in more familiar situations, among family or friends, or in certain grammatical constructs. (This would also be the case for _taberu_ and _tabemasu_ , and so on.)
If you want to read further on the topic, there's quite a bit of discussion and help surrounding these constructs.
* WordReference forum
* Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese
* About.com | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
Difference between 出席【しゅっせき】する and 参加【さんか】する
Are these words interchangeable? Just for example I have found some sentences but do not see any difference between these word in meaning or politeness:
> She took part in the contest.
>
> I will present myself at the meeting.
>
>
> He makes a point of attending class meetings. | means “to attend to something” whilst means “to (participate into/actively take part in) something”. For example you can attend () a meeting, without saying your opinion ().
>
instead is – like you described well in your example – for really taking part.
You could also take a look here: Link Global Solutions Inc., 20071009,,
It discusses the issue from a cultural point of view as well – in Japanese business meetings it was more common that the decision has been decided beforehand already, and that truly _participating_ was thus often not necessary and not distinguished from _attending_ as well as in English. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, words, synonyms"
} |
Is オージー understood by non-Australian Japanese speakers?
Is the word "" (in the meaning of "Aussie", not as in "old girl" or other meanings) understood by non-Australian Japanese speakers?
Also, in English, non-Australians have a tendency to use "Aussie" as noun to mean the country, which Australians don't do. Do Japanese use "" to mean the country? | In general, answer is no. Ordinary Japanese who never lived in Australia or NZ, don't understand the word.
In Japan,most familiar word is . Many understand origin of the beef is Australia.
In other means.
OG. Office Girl. But it is not used so many today. OG Sohken. Osaka Gas company's IT and think tank subsidiary. Abbreviation of Osaka Gas Sohgo Kenkyuusyo. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, slang, loanwords"
} |
Significance of と in ~からといって
From what I've read, means "considering this..."
> ****
But when you add "" to form "" it becomes "even though..."
> ****
How does "" change the meaning of the phrase? Or is it something that has no explanation and simply works this way? | We have **two totally different 's** here.
> []{}[]{} **** []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
This means "from". means "to judge from ~~".
> "Judging **_from_** his popularity and name value, it would be a sure thing for him to win the elections."
Onto the second sentence:
> []{}[]{} **** []{}[]{}
This means "because" and the is a quotative particle.
is very close to "(even) though" in meaning.
> "(Just) because a reply to your email has not come in, I do not think there is anything to be worried about." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
Connecting adjectives, "does not have to A and B"
The simplest things seem to be the hardest.
I am exercising the "does not have to be" structure.
If I want to say "the book does not have to be expensive", it is (may be?):
>
But how do I say "the book does not have to be expensive and big"?
I asked this in chat and got a kind answer from Xeo.
Xeo, thank you for your help and I hope I may quote you here:
> @saidy afaik, you generally connect adjectives with the -form. So I'd wager it works here, too:
>
> I may be totally wrong, though. Better wait until one of the gurus answer this :)
Is this the correct way to connect adjectives in this case?
Thank you for reading this far. Any help is appreciated. | No, the answer you got in chat is not quite right.
> []{}[]{}[]{} ****
You would need to use twice to make it grammatical. You could say:
> **** ****
The sentence is grammatical now, but it just does not sound very natural. As a Japanese-speaker, I could **_not_** imagine someone saying this sentence in real life. If it were a catch copy in advertisement (perhaps for e-books), it would sound pretty natural.
You could also say something like:
> []{} **** ****
Either way, you would need to use twice. It is as though you would need to use "n" twice in saying " **n** either A **n** or B". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What does 兼 mean when it appears next to a person's name in an organizational chart?
The character appears next to some people's names in the organizational chart of the company I work at, as shown below.
>
What meaning does the character signify in this context? | in a labor chart means the person is -- as in their official job is different, but this is being made one of their assignments as well.
For instance, I work for the at my university, but I'm a assigned to teach an English class for the English department. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What does のに at the end of a sentence mean?
Does it have a similar meaning to " etc." which basically make the sentence "softer" and imply something that isn't stated but that should be obvious to the listener?
Is it something like "though" in English ?
2 examples:
> * ****
> * ****
> | at the end of a sentence can be rendered as something like "if only it weren't the case that ~"
From your examples:
(Aw man, it would have been so good had he gone)
(If only that building weren't there, we could see the beautiful scenery)
A~ is a fairly common usage, "would have been good if [only] ~A"
It usually reflects a state of regret or longing, or an improvement that can be made on the scene or experience. Hope that helps. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 12,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How many Jōyō Kanji are identical to simplified Hanzi?
How many Jōyō Kanji are identical to simplified Hanzi?
If we need to define a restriction for the simplified Hanzi, I would suggest List of Frequently Used Characters in Modern Chinese. | Since I have no knowledge of the subject, I am quoting from an academic paper:
1945 (Senior Instructor)
According to the author of this paper, the number is 1,165. (See page 4.)
Note that there were 1,945 []{} when this paper was written. Currently, that number has increased to 2,136.
So, the current number you are looking for would be a little over 1,165.
Also, this number from the paper includes minor differences as well. The paper notes (page 5):
> 40()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
(See also: screenshot of the above quote from the paper)
On page 6, the paper estimates that about 170 of the characters that are different only display minor differences. It also notes that "minor difference" is not a clearly defined objective term:
> 77116822“”“”“”“”“”168 | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, chinese"
} |
What is the difference between 「利{り}益{えき}」 and 「利{り}潤{じゅん}」?
What is the difference between and ? They both mean "profit". When shoud I use each of them? | As per my knowledge, is used as Profit in economical terms. Where as, can be used as gains/returns in terms of advantage. For example:
Benefits of course should exceed the costs.
Read the kind of books that teach you something.
As you can see, is usually used in terms of benefit or advantages. But is almost always used for monetary profits. I am saying almost, because I am not a native myself. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
} |
What is the difference between 逃{のが}れた and 免{まぬが}れた?
What is the difference between and ? They both mean "avoided, escaped". When should I use each of them? I found the sentence in JLPT1 book, where you have to pick the right answer:
> {}{} {}{}{}{} **** | > []{}
To me, the key word here is more than the verb following it. Here is why I think so.
The team did actually get into a jam, did it not? It did, but it managed to get out of it thanks to Hashimoto's good play(s). It is not that Hashimoto saved his team from getting into a jam, is it? In that case, is the correct verb to use. You got out of a jam and you are now back on track trying to win the game.
Had the noun been []{} = "defeat",[]{}, etc. instead of , the correct verb to use would have been []{}. Unlike getting into a jam, a loss of a game is a serious matter. If you lose, that is the end. To save yourself from something that serious and "final" is the main meaning of . Something like "getting drafted" by your country would be a good example of a thing that you would want to from if all possible.
That said, I must admit that many native speakers, myself included, often use the two words interchangeably by mistake. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
} |
Use of する to describe one's colour
From Japanesepod101:
>
>
> The elephant is gray.
The meaning of the sentence is not in doubt but I've been trying to figure how is being used here. Checking a dictionary, definition 2 might be applicable here.
(To show something's state/nature) | It is exactly as you say.
can mean " _ **to have ~~ (as a natural characteristic)**_ " and it is usually used in the form , or .
The "dictionary" form would _**not**_ be used in a real-life situation; It is only found in dictionaries or a place like this where grammar or vocabulary is discussed.
Among those forms, is always followed immediately by a noun or noun phrase. You cannot end a sentence with when is used for the meaning we are discussing. That is to say:
Always use for the present tense and always use for the past.
> []{}= "Sumiko has beautiful eyes."
>
> []{}[]{}= "The culprit had blue eyes."
>
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}= "I like redheads." Or more literally, "I like people who have read hair." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 16,
"tags": "words, definitions, possession"
} |
Meaning of "すわりがいい"?
In a book about introductory Mandarin Chinese written in Japanese, one of the first sections lists some special characteristics of Mandarin not familiar to Japanese speakers (e.g. usually only one reading of kanji, no distinctive male/female language, etc). One of the sections is written below:
>
>
>
The first sentence seems to be saying that words in Mandarin are commonly formed from two syllables, and thus two kanji (what is strange is that it's mentioned, since two-kanji words are common in Japanese too). The second sentence's "" is preventing me from figuring out the meaning, though.
TL;DR: what does "" mean? | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
can mean a few different things and in this case, it is important to treat it in pair with **** . It is not about any other kind of that the author is talking about.
would mean " **aurally pleasing or agreeable** " in my own words.
> "Two-syllable words tend to be preferred (in Chinese) as they are aurally pleasing."
is more often used to describe the physical (or spatial) stability of an object and that would probably be what you get from the dictionary. Here, the usage is a little different. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
Is this a 仮定形 (kateikei) form, and how to analyse it?
I'm stuck with the word **** in the following text below (towards the beginning of Japanese tale, _Kachikachi yama_ ).
Obviously, "()" stands for "()" (to sit down). But what's the grammar behind ? Is it a (kateikei) ? I don't understand what's the grammatical construction. Any help would be appreciated !
* * *
An old man wants to catch a mischievous tanuki, and ...
> ****
Translation from Tom Ray and Sachiko Matsubara, which was available during some years here.
> Then, the next day, the tree stump where the raccoon had been sitting, had been prepared with a lot of tanglefoot. While the old man was sowing beans the raccoon approached, and sat on the tree stump : "if you sow a thousand seeds they become one seed, if you sow one seed it will completely rot", he begain to tease. | No, that's a _ren’yōkei_ A _ren’yōkei_ mid-sentence is for coordination, like English “he sat, **and** …”. You can think of it as a literary equivalent of
_Kateikei_ is what comes before _-ba_ , so in this case it would be _kake **re** -_. Full table, with sample context:
* - _kake-_ _(-nai)_
* - _kake-_ _(-masu)_
* _kake-ru_ _(yo.)_
* - _kake-ru-_ _(hito)_
* - _kake-re-_ _(-ba)_
* _kake-ro/kake-yo_ _(!)_
This is because _kakeru_ is a vowel-stem _(ichidan)_ verb. Perhaps you were thinking of consonant-stem _(godan)_ vebs, such as _kaku_. These have different vowels depending on the inflection:
* - _kak-a-_ _(-nai)_
* - _kak-i-_ _(-masu)_
* _kak-u_ _(yo.)_
* - _kak-u-_ _(hito)_
* - _kak-e-_ _(-ba)_
* _kak-e_ _(!)_
Notice the difference between and **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, conjugations, syntax, renyōkei"
} |
What are the meanings of おはようございません and ありがとうございません?
Nobody seems to say those things.
I want to know the meanings of and . | I would like to add a bit to the **Earthliŋ** 's answer. Such standard phrases as "Good morning" are not taken at literal value, they are _formulas_ to express some figurative sense. What is the literal sense of "Good morning"?
> "This morning is good", or maybe
> "I wish you a good morning"
And what does it actually mean?
> "I greet you, and it is morning"
So, when you inflect such phrases, they immediately lose their figurative sense, and come back to the literal one, which is then inclined. Thus, "Ungood morning" would sound nothing like "I do not greet you". So the deeper level of the question is, maybe, **What is the literal meaning of such expressions like and ?** And that is easy:
> = _polite of_ = _lit._ "Early", meaning "How early do I meet you!"
> = _polite of_ = _lit._ "Thankful"
Now you can easily deduce their negated meanings yourself. These forms - are unusual for beginners, they are rare, except for several everyday expressions. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
What does シャリン mean here?
So, I have this sentence:
And I have no idea what is doing here. As far as I can tell, it's modifying , sound, but the only word "" that I've been able to find is , which means wheel. I thought maybe it could be an onomatopoeia, but I couldn't find anything when I searched...
Has my dictionary failed me? Or am I misunderstanding the particle somehow? The only thing I can think at this point is that the sound is clear/refreshing () like a wheel, which seems kind of weird to me. | First off, you should have mentioned what the thing is that is making the sound . That is the unmentioned subject of this sentence.
> " As far as I can tell, it's modifying , sound.."
No, it is not. It is modifying the verb .
> "the only word "" that I've been able to find is , which means wheel"
Why would anyone write as ? If it were how would you explain the ?
It is an onomatopoeia and when you see a attached to an onomatopoeia, it **_always_** modifies a verb.
is not such a common onomatopoeia. The best I could describe it is that it is the sound it makes in your mouth when you bite into lotus root. It is crisp and moist at the same time. (If you do not have a Japanese kind of ear, it might not sound even if you had a chance to eat lotus root.)
It is also used to describe the sound made when someone draws a sword in a drama or film (if not in real life).
is less metalic than (clink).
I know I am not giving you what you want to hear; hence, my first paragraph above. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
What is the meaning of "くうとうめえから"
I found this sentence in a book :
>
I didn't understand the last part of `` | That would be []{}
_'If you eat it as sashimi, it's delicious'_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, colloquial language"
} |
Multiple "wo"s in a sentence?
I had always been told this never happened. I was a little skeptical, but since I never saw a sentence with two of the particle, I gradually came to accept that it was probably true.
Well ironically, in the DoBJG, where I'm pretty sure I've also read the above factoid, I've encountered this sentence:
So I'm wondering if this is a mistake, or a weird exception, or if this "rule" I've heard is simply misleading or outright fallacious, and if so, when is it okay to use multiple wo particles in a sentence.
Cheers. | This is a simple case of subclauses - you've still got one per clause:
[[]]
is the object of , is the object* of .
*Depending on your interpretation of with what you would think are intransitive verbs. You can read more about these sorts of cases here: It seems that is categorized as (intransitive verb), yet it is frequently used with . Why? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, particle を"
} |
Words for area/district/region: the actual difference between 地区、地帯、地域、地方 (and also 区域)?
and have similar definitions, and and are also defined similarly (at least according to JMdict/EDICT:
> 1. = district; section; sector
> 2. = district; region; area; locality
> 3. = area; zone; belt (of land)
> 4. = area; region
>
Searching around for answers, I also found
> 5. = limits; boundary; domain; zone; sphere; territory
>
The dictionary has an explanation of sorts in Japanese, but I'm not too confident in my Japanese skills.
What I have gathered so far:
> * seems to be some very small area, like the premises of a factory, or a park.
> * has something to do with residential areas, I think.
> * is often used with the regions of Japan, like .
>
But I'm not sure if that's right, and I still don't quite understand the other words, so I'd appreciate if someone could give an answer, at least explaining the first four words. | If you ask about "actual" difference, the fact is that the major part of their meanings are overlapping so you can't really find an example only one of them is acceptable and others are not. Administrations might define these words as they like.
However, according to my personal sense, the basic ideas are:
**** vs **** vs ****
They are suitable for indicating continuous areas that surrounded by rigid lines, belt-shaped, or have vague boundaries, respectively.
!enter image description here
**** : It's a word for regions which don't only have geographical continuity but cultural, traditional solidarity, and at least as big as a county.
**** : It's artificial zoning that geographical characteristics may be ignored. A good example is (evacuation zone) around Fukushima 1 power plant, which was designated automatically by radius from the site. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, synonyms"
} |
How to say noun with/without noun
How do I express the concept of with/without in the following sentences:
> I'd like a coffee with sugar please.
The best I can do is to use 'and':
>
And for 'without':
> I'd like a pizza without cheese.
My best attempt at this would be:
>
Maybe I could re-engineer the coffee and sugar one in that way too. It seems clunky though. Is there a better way? | Pizza without cheese :
>
Shoyu Ramen without garlic
>
With cheese
>
Curry with Tomato
>
You don't ask for sugar in your coffee since you have to pour it yourself in most coffee shop. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "grammar, usage, particles"
} |
Can someone transliterate this artist's name?
This is a placard next to a work of art from a museum in Japan. I'm curious as to what it says—particularly, what the artist's name is.
!enter image description here | The artist's name is Mitsuo Banba ( ).
The title of the painting is "Crossing the Yarlung Tsangpo".
Yarlung Tsangpo is the part of the Brahmaputra River that flows through Tibet. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, names"
} |
Use of 何か in this sentence
Please explain the grammar behind how is used in this sentence
>
I'm translating it as
> There must surely be a story there
But I don't understand what is doing. Can I translate it as "something of a story", or "some story"? Two nouns next to each other seems odd. Thanks. | > []{}[]{}[]{}
This is frequently used in the form of + Noun/Noun phrase + Verb/Verb phrase and it means:
> "Verb + 'some sort of' + Noun"
This would generally indicate that one has not found out the exact nature of the "thing" described by the noun (and one would like to find out more about it). It is only natural to use if you have little knowledge of the thing you are speaking about.
Without further context, my translation would be:
> "There must be some kind of (untold) story there."
>
> "There has got to be a deeper story (or "reason") behind it." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, usage"
} |
When to use もちろん, うん, and はい?
In my understanding :
* = of course
* = yes
* = yes
When is each of them more appropriate to use, or is it basically just preference? Are other options more _casual_ than the other options? | is used when you want to say "of course". If you need it to be formal =>
is formal to say yes and other stuff.
is like but casual, not to use to people you _protocolly_ respect. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
~の帰り - what does this mean?
>
Does this means `on the way back to company` or `start from company, and back to some where else` ?
And also why use `` after ``, what does that mean? | A means "on a way to my home from A", because not only means go back, but usually also mean go back to your home. means "I enjoy dropping by a bookstore on the way to go back my home from the company."
The equivalent word of in English is "at". You use in this case because you drop by a bookstore "at" the moment you are going back to your home. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
} |
what's the grammar of ださん?
I read in a Japanese tale (kachikachi yama) :
An old man (a peasant) is happy since he just catched a tanuki and says to his wife :
> ****
translation from Tom Ray and Sachiko Matsubara :
> "I will go to the town for a little while to shop and return please be careful that the raccoon does not run away."
* * *
is analysed as (a "country form").
I analyse as (run away) + + . I don't understand (or maybe ?) : is this a verbal form ? I read here that : " = do not begin" .
Any help would be appreciated ! | []{}[]{} **** **** = " ** _not_** run away"
is a negation auxiliary verb. The dictionary form is .
See [] in <
means "so that ~~".
= "so that the racoon will not run away". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
What is the difference between [新規]{しんき} and [新]{あたら}しい?
What is the difference between []{} and []{}? Both mean "new". What are the nuances here? | The difference is two-fold.
1) **Parts of speech**. is an i-adjective while is basically a noun. One could also say is a na-adjective as well.
2) **Formality**. As usual, the on-reading word is more formal, technical, etc. than its kun-reading Yamato counterpart. In this case, is the former and , the latter.
is the more intuitive word for native speakers. Every small kid knows the word. It is just used on a daily basis to mean "new".
is used almost exclusively in business. It looks and sounds good and "official" when combined with other on-reading words as in:
[]{}= "grand opening", []{} = "newly-acquired client", []{}= "new hiring or recruitment", etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, usage, nuances, wago and kango"
} |
開始三秒 - what does it mean?
I assume it's always a (vs)noun, so must be a noun composed of and ? If that is true, does it mean "before 3 seconds have elapsed?" (it would seem so from the context), but given that usually means something to do with beginnings I am probably wrong. This came up in this sentence:
>
As I understand it so far: "Within 3 seconds / before 3 seconds have elapsed [?] I beat the temptation to go back to bed again. I then check on my body in the mirror [without too much fuss]."
| , in this particular context, means " **three seconds into the match** ".
Why "match"? Because the author is using a metaphor in likening resisting one's temptation to go back to bed to a boxing match. The person "won" the match in just three seconds into it.
Your TL shows you have got the gist of the sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
How to say "lose a friendship/drift apart"?
I want to say that "as A becomes closer friends with C, B gets jealous and A and B drift apart". What I have so far is A- C-B-A-_____ | {}{}
would fit this context.
If the separation is more passive, rather than intentional/active, then
{}{}
These are expressions for drifting apart. "Losing/ending a friendship" has much different expressions.
{}{} {}{}{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
Meaning of 「兵法」
I have a question about the meaning of in the following passage. If I'm understanding correctly in the first sentence it means . But what about the last one? Does says something like "there is 'tactics' like this" referring to the sentence before, , in this case, I think the meaning would be closer to . Or does he refers to the next sentence, where stand in the stance for ?
>
>
>
>
> (Some lines are skipped)
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ”” | In this case, means .
Another but same meaning,
But you should be aware. This conversation about ''. Therefore you can use ''. If things are not relevant with , using '' is wrong. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
木 vs 樹 for trees
It seems that one difference between the usage of and is that while both mean tree, the former is also used to mean wood. My question is, is there a further distinction for living trees?
I'm reading and uses both the characters and for a living tree. For example in one passage
> ()
Then, 3 lines later, referring to the same tree,
> ()
Is there some nuance I'm missing, or explanation for the choice of characters?
**Update:** (in case anyone is interested in why both were used in this text) naruto said in a comment below there is no reason to alternate between and , and pointed out only appears in the version. One possible reason for the use of both is that the manuscript was never finished by the author, and there were still inconsistencies in the original version, and that this is one of them (my version said it was minimally edited). Note this online uses both and as I indicated above. | When used alone, is a literary expression mainly found in novels, lyrics and poems. For living trees, we use in everyday writings.
And probably is mainly used to refer to a large and grown tree. I feel one-meter high tree is less likely to be called . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What does と mean all by itself here?
So, I have this sentence:
""
The first part is pointing out that someone doesn't have a passport or visa (since they threw their bag at someone earlier). But what is that doing there by itself?
I went back and reviewed my explanations of as a particle, and my best guess is that it's meant to be quotative, referring to what the other person said about throwing their bag. This seems reasonable in conjunction with the , which I usually see defined/translated as "in other words," but I really don't know. I have a bad habit of fudging things in favor of sense-making. >.>
Can anyone tell me if my assessment is at all right, and what semantic purpose is served by keeping _just_ the instead of making a full statement? | > my best guess is that it's meant to be quotative
Yep.
You could follow that with or the something like
>
>
>
So you might call it an abbreviated quotative use.
> Can anyone tell me ... what semantic purpose is served by keeping just the instead of making a full statement?
Brevity. Japanese tends to favor conciseness and ambiguity over explicitness. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, particle と"
} |
Why did the author briefly jump to present tense in this article?
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article titled in Yomiuri Shinbun is written in the present tense (or possibly the future tense I guess):
****
But, the article is describing a past event. And, all the rest of the article is written in the past tense.
What is going on? | I would say : instead of presenting it as a simple given event, he summarizes the beginning of the match, kind of headlining what happened during this opening, making it last longer in the readers mind. So you could say it is a historic present. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "verbs, tense"
} |
What does the word 「こいや」 mean?
The full sentence is . | It's not a word on its own, but a combination of (imperative "come") and (see #3 in this dictionary entry).
As l'électeur pointed out in the comments, it can be understood as a "tough guy's imperative." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, spoken language, imperatives"
} |
Do Japanese people see ツ as a smiling face?
Tsu () kana) is sometimes used on the internet as a smiling face, such as in the emoticon ¯\\_()_/¯. I'm wondering if Japanese people notice it or is just another character for them?
The reason I'm asking is that my native language is Arabic, and it has the letter Ta' (ت) that some people think looks like a wide grinning face, but I'm simply unable to see it. It's just a letter to me. Do Japanese people see the same way? | I read your question "Do Japanese people see [tsu] as a smiling face" and read over the question several times before I got it. And I'm not a native Japanese reader (or speaker).
Just like your ت (which sort of looks like a smiling face to me) and the German ü (to Japanese eyes, say), the Japanese doesn't look like a smiling face to any eye who has become used to reading it as a letter.
So I think if you ask a Japanese native reader whether looks like a smiling face, I would say the answer will invariably be … "Now that you say so...". In other words "No!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 20,
"question_score": 32,
"tags": "katakana, kana, internet slang"
} |
Omitting は when the topic did not change
I am on Dr. Kim's Japanese site and want to make sure that I have this right.
Am I correct in understanding that as long as the topic of conversation does not change, need only be used once in a dialogue or paragraph?
For example, a conversation might look like this:
> (topic defined)
>
> (topic did not change)(now it is about me)
>
> (Is she in college? -- No, she is in high school, but I am in college.)
Do I have that right? | The particle is primarily used to define the subject, and in that use, you are right that it is very common to omit the subject in the following sentence if it is the same.
It's not wrong to repeat the subject (eg. ) explicitly, for example if a sentence is long, if there is room for confusion, or if you want to place emphasis on the subject. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle は"
} |
When can an adverb use の to modify a noun
In this sentence
>
the adverb uses to modify (which I'm assuming is a noun in this context. I'll come back to that.) How do you know when an adverb can be used in this way? I've seen the same thing done with .
On a side note I'm confused about the sentence as a whole. I think translates as loneliness or solitude and I'm assuming that the here is the - form of the copula (). So the first half of the sentence becomes
> I am complete loneliness, and ...
which doesn't quite make sense. Thanks. | Some words can be combined with . These are called -adjectives. Many are adverbs that become adjectives. The most common ones that can be used with are and . is special. When used before the noun it changes to
Example:
> **** There are a lot of cars.
>
> **** Due to the wind, many trees collapsed.
>
> **** There are many people.
>
> **** Many people are kind.
>
> **** I forgot almost everything I studied before.
>
> **** Most apples are red.
The is the sentence does not translate into "and". It has a few uses. It can be used to link sentences, similar to our use of a semi-colon ";". It can also be used in situation meaning "by means of". But this is not stated when translating the sentence.
Thus is can be "I am completely alone; no one is here." or "(By means of) Being completely alone, no one is here.
is the same. "(by means of) being one person". i.e. by myself/alone | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle の, adverbs"
} |
What word describes the concept of worldwide time zones?
The world is covered in the necessary evil known in English as "time zones".
!Time zone map
Given that, historically, it originated in England (some 300 or so years ago), the concept of a time zone was probably not brought into Japan for quite some time.
That said, RomajiDesu suggests for "time zone". However, given the English-based origin of the term, I tend to think that this may not properly refer to the same concept.
What is the proper Japanese term for a time zone? Is it ? Is is more appropriate? Or is there another term I should use? | Both and work, and both are very common ways to speak about time zones. But one thing you should know is that also describes the specific period of time in a day. Say, means "the morning time" and used in this way it doesn't describes time zones.
In short, if it is clear your sentence is talking about time zones, you can use either, but the context is ambiguous, I recommend that you use . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, words, terminology"
} |
Why is 渡部 累 transliterated/translated to "Lui Watanabe" with an "L"?
Why is transliterated/translated (I'm not entirely sure which it is) into English as "Lui Watanabe" rather than "Rui Watanabe"?
The only cases I've seen of transliterations or translations involving "l"s has been when wasei-eigo expressions get translated back into English using English words, for example being translated as "salaryman" rather than "Sararīman". | That's her personal preference, and the only way to reach the "correct" answer is to ask herself why.
Generally speaking, there are many people, especially , who want nonstandard transliterated names, and people have the liberty to do that.
This typically happens when people want names which also sound natural to the ear of Westerners. For example may want his name transliterated as Joe rather than Jo, may become Alice rather than Arisu, and so on. A friend of mine is named , and she always introduces herself as Lynn to foreign people. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, names"
} |
ところを 見つかる, this was in a highly reputable dictionary
Is this sentence wrong grammatically, or am I missing something? This is an examplensentence from kenkyuusha.
More specifically, is an intransitive verb, how is it used with rather than Now i know some motion verbs like can do this, but as far as I know r is not one.
If this was an indirect passive, it would have been . So thay is not the case here either.
Thanks for the help! | > []{}= "I am found cheating (on the test)."
This sentence is 100% grammatical. If you analyzed it using the grammar of another language, however, it might look as though it were ungrammatical.
, as you stated, is an intransitive verb, but it happens to fall into a group of intransitive verbs that hold the transitive-verb-like characteristics. In particular, these intransitive verbs are used just like transitive verbs in the passive voice with attached to the direct object.
Japanese-learners would need to know that it is far more natural for us to say the sentence above than to say:
> ****
using a real transitive verb in its passive voice form.
This group of intransitive verbs include: []{} = "to be taught"[]{} = "to be blessed with" = "to be told to convey a message or give a present", etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, verbs, particle を, particle が"
} |
Is マスカット an accurate translation for "green grape", and what foreign word is it derived from?
I'm new to Japanese so I'm working my way through _Human Japanese_ , when I was adding the vocabulary to Quizlet I realized I didn't know how to type because I'm not used to seeing used like that.
At this point I resorted to using _Google translate_ to see it spelt out in romaji. As I did that I saw Google says that means `muscat`. When you enter `green grape`, it gets translated as `midoriiro no budoo`.
So my question is:
* What foregin word is derived from?
* Is an accurate translation for `green grape`?
* What is the most commonly used word in Japanese for green grape? | > What foregin word is derived from?
As already pointed out in the comment section, the word is derived from "muscat)", a type of grape.
> What is the most commonly used word in Japanese for green grape?
The usual word for "green grape" (precisely in this generality) is .
> Is an accurate translation for green grape?
In Japan, usually refers to "muscat of Alexandria" (a type of white grape, which is large, sweet and fragrant), although there are other popular muscat grape varieties.
The entry doesn't explicitly say so, but by its description, it appears that it defines to refer to the "muscat of Alexandria":
> ****
> ****
> _[emphasis mine]_
So, is certainly the best translation if your green grapes are of the variety "muscat of Alexandria", but for a generic "green grape" you might just want to stick with []{} (or ).
* * *
There are two questions on asking about the difference between and . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation, words, loanwords, food"
} |
Meaning of "頭に付く"?
I'm reading through a book about learning Mandarin written in Japanese. There's a section describing the basics of initials () and finals () in Chinese syllables with the following sentence:
>
There don't seem to be any entries for in any online dictionaries, or any alternate meanings of or that would fit the context. Does anyone know what it means? | usually refers to a physical `head`, and here it is used in an extended, more abstract, meaning, `front position`.
Compare with the use of the English `head` in a programming context: `C++ header files`. There's also the linguistic term `head-initial`.
Thus, says that a is a placed at the the beginning of a .
* * *
A few more examples:
* S
* @extfont2.shx
* TVXBOX360ADV
*
* ””
* * *
From the :
> the beginning [start] of…; the opening of…; the top [head] of…; the point [tip]of….
>
> the opening [beginning, start] of a piece of music
>
> the head of a nail
>
> the tip of one's nose
>
> the beginning [start] of a month
>
> . The proofs are due to be ready at the beginning of next month.
>
> the beginning [start, opening] of a conversation [discussion] | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, idioms, phrases"
} |
記する｛きする｝、 記す｛きす｝、記す｛しるす｝ - how do I use and/or differentiate between them?
For instance, here:
>
according to the inscription on the tombstone
It's listed under . Why? | >
Without furigana, I would read this as **** without hesitation. is already a stiff word, which is suitable for the inscription on the tombstone.
is very uncommon and sounds even stiffer to me. Probably there is no meaningful semantic difference from . (Of course, there are many common compounds using , like , , which are not stiff nor archaic at all.)
should be a archaic form of , but I think this won't be treated as a distinct verb according to the modern standard grammar.
In conclusion, I don't know why that example sentence is listed under . I would say it's there simply by accident. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
How are items enumerated in Japanese restaurant menus?
I've been asked to render a restaurant menu in Japanese, even though I'm not very good with the language (don’t ask). The original menu has ingredient lists for each entry, usually like this:
> Spam, bacon, sausage, eggs, ham.
But also like this:
> Spam, bacon, and eggs.
And sometimes like this:
> Spam on bread with sausages, bacon, and ham.
My question is, how are these lists normally presented in Japanese restaurant menus? Should I make them like the original with commas, i.e. this:
>
Or do they use a lot of s like this?
>
Or something else?
And for the last example above, is it weird to do a direct rendering like this?:
>
What's a natural/nonawkward way of expressing such enumerations? | Ordinary, ingredient list looks like:
No is used, because the list is not a sentence.
For
Spam on bread with sausages, bacon, and ham.
It should look like:
Also I suggest to use for spam, because is not common for Japanese. So last example should be:
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, food"
} |
接続助詞は名詞修飾節の中に使えますか？・接続助詞で作る文は他の接続助詞で作る文を修飾できますか？
# Question 1
> Hey, look! The car over there is the car which I would buy if I were rich.
if I were richifI would buyI would buyif I were richwhich I would buy if I were rich
>
>
# Question 2
> By the time she saw the boy, he had already escaped the scene because nobody was there to attack him when he decided to pass through the narrow way.
>
> from No Grammar Tears 2
>
>
>
> from
* * *
Are they just like adverbial clauses? | **Question 1**
> [] []
> [] []
>
**Question 2**
>
(narration) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
} |
Difference between んい and に
I noticed that the word is written as **** in hiragana, not ****. Is there a difference in the way and are pronounced? If so, does the same principle go for and , and , etc.? | There are three differences
* **rhythm**
has three morae ("syllables"), where as has only two.
* **sound**
has a uvular ("nasal") /ɴ/, i.e. [ta.ɴ.i], whereas has a "normal" /n/, i.e. [ta.ni].
* **pitch**
HLL drops in pitch after the first mora, []LHL drops in pitch after the second mora.
Try to listen for all three differences, they're all important.
* * *
The sound and rhythm of are analogous. (Pitch, of course, depends on the word.)
However, in some cases (e.g. from or or ), the "nasalization" has been lost "officially", so to speak. But /i/ following /ɴ/ it is usually preserved, , , etc. That said, no one likes the combination /ɴ.i/, so these words are often subject to metathesis, see for example this answer. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "pronunciation, orthography, spelling, pitch accent"
} |
How is からだ used here?
How should I parse the part that comes after :
> (1) **** (2)
Feels like it makes the sentence flow a bit better with sentence topic but what is it, exactly? _? used to affirm what's stated in (1) + copula for emphasis? |
> " used to affirm what's stated in (1) + copula for emphasis?"
Kind of but not quite. It affirms a prior statement by explaining the reason and/or logic behind the content of the prior statement.
The copula is **not** there for emphasis. It is just needed there for the grammar reason. In informal speech, it can be dropped and you could end a sentence with .
Statement #2 explains why the sweeping is the core of the spear fighting instead of the attacks. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
} |
What does the 'あ' do in this sentence 「そいつあけっこうだね」?
I am not sure if the '' being used instead of '' or there is a meaning in the word ''.
In addition, is it possible that the '' is a kind of particle or suffix? | is a colloquial pronunciation of . This is most common among male speakers around Tokyo in their informal speech. It is not something they would use in school or business.
Particle is often pronounced like in other areas as well when combined with certain words in informal situations. For example:
("That is ~~.") ⇒ or
("Once in a while") ⇒ or
> " is it possible that the '' is a kind of particle or suffix?"
This is not a suffix. It is, in my own words, a cross between the lazy, colloquial pronunciation of = wa and a "filler syllable" when one wants to omit a . This may be a terrible way to describe it but that is what I honestly feel when I use this myself as a Japanese-speaker. I feel I am half-using the particle and half-not-using it at the same time.
Point is everyone will understand what I am saying, which is the only thing that counts in colloquial speech. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, particle は, spoken language"
} |
is "kanji" an uncountable noun in English?
When people who know Japanese talk about "kanji" in English, is there a consensus with regard to whether you would say:
"I know about 10 kanji." // _uncountable_
"I know about 10 kanjis." // _countable_
This is more an English grammar question, but few native English speakers know what a "kanji" is.
My opinion is that "kanji" is uncountable since all Japanese nouns are uncountable and "kanji" is a Japanese word. | I think that _kanji_ is countable in Japanese () and I would say it should be countable in English, too (one _kanji_ , two _kanji_ ). The plural form in English is often adopted (sometimes wrongly, but never mind exceptions) from the original language (one corpus, two corpora; one phenomenon, two phenomena). I'd say _kanji_ in English should be countable with plural form _kanji_.
Since _kanji_ already means "Chinese character", I think "10 kanji" or "10 Chinese characters" is perfectly natural. "10 kanji characters", which would be the literal translation of 10, sounds a bit like the not uncommon "the hoi polloi", where "hoi" by itself is already the article "the" in Greek. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
What is the etymology of イギリス?
I'm trying to figure out where the term for the United Kingdom came from.
I suspect because they sound similar, but that seems a bit odd as Katakana words are usually loan words. | After further research I can say that in fact, actually came from Portuguese and first appeared in the (Vocabulario da Lingoa de Iapam) compiled by a Jesuit Missionary in Nagasaki in 1603, the start of the Edo Period. It came from the Portuguese word `inglês` which would have been pronounced and after interactions with Great Britain, the word changed from to .
* * *
Sometimes you can hear an alternative explanation, such as here on _chiebukuro_ (Japanese). According to this link, came from the Dutch word (knowing no Dutch I assume to be a variant of `Engels`) which in Japanese was for some reason pronounced . The interactions with the Dutch when discussing England happened during the Edo Period (AD1603 - AD1868) and after interactions with Great Britain, the word would have changed from to
However, reflecting my research above, the person responding to the question at _chiebukuro_ appears to be wrong.
For reference, the original explanation from _chiebukuro_ :
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "etymology, loanwords"
} |
"again" word: 二度｛にど｝, 再び｛ふたたび｝ - usage, difference
Do they mean the same thing when used as a sequence word ("again, a second time") or is there any difference (apart from also being used to mean "two times")? | Only in **_negative_** sentences, []{}, not, can mean "again".
**** []{}= "I'll never go to McDonald's again!"
In affirmative sentences, always means "twice". cannot be used in affirmative sentences.
**** = "I have been to Japan twice."
[]{} means "again" in any situation.
[]{} **** means "I went to Japan again last year." This means that you had been to Japan at least once before last year as well.
**** is completely different. It means "I went to Japan twice last year." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, polarity items"
} |
What is the meaning of the sentence "すごかないわよ"?
Does refer to or ?
Dictionaries have no entries on . I understand that are sentence ending particles though. | > **** **** = "It is not that great/awesome."
is a colloquial contraction of , with being the last syllable of the []{}= "continuative form" of an i-adjective ( in this case. is the .) and being a topic marker.
This is mostly, if not exclusively, heard around Tokyo.
Other examples:
**** **** "It ain't yummy." (Kanto tough guy speech)
[]{} **** **** "It is not expensive, but ..." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
後だったので v 後で interpretation
> * 1 (original example sent.)
> * 2
>
My guess: there is a strong causal link between this and that in 1. 2 just means "A happened, then B happened". Is that correct? | Exactly as you say.
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
>
> "After running up so many flights of steps, she was completely out of breath. "
The English translation from that page is not topnotch IMHO because it fails to reflect the strong causal link that you speak of. **More specifically, it does not even translate the part.**
That looks more like the translation of your **second** Japanese sentence.
My own literal-as-possible TL of the **first** sentence:
**" Because it was (right) after she ran up many flights of steps, she was completely out of breath."**
That should show the cause-and-effect relationship between the clauses as clearly as the original sentence does. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
そういう君は～、 そういうおまえこそ～ - meaning?
My guess it's a rude jargon thing (comes up a lot in anime and the like, used by male characters). What does it mean?
> A:
> B: or
( = "you who are talking like this..."), (that kind of thing), or something else? | A common expression like + Person + has a few different meanings. What the part refers to depends entirely on the context.
Main Possibilities:
1. Someone has made a statement that you feel the need to address because it is not something you expected to hear and you want to come back at them.
> Woman: []{} (You made a f***in' **** outta me last night, you piece of ****in' ****!)
> l'électeur: (You always *********!)
2. Someone is being a certain way that you do not approve of and you want to make a comment about it.
> (Explanation of how the listener has been to the speaker.)
3. The positive version of case 2). You like the way someone is or has been and you want to make a comment about it.
> (Explanation of the wonderful things the listener has done for the speaker over the years.) []{}[]{}[]{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, modification"
} |
What is the meaning of 「あれほど」?
Here is the full sentence I have found:
> ****
> ?
Does it mean 'me'? | As @Eric says,
> means "so much" or "to such an extent". Best I can tell, this sentence says, "Given that you used to hate boxing so much, why have you suddenly become so seriously motivated [to box]?"
However, as @oldergod mentions, `` would mean close "to such an extent", or "that much" rather than "so much".
> You hated boxing **`that much`** , what suddenly made you become so motivated [to box]?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
貰｛もら｝える物は貰っておく (idiom?) meaning
How should the part be interpreted? What (I) can receive, I ... (?). | To capture the nuance of the original, I would go with something short like:
> "I'll take anything that's free!"
You might think I did not translate expressly the part, but if I did, it would sound pretty wordy.
> "I'll take anything that's free as it might come in handy in the future." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "idioms"
} |
How do you ask if you are understood without being rude?
For example explaining to an acquaintance or a stranger something, but I don't know if it's understood or not and would like to ask. In English I would say something like "I'm sorry, was my explanation clear?" to imply that any misunderstanding would be my fault. I doubt this, but would saying carry that same sense? Or would it be impolite? | would be like "did you get it" so avoid it and just ask it in a way where _they_ judge you and not the reverse as you did in English.
Something like | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness"
} |
Why is スタイル used to denote body figure?
You know how Japanese people say "" to basically refer to "that girl with huge boobs" or "that really tall girl"? I've seen this get thrown around a lot but never really got the rationale behind this. My guess is that it's a euphemism but can someone give an accurate explanation of this? | In Japanese, is a plain and straightforward phrase that means "a woman with a nice figure/body." No euphemism is involved. And it usually refers to her general appearance, not specifically to her height or breast.
says the primary meaning of is ( _figure_ ) of a person, although it can also mean _manner_ , _fashion_ , _format_ , etc. Many Japanese people simply believe that definition, and you can call it a kind of .
I failed to find the exact explanation of when and why came to mean body figure, but I think the reason is easy to speculate. was already used in such a way at least in a novel written in 1927.
> … | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
What's the difference between 呪術【じゅじゅつ】, 魔法【まほう】, 奇術【きじゅつ】, and 魔術【まじゅつ】?
Is there any difference between these nouns?
Is this like the difference between 'magic' and 'sorcery' in English?
Is used most often? | **** : Illusion or stage magic, which has tricks and is performed by real magicians all over the world. A person who does this is called or . But in this sense, the most common word is katakana . Table magic is often called , too.
**** : Supernatural kind of magic. Typical is what you can find in _Harry Potter_ franchise or various fantasy role-playing games. Basically used only in fictions.
**** : Ritual magic, performed by real people in order to invoke rain), curse someone, etc. It frequently appears in serious anthropological contexts, but it's used in fictions, too.
**** : This is similar to , but is an ambiguous word which can refer to everything above. Many sport players are nicknamed . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
Noun + さえ + Verb (infinitive)
Struggling to grasp this sentence:
Rapid strikes that [verb clause starts] ...
Applying structures from here and here hasn't made sense to me so far.
Thinking about it more: "Rapid strikes, such that even their afterimage becomes blurred"? Sounds horrible when I translate it like that. | Your translation shows your complete understanding of the phrase even if you do not like it yourself.
A difficulty this relative clause could present for the translator is the fact that is an intransitive verb and that is not the action either performed by or against , the main noun of the relative clause.
What I often do in such cases is that I rephrase it the way it does not change the meaning or nuance of the original.
>
I mentally rephrased this to:
> **** ,
>
> **** or
>
> **** ****
The phrase became somewhat easier to translate and I now have:
> "a strike so rapid that even its afterimage gets blurred"
A noun phrase needs to stay as such till the end. I said that because _**many**_ users here tend to call a phrase like this a "sentence". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles"
} |
Meaning behind adding 'め' after someone's name?
I've come across this once or twice where people will say someone's name and then add ' **** ' in an irritable/victorious tone [e.g: **** , **** , etc.], but I've yet to find a textbook example explaining the reasons/meaning clearly.
My latest scenario is when one character, Daichi, is in the hospital, and his friend Hikaru comes to visit him 'since you're not the type to have girl's come and visit you/'.
Some time after Hikaru goes home, Daichi gets a surprise visit from a female friend. He thinks to himself:
> ****
So far, I've translated that as 'Haha! Seems I am the type to have girl's come visit" but I'm not sure what to do with ''. Take that, Hikaru? You jerk, Hikaru??? I have no clue.
If someone could explain the meaning behind this and how it can be translated as (in other situations as well as this one), I'd be very grateful. | ** is a suffix of contempt when attached to a noun or another person's name.**
[]{} **** = "You stupid dog!"
[]{}[]{} **** = "Will never forgive Tanaka the bastard!"
Translation is an art. You could use whatever word you feel appropriate for the context that expresses contempt, scorn, disdain, etc.
Please note, however, that it becomes a **suffix of humility when attached to the first-person pronoun /**. This usage is much more often seen in fiction than in real life.
[]{} **** []{}= "Please leave it to the humble me!" You will hear subordinates say that to their bosses in period dramas.
We **do not** say or because those are far from humble. Even without the would be quite rare. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 28,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "translation, nuances, suffixes"
} |
What is オレたちゃ a contraction of?
I came across this line of dialgue, and I'm wondering what the lengthened version would be. For context, the series is in the middle of a tournamet (there are teams, but players compete individually), and one player has just witnessed another player winning their match with incredible skill. The spectating player thinks:
>
I've translated that as 'We're finished/this is it for us', going on the assumption that is a contracted of and another word.
Could someone tell me exactly what the long form of '' is? Or am I wrong and is '' another word entirely? | It's contracted with the particle :
> **** → **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning, suffixes, contractions"
} |
Difference between verb ~ている + (瞬間・とき)
I know that verb + ~+ has a similar usage to ~+, for example and .
I want to know what is the difference between these two in general, will it change the meaning of the sentence if I use over | Japanese always refers to a _very_ short period of time, typically less than a second. (It can refer to a longer period of time, for example if you're talking about the history of the earth, though.)
* the very moment someone closes their eyes
* when someone's eyes are closed
So you cannot use in the following sentence:
>
**** is an expression we would seldom encounter. In general, the progressive form `` implies the situation persists over a longer period of time, and thus it doesn't go very well with .
Only when you know the eyes will be closed for a very short period of time, you can say something like this:
>
(I'm sorry, but your "side question" is totally irrelevant to the main question. Could you ask it separately?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
What does 花つ月 mean?
>
I'm trying to figure out the meaning for this part of kanji in a title for a series. The red flower month? The red flower moon? The month of blossoming red flowers? I'm totally at a loss as to how to interpret ''. | According to a dictionary, is an alternative name for _March_ , the third month of the year in the traditional Japanese calendar. (I didn't know that.)
So means _March in Crimson_ or something like that. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "translation, meaning, kanji, archaic language, old japanese"
} |
Meaning and usage of きっと良{よ}い
What is exact meaning of ? The part is easy to understand, it means "good". But part is not very clear to me. Also, could this phrase be used in official language? | This is what the Wisdom Japanese-English Dictionary says:
> surely, certainly; …be sure [certain] to do; without fail⇨①…must do (!do ) ; probably⇨.
In official language usually more elaborate phrases are used, but I am not completely sure about the usage of this one in any more or less official papers. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
} |
How do you say "I already can tell (understand) X"?
I want to say the equivalent of
> I can already tell (understand) that game X is (going to be) harder than game Y.
For instance, I've already beat game Y. And even though I've only just started playing game X, I can already tell it is going to be harder than game Y. That's what I'm trying to convey in a sense.
I know that to say "game X is harder than game Y" you would say:
> XY
But I'm unsure how to add on "I already know/understand/can tell that.."
My best guess is something like:
> XY
But I'm not sure if that is right or if there is a better way to say it. | I don't really like xy in this order.
I would rather say it like
> XY
or
> YX | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "usage, phrases, phrase requests"
} |
Exact meaning of も (maybe emphatic?) in a sentence
I read in a Japanese Grammar(*) written in French:
> , **** .
>
> ~ "My son is healthy, and we feel reassured". (translation from the French translation given by Reiko Shimamori: "Mon fils est en bonne santé, et nous en sommes rassurés.")
What's the exact meaning of in this sentence?
Since doesn't coordinate propositions, this particle can't mean "my son is healthy **and** we feel reassured". I don't think stands for "(we) too" as in "my son is healthy and **we too** feel reassured".
Reiko Shimamori writes somewhere in her book that may have an "emphatic meaning" but I can't find the reference.
Any idea to help me?
(*) Grammaire japonaise systématique (Reiko Shimamori), I.235 | This can be understood along the lines of "as well" or "too". To put it very verbosely, this `` means "just like others" or "I guess we're not the only ones, but..."
This kind of , which vaguely refers to "unspecific others", occurs commonly in Japanese.
To take another example, when a boss gives a word of advice to their people:
> * **** …
> * **** …
>
The former sounds milder to me, because it sounds like "you're not the only one (to blame), but ...". I don't know how to translate this to English, but I may use "kind of" or something similar which makes the sentence milder. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, particles"
} |
Meaning and usage of ~としたことが
I came across the expression ~, for example:
>
I'm trying to figure out the meaning and usage of this phrase, but I can't find any English resources that explain it.
What does this mean? | and are used to express the surprise of the speaker toward the (bad) behaviour of someone.
With , it expresses something around the line of "Who could have thought I/someone like me/someone of my standing/someone of my position (would do such a thing)"
Here are some examples from the
> , .
>
> You, of all people, have made an awful blunder.
>
> .
>
> Oh my, look what I've done.
>
> , .
>
> Then she, would you believe it, seems to have fallen sound asleep. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, usage, idioms"
} |
Meaning of noun + らっけかぁ～
This bolded sentence is from Persona 4, from a random stranger:
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
(transcript with this sentence)
What does the last part, , mean? Is this slang? | This person's drunk and his speech's slurred. He's trying to say
This → sound change is commonly seen in drunken speech.
> **** → ****
>
> XX→ XX
> XX→ XX | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "slang, colloquial language"
} |
Meaning of <amount of money> + から
I recently came across a song about a person going to a convenience store.
At some point in the song, the character makes a 220 yen purchase and tries to annoy the cashier by giving 10,000 yen, expecting change. She (the character) says this:
>
Both the subtitles and every lyrics page I find translate this as "here's 10,000 yen". Being that means "from" after a noun, I have no idea how they got that translation, and I can't find any other definitions where this would make sense. | Quite simply, that just means **"Out of a 10,000-yen bill, (please)!"**.
She is demanding her change as meanly as the clerks are treating her. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particle から"
} |
Is there a kanji for "hacker"?
As I understand it, most foreign words in Japanese are written in Katakana. However, I am curious as to whether in contemporary written Japanese, hacker is written as a literal adaptation of the western word, or whether a idiomatically Japanese character/concept is substituted in its place.
For the purposes of this discussion, what I mean by hacker is "Person who attempts to subvert the security of digital systems" rather than the wider meaning of the term.
Is this even a concept in contemporary Japanese outside of its status as foreign word? | **** is widely recognized by the general population in the _narrow_ sense OP indicated. But if you use this in, say, Japanese Stack Overflow, it will soon be corrected. "Hey, don't use in that way! They're not criminals!"
**** specifically refers to the evil ones, and is preferred by IT professionals.
That said, both and are still a bit slangy terms in Japanese. Although newspapers seem to use freely recently, official government documents still avoid using them. For example, Information-technology Promotion Agency, which is a semi-official organization, does not use /, and uses other lengthy replacements like **……** in its security guidelines.
I don't know why you need a kanji version, but hope this helps. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What are the meanings of 「って」, 「とこ」, and 「ねえで」 in this sentence?
Here is the sentence I found these words in.
> **** **** **** ...
Especially the **** , I'm not sure if I should translate it to be 'bed' or 'room' or something else. | These are colloquial Japanese for ``, `` and ``. `` means 'around the last few days'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, particles"
} |
Difference between passive and intransitive for positive verbs
I saw this answer for how the nuance changes between the use of passive and intransitive verbs when the verb is negative. I was wondering what the difference is with a positive verb. Here's an example:
>
>
>
Both of which, I hope, mean "the wallet was found". Is there a difference, or would you just not bother with the passive if an equivalent intransitive verb exists?
Response to duplicate suggestion: I have looked at Passive-transitive-verb vs. Intransitive-verb vs. ) but found the answer difficult to follow. In particular I thought example 3 was supposed to be with an intransitive verb but it still seems to be taking an object.
Thanks | Whether you use intransitive or passive depends mostly on what you want to imply. Passive is used when there's clearly an active agent causing the action (even if the agent isn't explicitly stated). Intransitive doesn't carry that information.
> * - The door closes.
> * () - The door is closed (by him).
>
The first example only means that the door closes. Without context, we have no information on _how_ it closes. It could have closed on its own.
In the second example, though, there's clearly someone else closing the door even if you choose not to include . (However, adding makes it sound just as awkward as its English translation in this case.)
Now, some verbs really just go one way or the other, and your example verb happens to fit into that category. is clearly the better choice, just because that's the way it is. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "nuances, passive voice"
} |
Answering exams in Japanese
When you are taking up an exam that is not written in but rather in dictionary form, and it requires a brief answer from you (for example, the problem you have to answer is simply ), are you required to answer in Any insights on answering exams written in Japanese? | Does not really matter how is written the exam, you do not need to answer in . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness"
} |
What are the differences between ように and よう when used to link sentences?
> (A)
Translates as "I left home early in order to catch the train".
Would:
> (B)
Translate differently? Is there any nuance here ("as if to catch the train", "appearing that I left early to catch the train" etc.)? The (B) structure is quite common in Japanese literature and I'd like to come closer to understanding it. | The only difference is the degree of formality, not in the meaning or nuance.
sounds **slightly** more formal than , but the two should be interchangeable much of the time.
One might tend to use more often in informal conversations, but then again, it could be replaced by with no problems most of the time.
I think I myself used less often as a kid than I do now. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjunctions"
} |
Meaning of a conjugation of 巡らす (巡らせ)
This is from a light novel I'm reading. Here's the part that I'm having trouble with this sentence:
>
Based on what I know regarding the rest of the sentence, I believe that this translation should be something like:
> I developed a headache as I thought it over.
According to my electronic dictionary, should be the imperative form of . But I'm having trouble reasoning out why the imperative would be needed here since he's thinking it over himself and not being commanded by someone else to think it over.
If you need more context, here's the passage that I'm looking at:
> ……
>
> | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
is **not** in the imperative form. Rather, it is the []{} (continuative form) of the causative verb .
is a set phrase meaning "to ponder".
> "I pondered in my aching head, trying to recall the cause as to why this had to happen." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "nuances, renyōkei"
} |
Difference between 運命 and 命運
To my knowledge, {} is the more common of the two terms, meaning fate / destiny. {} is clearly the same reversed, and translations give the same meaning of fate / destiny. I was wondering if the two are in fact the exact same in meaning, or if there's a difference in nuance between them, other than the fact that {} seems to be the more common of the two. | says
> ****
> ——
the keywords being , that is is serious and may affect the continuance of the thing or person whose is being discussed. WWWJDICT gives "doom" as translation; I don't think it is a good translation, but thematically it fits very well, it's a kind of fate that may be the last fate the thing or person ever sees.
As for the word itself, I wouldn't see as a switched version of , rather as something like
> ≒ (or )
( is a word by itself), i.e. the life-or-death kind of fate.
Lastly, just to quantify your "more common", the BCCWJ has
> 3260 results
> 236 results | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "meaning, kanji, nuances"
} |
How do i say "for every x, show that P(x) is true"?
i've been learning japanese for 2 and a half years now. for a few weeks/months now, i'm taking notes in japanese.
Listening to the teacher in french and taking notes in japanese my be challenging at times, but it's increadibly stimulating and rewarding, given that it was totally impossible not that long ago.
Yet i cannot find a translation for the statement : "for all x, show that P(x) is true", something like that.
It's especially the "show that" that i'm not sure how to properly translate. ”xxP(x)”…… or anything else
Thank you | is virtually never used in mathematical articles. I would translate it like so:
* xP(x)
* xP(x) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "mathematics"
} |
Old fashioned grammar structure? 「きいてみたくてならなかった」
I just read the short story and I got a bit confused by this sentence:
> ...
In particular the last part of it,
+ + -in-negative-past-tense-form
In this some old fashioned form of ? By the flow of the story I claim it means something like "I have to ask the magistrate ...", but I am not entirely sure if this is really correct. | No, it is neither old-fashioned nor a form of .
This form of means "really, really ". It is similar to the forms . Here are a few examples:
> * []{} **** → It might be because I started using a word processor, because lately my eyes are _really_ tired.
> * **** → Thinking about finally returning to my home country tomorrow, it make me _super_ happy.
> * **** → What's happening? Since this morning I've been _really, really_ thirsty.
> * **** → I _really_ get the feeling that that guy is somehow thinking about something bad.
>
This is just in the paste tense of this form: . So it is says something like "...for some reason I _really_ wanted to ask you, Mr. Magistrate."
Note that the **** here is _extremely_ important for the meaning. If it were just , it would say "I did not become wanting to ask you" which is almost the opposite meaning.
* * *
All examples taken from __ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the correct way to read chapter numbers? (e.g.: 第1話)
I see this form often in manga book indexes. My dictonary gives me and as possible readings for the first kanji, and I'm also not sure if the number should be read as a counter (like is read and not ). How should I read those? | The ordinal prefix is read . This is sense two in :
> ――――
The counter is read , and it attaches to Sino-Japanese numerals such as .
Put it all together and you get . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "kanji, readings, counters"
} |
Is there a difference between 終わりたい and 終わってほしい
Actually, I'm not even sure, if the ``-form of a intransitive verb is possible, or grammatically correct, but I sometimes read `` or `` like for example
>
But from everything I learned I would guess that `` or `` is like 'grammatically right', but also I know, that there are some special rules for like ``, so I guess both is possible.
So, if both is possible, what's the difference? Is it, that for `` it is meant for something I'm doing oneself and `` is for something I'm just 'begging' and can't change myself?
Would my question change for verbs like `` or ``? | Both are correct for different meanings and/or nuances.
[]{} is used to talk about something that one is actively and/or personally involved in. One would generally have at least an amount of control of when it can be finished.
Example: You have been doing your homework and you wish to finish it as soon as possible so you can go play tennis.
is used to talk about something that one is not personally involved in (though you may be there). One has basically no control of when it might be finished.
Example: You are attending a lecture and getting bored. You would love to leave if at all possible, but obviously you cannot. All you can do is to wish it ended soon.
One could say the same about []{} and []{}. All that matters is whether or not you are part of the group that is waiting to be saved or found. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, transitivity"
} |
What does のに mean here?
>
>
> ****
My default interpretation here would be, since here is a na-adjective, that it would mean "despite". That is, the servant was disappointed despite the banality of her answer (that went against his expectation). The English translation, however, goes:
> The servant was disappointed **by** the unexpected banality of the old woman answer.
That is, the counter-factuality of "despite" is missing. Only causation is left. Is it due to the translator's freedom of interpretation or have I misunderstood this grammar point?
How is used here? | It is + in two words.
It is not the = "despite" that you thought it was.
The nominalizes the adjective []{}. In meaning, .
is the correct particle to use in **** []{}= "to be disappointed **with** "
The translator is correct. There is no "despite" in there to begin with. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles"
} |
What's the difference between 間違える and 誤る?
Is there some sort of bigger difference between the two? I tried reading some example sentences, but couldn't distinguish between them. The level of politeness perhaps? | []{} and []{} are interchangeable much of the time as far as **meaning** goes, but that does not mean we use the two equally often.
Native speakers learn to actively use years before they learn to use . So, even into their adult life, they use much more often in **informal** conversation and writing.
, therefore, sounds **less** informal and conversational. It is more often used in writing than in speaking.
When saying "Oops! Made a mistake!" without thinkning, nearly everyone would say or . I could **_not_** imagine a native speaker saying or in that situation. That would be very, very rare.
**_Exception: When are they not interchangeable for meaning?_**
When expressing something like "to take the wrong path", it can be tricky.
[]{} would mean "To take the wrong path (and become delinquent, anti-social, etc.)"
would mean "to take the wrong street". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "nuances"
} |
Meaning of 緑色 in this passage
I have a question about the meaning of in the following sentence. Does the author means a green colored bug by it, or the nature itself?
Translation attempt: "Ferocious 'green colored' will caught the butterfly."
>
Context | The former:
!enter image description here
(taken from here)
It doesn't say so explicitly, but the description reads a lot like a , mantis. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
「深酷」とは どういう意味ですか
> ...
> ...
1.
2.
3.
* * *
Presently, I am reading some pre-war Japanese, and I ran across a word that does not exist in the dictionary. The sentences is as follows:
> ...
As a guess, I think that this means the following:
> ....
i.e. we must state that which is absolutely and thoroughly foundational.
My question is three-fold:
1. First, I want someone to check if my supposition is correct.
2. Is there any where that this is written in a dictionary?
3. I would like to learn if this differ at all from the common in meaning. | ****
> ) ⇒
* * *
****
>
>
> ① ****
>
> ②
>
> ③
>
> ④
* * *
So as the _kanji_ implies, is an alternative spelling with a nuance of a grave or harsh or atrocious (, ) situation.
* * *
Perhaps it is worth noting that the Agency of Cultural Affairs considers more common:
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
(kokugo.bunka.go.jp) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, kyūjitai and shinjitai, connotation"
} |
Which noun is being modified in アリスがふみとどまろうかと考えるひまもないうちに
I've been reading (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) and there's a sentence that is baffling me. It reads:
> [After having fallen down the rabbit hole]
>
> ****
My main concern is the bolded part. I'm not sure if it's Alice who "does not have any free time to consider remaining" or whether it's the "inside that does not have any free time to consider remaining". I guess the latter case would seem more probable; one could interpret it as figurative language: i.e. that's how relentlessly fast the rabbit hole seemed to progress.
How does work here? And who is the subject of the verb ? Is it Alice or the general observer? | > Mini-sentence A + **** \+ Mini-sentence B=
>
> "B happens **while** A is happening."
B = []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
A = []{}
Above is the structure of the whole sentence and one's comprehension of this structure is the prerequisite to a good analysis of any part of it.
You clearly are unfamiliar with the usage of , which is a temporal expression just like " **while** " in English. has several different meanings and you could find them all in a medium-sized dictionary. " **Inside** " is one of the meanings but that is not what it means in the sentence in question.
> " And who is the subject of the verb ?"
It is Alice; No other possibilities.
, therfore, means:
"while Alice had no time to think about holding her ground" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
"It was not my intention."
How do I say the above sentence in Japanese? I would suppose it's
(sore wa watashi no ikou wa nakunakatta.)
But I'm not sure about the 'nakunakatta'. It might be a double-negation?
Or might there even be a completely different sentence for this purpose? | How we say it **totally** depends on the situation, the speaker, etc.
More common phrases would include:
or
[]{}or
[]{}
The first two without using a Sino loanword would be the most versatile. In formal or serious situations, however, the ones using a Sino loanword would sound better.
= one's real intention
= an intention | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Meaning of うりこぼる or うりこぶる - EDIT : AUDIO ADDED
**EDIT :Here is the extract.**
* * *
I heard the expression or ( I'm not sure) in the anime and can't find much info on it. It's from episode 4 around 10:30, just after 's lines. The sentence is pronounced by .
The full sentence is :
> ...
I wonder if it is an idiomatic expression or an abbreviation of one, or something else.
The general idea seems to be "stop lying". | It's []{}
means "to pretend to be a good boy; to act goody-goody" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
How is 情けは人の為ならず used?
Is it used in the positive sense "you should do good things for others! good things will happen to you as well" or rather, negative "good things are rooted in selfish motivations", or something else? | > []{}[]{}[]{}
If I remember correctly what I learned in high school, there is a huge discrepancy between what this proverb originally meant and what many people today **think** it means.
**_Original meaning_** : The first of the two interpretations you listed. "Do good things for others and good things will eventually happen to you."
**_Common misinterpretation_** : "Show (too much) mercy and it will not bring good results to that person in the end." In other words, "Be on the strict side to others if you want them to succeed in the long run."
Your second interpretation "Good things are rooted in selfish motivations." appears to be your own. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "expressions"
} |
What are they saying and what does it mean?
Please listen to this short extract from a gintama episode: <
What exactly are they saying? The part I don't get is specifically "ni kawareru ni" and "narete". Do they really mean kawaru? | It says
is the passive form of , to keep (a pet).
means "to deserve"
() is the potential form of , to become. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Meaning of onomatopoeia バン / ババン / バーン
Whilst reading Japanese manga, to assist me in learning, I frequently come across a few actions that I am completely unfamiliar with. (Section is circled in red):
!depicts scenario
It even appears in fan art (this time differently):
!depicts scenario again, slightly differently
Now I know that normally onomatopoeia like "SLASH" and "BANG" are depicted here, so maybe this is similar? Can someone tell me what this is? | / / is like "Ta-da! / Ta-dah!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, meaning, onomatopoeia"
} |
What does the word 「いってえ」 mean?
Below here is a full sentence I have found the word.
> **** . | is how the "tough Kanto guy" would colloquially pronounce []{}.
, when combined with a question word (in this case, ), is the Japanese equivalent of "on earth", "the heck", "the f***", etc.
[]{}[]{} = "How on earth did you get all this mountain of stuff?"
Depending on the context, there may be a better translation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, colloquial language"
} |
Giving and receiving with two 3rd persons
There are (at least) two words which mean "to give": and . The former is used when you give to someone else, and the latter is used when someone else gives to you.
But which do you use if you want to say that someone else gave something to another person, where both parties are outside your social circle? | That would definitely be if you are speaking from the **giver's standpoint**.
AB= "A gave B a present."
If, however, you are speaking from the **receiver's standpoint** , you would use .
BAor = "B received a present from A."
**cannot** be used to talk about a transaction between two third parties. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, giving and receiving"
} |
Can を be left out for this phrase 文句をつける?
In the light novel that I'm reading, the protagonist says
>
After performing the research, I've finally worked out this translation,
> "Don't complain about a person's hobby!"
Unfortunately, it relies on being a direct object...possibly. I couldn't find any examples for translating without breaking the phrase apart.
Here are some of the examples that I found when was included. (src: <
> He finds faults with everything I do. [M]
>
> He is always complaining of this and that.
I'd like to know if the particle is missing because it's a casual conversation. Or does the above-listed phrase have a different meaning altogether? | That kind of drops quite often in casual conversation; you say
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particle を"
} |
What is she saying?
<
Can anyone understand the first part of what she's saying? | She is saying []{}[]{}[]{}.
Sandwiched between "sh" and "s", which are somewhat similar, the vowel in of []{} was not pronounced clearly. I think that is what prevented you from catching the first couple of words. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Meaning of "生まれし"
I wanted to ask this question because it is the first time I have honestly been unable to find any information on a given form. I know it involves the verb "to be born," but I've never seen a stem+ form. For some more information, the full line is:
> {
For those curious, the quote comes from a game called Xenoblade. Could someone explain what construction "" uses and possibly give a rough translation of the whole thing? Also, I don't know many kanji, so using kana in answers would be appreciated. | **** is the []{} (attributive form) of the **retrospective auxiliary verb** **** . modifies nouns ( in this case).
Even though is a Classical auxiliary verb, it is listed in any medium-sized dictionary of Modern Japanese because it is still used today in creative writing where the author's aesthetic preference calls for the old-fashioned and/or literary kind of taste.
<
**** **** = "around the time I was born"
, therefore means:
"I have always walked on the road of war since I was born." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, archaic language, auxiliary き"
} |
Analyzing 「だけど勝つのはいつも金太郎で、大きな体のクマでも金太郎にはかてません」
From the tale :
>
I understand a few things:
1. is contrasting the previous sentence.
2. is nominalizing .
3. The second takes the particle because of the verb .
I'm having trouble finding (1) the main topic, and (2) the subordinate clause.
I also don't understand how the other particles and the conjunction of this sentence are being used. | > {
So let's start from the beginning:
* `` introduces a contrast with the previous sentence similar to `but` or `although`.
* `` nominalizes `` and introduces it as the subject using particle ``, thus `the one who wins is`
* `` adverb meaning `always`
* ``: This is the part stating that it's _Kintarô_ who wins. `` is the _continous form_ () of the copula , here indicating that the sentence isn't over yet.
* ``: "Mr." Bear's big body
* `` is not the conjunction `=but, yet, still`, but the adverbial particle () `=even`. See these questions for more details: 1, 2, 3 If it helps, think of it as ` +()+`, `even if it is a bear`
* `` is the potential negative form (=cannot) of ``.
So I would conclude by saying:
> Although (something), the one who victory is always Kintarô, (and) even Mr. Bear with his huge body cannot win against Kintarō.
Or a bit further from the Japanese:
> But Kintarô would always win, even the Bear with his huge strength was no match for him. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, syntax, subjects, clause pattern"
} |
Meaning of 長い間のロマンス in the song 四角革命
From the song by
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm translating this song and the bolded lines are confusing me.
Mostly, I'm not sure how to translate .
Would it be "lengthy time of romance" or could it mean "long distance romance"? The context of the song would lead me to believe is referring to a long distance, but is used for time, right? | <
As you can see, `` is exclusively used for time, so it would be a `long time of romance`. I don't think its possible to interpret this as 'long distance'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, song lyrics"
} |
What's the difference between 無【な】くす and 失【うしな】う
These two words, and , seem to be very similar in meaning, but i'm not sure of the difference. Can someone please explain? Here are some examples:
> He sometimes loses hope.
>
> You have nothing to lose.
>
> The new government promised to rid the country of corruption. | Generally speaking, would be a more versatile word than as the latter is a more nuanced word. While is an everyday word that even toddlers can use actively and correctly, you will not see small kids using the word in real life. I think it safe to say that is used more often in writing than in speaking.
Only can be used to talk about losing "little tangible" items such as a book, keys, hat, cellphone, umbrella, etc. You would sound incredibly weird if you used instead.
To talk about losing more important things, tangible or intangible, you can basically use either word as long as you remember that would tend to make it sound more conversational. Those items would include a house, job, life, confidence, rights, etc.
As shown in your last example, only can be used to talk about making something unnecessary or evil disappear by human effort. cannot be used there at all. can only be used to talk about losing something you did not want to lose. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
How do you know what word to write in its kanji correspondence?
My study book writes some words like and in pure hiragana and I can't figure out whether it is common to write these words in hiragana as the books says, or I'd better write them in their kanji correspondences that I see in a dictionary. For example, I know that I can write as either or but I also know that to write in kanji in the first place is not a common practice. So I have no problem with but not with those new words above and more words to come.
What I usually do is to type the word in google, wait for the search bar to drop suggestions and see if the word is in hiragana or kanji. But this definitely has a limit (since most of the time suggestions show both uses) and I can't just make a new post every time I see a new word to ask which one to use.
Is there any good way to know how a word is commonly written? | Google searches for this are pretty useful. There are sites like Jisho.org (< that can tell you if something is usually written in kana. It also gives you alternative kanji forms.
I don't know too many specifics, but the suggestions given by Google or Microsoft Word usually suffice. Please correct my errors though.
Here's a good link: When should I replace kanji with hiragana? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, kanji"
} |
Meaning of the phrase 「さわいどるんかの？」
Here is the full sentence.
> ****
What does the bolded part mean? | It's []{}[]{}[]{} or "What's the fuss about?" in some regional dialect or the role language for old speakers. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, meaning, dialects, contractions"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.