INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
Can ใจ imply ใจ่จใใใฐใใใซ?
I can't understand how is used in the bolded sentence below. Does in that sentence imply ("Understand it please - said looking at me."), or does it imply (" was looking at me as if saying 'understand it'.")?
For reference, that last sentence is a narration, and not part of the dialogue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **** | > []{}[]{}[]{}
>
> Does in that sentence imply ("Understand it please - said looking at me.")?
No, it does not imply that. If had actually said out loud to , the author surely would have expressed that using a direct quote just like all those direct quotes from the beginning.
Besides, the combination of (Please guess [how I am feeling].) and (He looked at me) should tell us that there were no words being spoken during that moment.
> or does it imply (" was looking at me as if saying 'understand it'.")?
Yes, it does. Other possibilities include , etc.
The reason that the author just used could be the fact that s/he used only a few lines before. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใจ"
} |
The use of ๆฉ็ใใใพใใ with ใจๆใ in this sentence
I understand most of the below sentence, but when I get to , things get confusing.
My translation: A Japanese person's shyness is intense, so it takes a long time to get close to them, but I think that if you do, they might think you are condescending.
Is my translation right? If not, what would be the correct translation and why? | In , the subject of is and the subject of the first is the reader, so it's basically saying:
I think that once you do, YOU might find THEM condescending. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Does the pronunciation of ใ change with the sound following it?
For example, the word (bag) is pronounced kabaN when it's alone but what if another word like (and) comes after it? Would it be still pronounced kabaNto, or should you consider the following and say kabanto? | Yes, it does. For example, is pronounced like [n] in and (before [t], [n] or [d]), like [ng]/[ล] (as in siNGer) in and (before [g] or [k]), and like [m] in (before [m], [p], or [b]). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
Usage and meaning of ไปฒใฐใ
While reading I came across a strange usage which none of my dictionaries could decipher.
> ****
While googling I found the sentence **** accompanied by a picture of someone doing stretching exercises.
From what I know is a particle used for conditions but I don't know how comes into the picture. | **** makes no sense I am afraid. Are you sure it was not
**** ?
[]{}[]{} means "to straighten oneself".
The sentence you found on google is incorrect as well. It should be at the end. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "usage, conjugations, renyลkei"
} |
What is the function of ใจ in verb-ใฆใใใจ form
I read this sentence in a book for beginners, but I can't find the grammar in any of my books or online:
>
Which I translate as
> While the old woman was washing in the river, a big peach came floating down from upstream (with some sound effects).
However, I can't find any references that mention that the verb in - form followed by should mean "while". Or indeed any references to such a construct at all. Can someone please explain this grammar, how common it is, and when it is right to use it? Note that I am familiar with the verb- form when referring to "verb-ing" or when there is a change of state. I'm also happy that after a verb can mean "if", but that doesn't seem to work here.
Many thanks | It is indeed the conditional but takes more of the form of 'when' rather than 'if', in a similar way to how is used. You'll see it used in this way quite a lot. This also means that anything before doesn't necessarily have a cause-effect relationship. It's not _because_ the the women was doing her laundry by the river that the peach came.
(I understood immediately when i asked my teacher) - DOBJG pg.481
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใจ"
} |
Difference between ๅ
ใ, ่ผใ, and ๅ
ใ่ผใ?
What is the difference between {}, {}, and {}{}? According to my dictionary, they all mean "to shine" or "to be bright", but I'm sure they aren't always interchangeable. Looking at example sentences, it seems that the sun, moon, a star, and a diamond can both and , but eyes mostly . I can't figure out anything based on that, though, and I'm not even sure if it's correct. | Something that is something that emits/reflects light. The sun. A star. A flashlight. An LED.
is to shimmer/sparkle. The sun reflecting off a lake's waves does . A diamond reflecting light does this.
As for , it's the same thing as .
And as someone else here said, if you just want to compare words to get a nuanced meaning of the word, a google image search is always a great thing to use. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, nuances"
} |
Reading and significance of dakuten with kana for which it normally is not used
!weird hiragana? !weird hiragana?
Came across these while reading a novel.
How do you read this? | The letter doesn't exist indeed in Japanese. But is rarely used in manga to emphasize the letter . The letter exists. But it is normally written in katakana.
Pronunciation: => va => vi => v or vu => ve => vo | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "hiragana"
} |
Meaning of ใจใใ in ใขใกใชใซใฎใใใจใใ
I feel as though I understand what the below sentence means, but what I think it means makes no sense.
>
My translation: If you go to Japan, you might be able to discover good American areas.
Is my translation correct? If so, why? If not, what would your translation be and why? | I think what's throwing you off is that you're translating too literally. does mean "place", but it can be used on a much more abstract level, such as a point in time or a characteristic. For example:
> - I was going to school. (Lit: I was at the point where I was going to school.)
>
> - He doesn't have any pride. (Lit: He has no places of pride.)
The in your example isn't referring to literal places, but an abstract place like in the examples above. It's referring to the _characteristics_ of America.
I would translate it as:
> If you go to Japan, you might be able to discover the good points of America.
Where "points" refers to the characteristics of America. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 21,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
} |
Difference between ใฆ-form and ใจ/ใ for connecting adjectives/verbs
I was reading about the form and trying to understand it, then I came across some sentences using form and a question came into my mind:
What changes if instead of using the form for all verbs and adjectives, / are used?
Example:
>
Couldn't it be rewritten like this?
>
Or are / used only for "things", while the form is used for words?
Also, I read that form is used to connect the contents of the sentence. But in the example I rewrote above, isn't it clearly connected? | -in the sense of `A and B`\- and can only be used to connect nouns or noun-phrases, but they cannot be used to connect adjectives and verbs.
Therefore this sentence would be wrong:
> x
But you can say this:
>
>
> Regarding Japanese classes, I think of [the words] "easy/simple" and "interesting" and "fun".
Here the words are only mentionted, effectively they become the noun `the word X`.
The _te_ -form can be used to join sentences, phrases or verbs/adjectives. For illustration, another example with the _te_ -form:
>
>
>
Note that the _te_ -form has got a few other usages as well, such as implying a causal relationship:
>
Finally, it should be mentioned that can be used with verbs as well, but that is a different usage and coonects phrases, but not nouns:
> (If/When lights are turned off, it gets dark.)
>
> . (There was a letter waiting for me when I got home.)
>
> (Why do [I/we] need to save electricity?) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles, ใฆ form, particle ใจ"
} |
Meaning of ๅฝข here?
I'm wondering what and mean in the following conversation. I know that can be used quite figuratively but I never got a good feel for it.
A:
B: | []{}, here, means " **token** " or " **by name only** ".
A: "It's nothing more than a token leader, is it?"
B: "(But) you get judged by your name at times, y'know." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Meaning and usage of ใใใฆใใใซใใ
From the manga _yotsubato!_ , casual conversation:
>
In this sentence how does at the end change it? I know the full sentence means this:
> It's ok to go to bed early, but at least eat dinner, and take a bath.
But wouldn't that be
>
I'm guessing that is the imperative form of , is `from`, and is the directional particle. But I don't see how that changes the sentence. | > Dictionary form: Te-form of Verb A + + +
>
> Imperative form: Te-form of Verb A + + + or
This is a common set phrase meaning "Do (something) only after doing A."
The translation you provided is passable but is certainly not a very literal one.
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{} ****
In this sentence, =. but the translation does not clearly says it. It is only implied successfully because "Verb A" here happens to be so the reader will know that one would have to do everything else (eat dinner and take a bath, in this case) before going to bed.
A highly literal translation would be:
> "It is OK to go to bed early, but _**do so**_ at least after eating dinner and taking a bath." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 11,
"tags": "grammar, particles, imperatives"
} |
why does "ใ" follow "ๅฑฑไธญ{ใใพใชใ}" here: "ๅฑฑไธญใใไบๅๆค่จบ{ใใณใใใใ}ใง็ฐๅธธ{ใใใใ}ใชใ"
In the newspaper article titled โฆ, what meaning is created by placing "" after ""?
Does it make "" plural, and then "" means something like "Yamanaka and his hangers-on".
Maybe, "Clinton" means "Hillary Clinton and her senior campaign staff"? | is a plural suffix.
In this case, just means "Yamanaka and his opponent", **_not_** "Yamanaka and his hangers-on". The hangers-on do not need to take a preliminary physical before a boxing match.
"Yamanaka and his opponent pass their preliminary physical." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, plurals"
} |
How do you read ้บป่ฒ?
Don't know if it should be read as , , or in some other way. Couldn't find it in any dictionary.
Context: !screenshot | It's read like a regular compound word,
Here's a passage from Aozora Bunko with furigana:
[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "kanji, readings, colors"
} |
Meaning of ๅ
ใไบใฏๅ
ใใๅใใใใใชใ and ไฝใ ๆใใใใใฎ้ใใ ใจ
:
> **** ****
In particular, I am having trouble comprehending the text in bold. I have included the context of the sentence in hopes of making it more clear.
>
From what I understand, it is something along the lines of "the shining thing (the knife) shines, but it doesn't seem to be able to cut". However, what is the purpose of the particle in this case?
>
As for this clause, I can't seem to make much sense out of it. | > []{}[]{}[]{}
is in the structure:
> Verb or Adjective + + _**Same**_ Verb or Adjective + / + Phrase
>
> = "(Something) is _**indeed**_ ~~~~, but ~~~~~~"
= "does not (even) look like it cuts well". is there for emphasis, which is why I used "even".
> "It is indeed shiny, but it does not (even) look like it cuts well."
Onto the next phrase,
> []{}[]{}[]{} ****
at the end is quotative. So, for the sake of understanding, do pretend you are instead seeing:
> **** , etc.
= "what the heck", = "it's only a finger", = "just like this" โ "I'll show ya."
This is what the guy said before he actually cut his finger. You should be able to figure out how to put it all together as an indirect quote within the sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, questions"
} |
Pronouncing abbreviations, acronyms, letters? (NHK, CM, JR, A...)
I've been noticing that Latin letters in abbreviations and acronyms are _(obviously)_ common in Japan.
For instance:
* JR becomes ****
* CM becomes ****
* N3 becomes ****
* NHK becomes **** (I think)
Are there any set rules for pronouncing (possibly made-up) acronyms like these, or rather, are there set _Japanese_ pronunciations for each English letter? How would a **** pronounce a random acronym like **AXQ, JSOC** or something?
Maybe pronunciation is irregular... but would you guys know any good guidelines or sources?
I've noticed that there may be some irregularities, like here Why is "UFO" pronounced as if it were a word? I'm more or less okay with "guessing" the pronunciation of letters. Still, is there any actual list of the sounds?
Any help is appreciated! | Most of the acronyms I know are pronounced phonetically as they are in both your example and most of the time in English. However just as English turns some acronyms into their own words, the same happens in Japanese. I can't think of a specifically defined rule and to further muddy the waters, some of these are influenced by some of the people or companies representing them.
Your two examples would most likely (some people would prefer the proper Japanese words - such as the second example) be used instead.
`AXQ [AXQ] / Ei-eks-kyu` {Unsure of specific example that you are referring to} `JSOC [] / Jei-sok`
> More Examples...
* Acronym []
* / English pronunciation
> * NASA []
> * / Nae-sa
> * JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) []
> * / Ja-ksa
> * NISA (Nippon Individual Savings Account) []
> * / Ni-sa
> * MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) []
> * / Mo-fa
> * โป Only usually referred to in Japanese as
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, abbreviations"
} |
Customer who bought from you in the past, and buys again because they like the product
I am looking for a shorter word to convey the fact that a customer buys again:
>
I want to insist on the fact that a customer buying again means that they like the product and think the price is fair.
It is only the second time they buy, though, so "regular" is probably a bit too strong.
I haven't found anything similar on ALC. | *
*
*
*
*
*
>
>
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "business japanese, word requests"
} |
Adjective negation: difference between ใใใชใ and ใใใใใพใใ
What's the difference between and ? Both are added to an i-adjective (, verb type adjective) to make it negative. For example:
*
*
But what's the difference? Is one more polite or more formal than the other?
Is there a term to use to tell them apart. E.g. One is polite Negative etc. | * (casual)
* (formal)
It's basically that simple. So saying is more formal than saying .
However, I feel that saying is a bit stiff even if you are trying to be polite. Instead, saying sounds more natural and is also more polite than leaving off the . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "politeness, adjectives, negation, i adjectives"
} |
Commas and relative clauses
Can't find rules on how commas work with relative clauses.
Paragraph [[click for full text]](
>
Problematic part:
My understanding of how grammar works here:
XYA
X and Y are both relative clauses that describe (respectively) the tip and the bud. marks location (the stem's tip), the active agent (the bud), Y the active agent's action (lit. "luxuriantly opening petals") that happens in the place marked by (the stem's tip).
Is this the right way to think about it? | I must say that your understanding of the sentence is 100% accurate.
Rules regarding the use of commas around relative clauses (or anywhere for that matter) in Japanese are not nearly as strict as in English. Where to use commas is pretty much left at the discretion of each writer.
The two commas used in seem more than reasonable to me. They surely help the readers understand the exact structure of the sentence.
Had the sentence been written in the structure "subject + location + action", it might well have used only one comma as in even though that still would be the author's choice instead of ours.
The comma after would not be omitted by almost anyone because the phrase modifying is fairly long to begin with. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, relative clauses"
} |
Meaning of ใใคใใใใชใ่
ใใใคใใใใชใใ and ใใใใใชๅฟ้
ใใชใใงใใฎใณใฎใณใจ่ฒใฃใฆใญใ
I've come upon a couple of phrases in Doraemon I quite don't understand.
The first is said by Nobita's mother, trying to calm Nobita down after finding him freaked out by his first encounter with Doraemon.
She says:
>
I don't quite get the form at the end. Shouldn't it be (`you were raised`)? Also, I wonder if that is a quotation ?
The second is a bit further on, when Nobita is trying to convince himself that there's nothing to worry about after Doraemon's prediction that he would be hanged in 30 minutes time. He says:
>
Would it be something like `Even though I don't want to hang, there's no reason to think I will.`?
* * *
Image of both pages:
* First sentence
* Second sentence | >
form at the end of a sentence serves as a command form. The is a case particle, is a mimetic word and adverb. The can be left off.
>
Anyone who doesn't want to hang himself, can't possibly hang himself. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "ใฆ form, phrases, manga"
} |
why does the following title end "...ๅฎใใใ" and not "ๅฎใใใฆใใ"? just to save space?
I read the title of the article 124 as
"The last male rhino on earth **is being protected** by a system that is active 24-hrs per day."
The " _...is being protected..._ " makes me want to say "... **** "
1. Were the title: "124 **** ", how would the meaning change?
2. Were space not an issue, would the continuous tense have been used? | It is **_headline grammar_** , not "regular" grammar. Words are often omitted intentionally in article headlines in Japanese just as in English.
In English, you would see "[Name] Shot Dead" instead of "[Name] Has Been Shot Dead" as a headline, would you not?
> 1.Were the title: "124 ", how would the meaning change?
The meaning would stay the same, but it would sound pretty awkward as a headline; It is just too long.
(For fairness, I wonder why you did not mention the absence of a subject marker as well. That, too, is intentional. No / in headlines, generally.)
> 2.Were space not an issue, would the continuous tense have been used?
No, for the reason I stated above, it would not have. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, passive voice"
} |
How is the past tense in this sentence translated?
I'm studying Japanese adjectives right now, and I see that adjectives can be formed to refer to past tense.
For example,
So, I'm trying to understand a little bit better how the works. Is it used like, "the bike used to be comfortable", or "the bike (I was riding) was comfortable (when I was riding it)." | > []{}[]{}
**This is ungrammatical**. As a Japanese-speaker, I do know that a few of us would actually say it, but if one said or wrote it in school, it would certainly be corrected.
The correct sentence would be:
> or
>
>
The former is a little politer than the latter.
Now, onto how to translate it..
To tell the truth, it is rather difficult without context. A very short sentence/phrase like this can mean a few different things without any context to go with it.
Without context, most native speakers would think of the following.
> "The bicycle ride was comfortable."
>
> "The bike felt comfortable."
>
> "(Going there by) bicycle was easier (than doing so by other methods of transportation)."
**It would not be taken to include the meaning of "used to" unless the context clearly suggested it. It would be taken to refer to the simple "near" past.** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the meaning of ๏ฝใใซใใกใใฃใใใใ?
Here is the sentence containing the phrase.
**** | It's I just dropped by to give you a piece of advice. in a regional dialect or the role language for old speakers.
~~ means , "(in order) to~~". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, phrases"
} |
How to say "email me at this mail address"?
I was wondering how I would say to someone that they can reach me at this email address or they can mail me here at this email address.
I would guess it would use the potential form of send for something like
> [email protected]
Is this correct? Or how could I say it? | There are several ways to say it. Some of the common ways would be
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
To a friend, you would say
[email protected] | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation, email"
} |
How is ใใ used here?
An exchange goes like this from :
> A
>
> B
>
> A ****
I thought the first [subordinate] clause ended at , so compound particle (?) would apply to to mean "even my father makes a fool of me", before the sub.conjunction followed by [main clause] to show speaker's discontent at .
Something like
> I don't like that **even** my father looks down on me.
However, the English translation goes:
> And I **particularly** do not like being looked down on by my own father.
This means applies to instead of , leading to a totally different translation. This implies here must be a particle (??) instead of a conjunction.
What's going on here?
In simple terms, do I look at it as
> []
>
> or []
And why? | > []{}[]{} **[]{}**
The translation that your book gives you for the last half is:
> "And I **_particularly_** do not like being looked down on by my own father."
In this case, the "particularly" part of the translation is NOT literal. It is, however, contextually clearly implied.
The first half tells us that the speaker is looked down on by people in general -- . Then he talks about being looked down on by his own father.
He is implying **_"Of all people, why your own father?"_** and that would be what this translator wanted to convey by using the word "particularly" IMHO.
The use of here is quite normal. It is a conjunctive particle expressing a reason or cause. is not a conjunction; It is a particle. You may be thinking of . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "particles, conjunctions"
} |
Why is ๅณถ used in the name of some cities?
I can understand "" being used in (Iwo Jima/Iwo To, literally "Sulphur island"), because it is an island, but why is it used in (Fukushima city, literally "Good fortune island") and (Hiroshima city, literally "Wide island")? | In short, that is because "island" is not the only meaning of //.
Besides "island", it can mean "settlement", "arable land by a river", "isolated area", "territory", "turf", "sandbank", etc. Even each section of a supermarket or any sizable store is called . So, **it does not have to be sea water that surrounds a //**.
[]{} was largely lakes and marshes at least as late as the 16th century according to chimei-allguide. So it was a kind of an island surrounded by fresh water.
[]{} is said to have started from a delta according to the same source as above. So, like Fukushima, it was like an island in a river if not the ocean. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 29,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "words, etymology"
} |
Trouble with sentence structure and particles
I've been having a hard time understanding how to construct a sentence. If I were going to say something along the lines of: "Learning Japanese on your own is difficult." Would this be grammatically correct: | []{}[]{}[]{}[]{} is nice and grammatical.
You could make it sound even more natural by changing to or .
Furthermore, adult native speakers would use the word []{} to mean "to study by oneself". If you were a beginner, though, you would not need to know this word yet; **It can wait**. One would say:
[]{} or
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words"
} |
Difference between the questions ใ็ทใใใชใใใงใใ๏ผใ and ใ็ทใใใชใใงใใ๏ผใ
I was wondering if there is a difference if you add that . Is the first one correct and the second one not?
> ****
>
> **** | I think the difference is how long you assumed that the person is a man. **** implies that you've been assuming that the person is a man for some time. On the other hand, implies that you have just realized that the person is a man (though, it depends on the emphasis. You would put the emphasis on the word in this case). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "questions, phrase requests"
} |
Mixture of romaji and hiragana in NHK "Meet and Speak"
In the NHK program "Meet and Speak", the phrases they use have a mixture of hiragana and romaji. Not as in hiragana on one line, and romaji underneath, but individual words being composed of the two, such as "miman".
!Example image
What is the purpose of this mixture? Is is supposed to indicate pitch accent? Alternatively, is romaji used for hiragana that the program has not yet taught? | Your alternate hunch is correct I expect, as I've seen it elsewhere (referred to as 'progressive', there, but I'm not sure if that's a universal term). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "orthography, kana, rลmaji"
} |
Meaning of ใตใใใชใใชใ?
Here's the context: a loan shark has asked a yakuza to help him collect a loan. The yakuza came back with the money. The loan shark paid for the yakuza's trouble and then tried to give the yakuza a little extra but the yakuza was reluctant. Then the loan shark said:
>
>
> source: 0 , can be seen here on youtube at around 4:45 min.
I have no idea what means. Could be slang or something since I can't find it in dictionaries. What is it and how does it work here? | That is no slang. It should be in any dictionary.
****
[]{} **** โ "dictionary" form
is the colloquial contraction for here.
is the mostly-Kanto colloquial way of saying .
means "to look good", "to look proper", etc.
> = "You wouldn't look good." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, slang"
} |
The meaning of ใๆฐใๅใใชใไบบใจใใฃใใใซ็ๆดปใใใใใใชใใใใฎใพใพ็ฌ่บซใงใใใใใ
I would like to clarify my understanding of the following sentence.
>
I believe it means something along the lines of, "if I am going to be living with someone I don't get along with, I would rather be single."
In addition to the translation, are the following assertions accurate?
1. is conjugated from (to exist) to mean "to want to be".
2. From the suffix, the subject of the sentence can be inferred to be the speaker.
3. means not just to physically live together (roommates), but more like to spend the rest of one's life with someone.
Also, could the sentence also have been expressed with ? I haven't ever come across the form of before, so I suppose that confuses me somewhat. | You have clearly got the gist of the sentence.
> 1. is conjugated from (to exist) to mean "to want to be".
Grammatically, yes, but the actual meaning and nuance of is "to stay (a certain way)". In this case, "to stay single" rather than "to be single".
> 2.From the suffix, the subject of the sentence can be inferred to be the speaker.
Definitely. I mentioned this in another thread a few days ago, but in Japanese, one cannot express another person's desire with alone. We use .
> 3. means not just to physically live together (roommates), but more like to spend the rest of one's life with someone.
Precisely. It means "to be married to ~~" most of the time.
> Also, could the sentence also have beenxpressed with ? I haven't ever come across the form of before, so I suppose that confuses me somewhat.
No, that would be impossible because only nouns can precede . You cannot combine a verb with . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, questions"
} |
How to say 'they will suffer'?
I'm trying to say, that if there is a natural disaster, the whole of Japan will suffer. However, I'm finding it quite difficult to translate this into Japanese. Do either of these make sense?
>
or would it make sense to use ~ in this context?
>
Thanks! | > 1)[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
>
> 2)[]{}
Both sentences are grammatical and both make sense. The use of is very good and natural. If I may speak on the native level, however, each has a little problem.
1) One would need to use a phrase or at least an adjective to modify to describe what sort of it would be. Just saying is too broad because everyone knows as common sense that people will suffer when there is a natural disaster.
You could easily improve it by inserting []{}, etc. in front of .
2) The use of is making the sentence sound pretty "unadultlike". You could replace it with a phrase like []{}[]{}[]{}. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
What's the differences between ใใใ and ้ฃใน็ฉ
I'm confused about how to use two words and , which all defined "food" as I search. What's the differences about them? Really thank you if you give me some examples. | There is a **clear** difference between the two. (I feel for you because I have seen defined wrongly in smaller bilingual dictionaries.)
[]{}[]{} refers to any and all kinds of food; It just includes **_everything people eat_**. Anything edible is called .
is different. It is what you eat **_with_** rice (or bread) in a meal. It refers to the entree and all of the side dishes. Rice, bread, snacks and desserts are **_not_** called among Japanese-speakers.
This should give you a good idea of what is:
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, meaning, food"
} |
Understanding particle-ni when there is no verb
I'm trying to understand the lyrics of the song . Here's the part of the lyrics I don't understand:
>
>
>
I see it as:
> "your leaving figure (back)" + "ni" + "farewell".
I can't understand where this _ni_ points to. I mean, who says _sayounara_ to whom? I understand it can indicate both the source of passive verb and destination for active. Yet the verb seems omitted here. Or is it really omitted?
Also, does it mean
1. "You leave and say farewell to me."; or
2. "You leave and I say farewell to you."
According to the songs flow I'd go with the first option but the second one seems correct according to my maybe lacking grammatical knowledge. | A verb is surely omitted here. What verb is it, then?
Think about what you could do with a in quotation marks. You could either _**say**_ it or _**hear it said**_ to someone and that is about all you could do with a , isn't it?
(Of course, you could **write** it but writing on someone's back would not be too romantic, would it?)
So, the omitted verb must be a form of []{} together with a quotative particle .
Normally, you say to someone face-to-face, but this is a song so, the author wants to say "saying to your back". The guy/girl is already leaving. All you (the speaker) can see is his/her back now.
> []{}[]{} โ
>
> /
The is needed because you are saying good-bye " _ **to**_ " a person's back.
= "you, who is leaving"
> Is it (1)"You leave and say farewell to me" or (2)"You leave and i say farewell to you"?
(2), of course. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, particle ใซ"
} |
What is this strange kanji that looks a bit like ไพ, but isn't?
Staying at a ryokan recently, I received some postcards with the following little poem:
!enter image description here
What are the characters that I have highlighted in red? They look a bit like []{}, but based on the context clearly aren't. | Turns out this character is a fairly common _ryakuji_ (abbreviated character) of the common honorific []{} _go-_ , as in []{} _gohan_ , so the full word is []{} _go-musou_ , the name of the hot spring where the ryokan was located. Another example here. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, abbreviations"
} |
Difference between ๅธฐใฃใฆๆฅใ and ๅธฐใ
Consider the following two sentences:
> ****
>
> ****
What's the difference between these two sentences? How does the bolded part affect the meaning? | In this context, can mean either "to come home" or "to go home". Essentially, it means "to return home", which can imply either direction (coming or going). So, we use the construction (movement toward the speaker) to make it clear that the person is _coming_ home.
We can also use the construction (movement away from the speaker), but I think it's far less common with .
Basically:
> X
> = X will come home.
> X
> = X will go home.
> X
> = X will return home.
* * *
So, if you were out and about, you could say something like,
>
> = I'll go home at 6.
Or, someone might say to you,
>
> = Are you going home at 6?
But, if you were already at home,
>
> = I came home at 6. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, verbs, subsidiary verbs"
} |
sense of a displaced "adverb" in a sentence written by Sลseki Natsume
I read in that thread :
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
>
> _in_ , :
>
> "I explained that before I died, if only for a moment, I wanted to see the woman I loved."
My question is about{} : it's a noun functioning adverbially "because it expresses a frequency" as l'รฉlecteur explained.
But what about its **place** ? Since just modifies and since is a common set phrase, I assume the normal way to write down the sentence would be :
>
Is there any semantical difference between Sลseki Natsume's version and the one I invented ? Is it something related to the rhythm of the sentence ? | >
>
There is no difference in meaning and both are just as fine, since the two words and are just as strongly related as and , though the former sounds more dramatic and the latter sounds a little too plain to me. I think is more emphasized when placed right after . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, syntax, adverbs"
} |
Can ใใ and ใใใ be used for a 1st/2nd/3rd person's desire?
> ****
When I saw the the above sentence, I started to wonder. Is it an over simplification to say that can only be used for your own desires? However the sentence above might be explained, it seems to me it is clearly not about the speaker's own wish, but about which movie(s) the reader would want to watch.
Under what circumstances or conditions is it permissible to use with a desire other than your own? Can be used with one's own desire? | I'd recommend a beginner not to use at all (but or instead) because it tends to convey a contemptuous nuance and depending on cases, the meaning is slightly different from "to want", which highly matches .
Expressing other person's inner thought **in indicative** is avoided, in other words, it's ok if it's not indicative.
For examples, and are interrogative and conditional respectively, hence, no problem in the first place. forms are another way to dodge the restriction.
On the other hand, there are some exceptions.
1. In narrative, the auther can express a character's feel directly.
2. In commentary, "it's desirable for X to do something" is rephrased as "X()".
3. When you really sympathized with someone, you could express it directly. However, this usage is almost limited to and . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, auxiliaries"
} |
What's this handwritten character?
I'm having trouble figuring out what characters these are:
!enter image description here
I guess the two on the right are "", but what's the one on the left?
Thanks for your help. | Assuming there is not anything preceding these letters that would alter its meaning, that would appear to say:
> ``
>
> I (Like / Love) (You / It)
"" is often handwritten without the bowed bottom.
![]( | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "handwriting"
} |
What does the word ใใฐใใmean?
It is highlighted in the bold part of the below sentence.
> **** | is a colloquial contraction for . It is occasionally used in fiction, children's stories, etc. to show that the speaker is an older person from the country side.
In meaning and nuance, an emphatic
<
**** = "(someone) often walks around there" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, contractions, role language"
} |
What is the phrase used as a label on the food container to convey "No sugar added"?
I am looking for a pure fruit juice without sugar added for daily consumption in Japan. The box only says 100% bla bla bla but I am not sure whether or not there is sugar added.
So my question is:
> What is the most commonly used Japanese phrase to convey "No sugar added"? | In general you will want to the already suggested phrases but if you are talking about _juice_ specifically, you will want to use 100%as it doesn't make sense to talk about added sugars in juices. If that were the case, then you would just indicate the percentage of real fruit juice e.g. 30%, which means that the rest of the drink consists of sugar water, etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, phrase requests"
} |
What does the wordใใใใปใใงใ mean?
It is bold in the below sentence.
**** | That is actually three words.
[]{} means "on the ~~ side", "relatively ~~", etc.
means "charming in an innocent way".
"That is still pretty charming (compared to something else)." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
How do you tell when ่จใฃใฆใใ is progressive or resultive?
verbs can indicate either the result of something () or that you are in the process of doing something (). However, I am having trouble differentiating between the two with certain verbs such as . For example, in the following dialogue
I am not quite sure if it would be "saying" or "what you said." | I think an easy rule like this could apply:
* If you can insert in the sentence without any problem, then it is resultive ( โ ) "I already told him"
* If you can insert in the sentence without any problem, then it is progressive โ (It does get slightly weird, but it remains logically correct)
So I would think for the sentence in your example, is progressive. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
The meaning of ใใใๆจๆฅใไปๆฅใๅธๆใซใชใฃใใใใชใฎใ๏ผ
Context: This old man, one of the candidates to become the new pope, had one of his subordinates secretly check how the various churches had voted for who they want to be pope, and he noticed that the large majority voted for another person(who has been in the church for a much shorter time than him but not that short). He then complains to this person as follows:
>
My question is about what he means in the second part. Is he complaining that they are treating his 100 years of dedication to the church as if he had only became a bishop very recently?
Edit: From l'รฉlecteur's answer I now understand the end part of the sentence, but the first part where he says is confusing me as I, in gist, can't determine what he means by it as the accompanying verb isn't said. | No, that is not what it means. This is a fairly advanced question.
> []{}[]{}[]{} ****
This phrase is about the other person with less experience, not about the speaker.
**Two things that I think you are missing** :
1) This is not a sentence; The entire predicate is being left unsaid. It is only implied. (This is why it ends with )
2) is a nominalizer, and it refers to a " ** _person_** " here. Specifically, it is the other person with less experience than the speaker.
is a common set phrase meaning "just recently".
So what is being left unsaid?
It would be along the lines of []{}[]{}[]{} = "has become the Pope before I have!"
Put it altogether, you have:
**_"A guy who became a bishop just recently has now become the Pope before I have!"_** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
Sentence patterns for starting a picture description
I'm trying to do some picture descriptions to practice my Japanese (which is quite at a beginner level), just to avoid to focus only on grammar and memorization, which can become really boring sometimes.
So my question is, how could I express something like `This picture is about xxx` or `In this picture, (you can see/there is) xxx` in Japanese?
My attempt at this is
>
>
> (xxx = the main object in the photo)
Any comment or suggestion about this?
I was looking for easy sentence patterns. I don't aim at building complex discourses, I'm just trying to keep the level slightly higher with respect to what I can achieve without consulting a dictionary or grammar. | > This picture is about xxx.
You would say []{}xxx Alternatively you could say it xxx[]{} (Literally 'This is a photo of xxx').
> In this picture, (you can see/there is) xxx.
xxx[]{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
"Something came up" in Japanese
I always use this in English to excuse myself from a planned meeting/meet up (professional or personal). Basically, I don't want to bother the interlocutor with the details and notify them I am busy.
I am not happy with what I can currently produce:
*
*
Could you suggest more natural ways and idiomatic ways to express the same idea? | More natural expressions would include:
[]{}or
[]{}[]{}[]{}
It would be nice to say or at the beginning.
Informally, one could replace with . In business settings, I recommend the former.
The ambiguous / ending is very common with these little expressions. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation, idioms"
} |
ๅๅ
ฅ or ็ตฆๆ? What should be used when talking about salary or income?
I would like to know about these two , (there may be even others I am not aware of). Can they be interchanged as one pleases, or does it very much depend on the context?
Which is more colloquial, which is more formal? | As one of the commenters said means salary, means income. In terms of remuneration for a job performed at work these are equivalent. Typically people use to refer to salary (though also to refer to yearly salary)
can also refer to income (gross) of a company (one certainly wouldn't use to refer to sales figures) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words, synonyms"
} |
Sentence pattern for describing a list of objects
I was trying to describe a list of objects from a more generic point of view to a more specific one. While at the generic level I feel quite sure, using for example.
>
> There are two pens in the dress' pocket.
When trying to be more specific describing those pens I feel like I'm missing something (probably grammar). I would say something like:
>
> One is red and the other is blue.
Is that correct/natural? Are there other (better) ways to express the same concept? | >
> There are two pens in the dress' pocket.
[]{} refers to how you are dressed, your appearance, etc. Use for dress as in long dress or wedding dress, or for general clothes. is used to indicate an object; use the subject particle since the is the subject of . would be fine but would be more natural. I would go with:
> /[]{}[]{}
* * *
>
> One is red and the other is blue.
Your translation makes sense but to be grammatically correct, you would say
>
> or
are like saying "(pens) of red/blue colour", rather than describing how the pens look. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
Translation of "I am in college because of work"
> I am in college because of work.
What I mean by that is that I want to say that I am in college due to some work, like as a guest for a lecture. I attended college for some work I had with the teachers.
I was communicating with a Japanese online and I made the following sentence which was corrected by her:
>
I thought it sounded strange, so here is my own attempt:
>
Are these sentences correct? What's the best way to say it in Japanese? | is grammatical but misleading. Without any further context, it sounds as if you were regularly employed by that college, and you had to be at the office of the college because you haven't finished the task for the day.
If you are a visitor, and want to say "I was at a university today due to a job," some better ways to say it are:
*
*
(โcertain, some) is not mandatory, but by using it you can clearly tell it's not your regular job.
does not make sense at all to me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, business japanese, english to japanese"
} |
Te form standing alone
If form is used alone what can it mean? from what I've found on my own it can be a request similar to as well as a direct command, but are there other ways to use it alone besides to link two verbs together? The reason I ask this is I saw the phrase " ". I know It says sorry I'm late due to the fact that is the form of to be late but I'm confused as to why the form was used here.
Sorry if the answer is obvious here and thank you for any assistance | In this case, the form is just acting as "and" to connect separate clauses.
> * []{} โ Yesterday I went shopping, (and) ate takoyaki, and watched the Tigers game.
> * โ I was late (and) I'm sorry.
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
Meaning of ใๆฏๆใใๅธๆใใใๆน
I am having trouble understanding the following sentence:
>
In particular, I am having trouble comprehending the first clause:
>
From what I do understand, modifies .
From this, it seems to mean something like:
> Regarding a way to ["be hoped" / "be desired"] for credit card payments, please read the next warning.
"be hoped" / "be desired" comes from , the passive conjugation of .
Questions:
1. To confirm, modifies , and the resulting phrase means "credit card payment", right?
2. seems to mean "to hope for payment", but "to be hoped for payment" and "way to be hoped for payment" sound somewhat bizarre. How can this phrase be broken down and translated? Also, can I infer the listener/reader to be the entity doing the hoping?
3. Ultimately, what does the sentence mean? How much of my translation is accurate? Even my resulting English translation doesn't make much sense. | modifies and modifies . []{} means , someone or a person, or in this case, 'you', customers. The in is not passive but honorific.
> To those who wish to / If you wish to pay by credit card, please read.. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, questions"
} |
What do the words ใๅบใชใใฎใฃใฆใ and ใใ ใใmean?
They are bold in the following sentence:
**** **** | > Verb or adjective + + **Same** verb or adjective in **negative** form + +
makes an idiomatic expression meaning:
> "Is it ever ~~?" or "Does it ever ~~?"
In other words, this structure emphasizes the meaning of the verb or adjective.
I would be inclined to believe that the sentence is about pachinko. **_You would need to use more words to write your quetions than you have been using, explaining the context and showing us what you yourself have found out so far_**. People here are too nice to say something like that so I just did because it is the truth.
Trust me, you will get better answers and do so more quickly.
If it were actually about pachinko, would mean "Did it ever let out balls?", which in turn means "Did I ever win?"
"beer barrel"
The speaker won enough balls to fill a beer barrel; It is figurative speech. Once again, if the context were about playing pachinko. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, particles"
} |
Why does this haiku have a 5-6-5 pattern?
I was amazed to read the following haiku in " " (a book written by /Sล Sakon about the famous poet) :
>
!enter image description here
At first sight, the text given by doesn't seem regular : 5+6+5 morae ?.
I knew the following version with a '' after :
> {}{} **** {}{}
I thought the haiku given by was misprinted but it seems incredible such an error occured at the very beginning of the book, in the first haiku given by the author, page 1 !
There's obviously something I'm missing... Any idea to help me ? | Some haiku do not strictly follow the 5-7-5 pattern. Irregular haiku with one more or less morae than usual are called or , respectively. Some haiku even ignore the 5-7-5 rule completely (See ).
Wikipedia says 's haiku do have many variations:
> 24,000 **** 13
According to , the sources of these three variations are as follows:
* is from
* is from /etc
* is from /etc
I think the third one is best-known, but it seems that the first one is the original version, although being . is his personal diary, which he did not intend to publish.
According to the article of , wanted to publish his poetry book, but he died before he could do that. was compiled and published by another person, 25 years after 's death.
> ****
So I think the well-known third version was the revised version either by himself or by the editor. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "poetry, haiku"
} |
What is ใใใ and how is it used?
I was listening to a playlist of songs today and I heard the line
> โฆ
What exactly is and when/how is it used? | is a colloquial pronunciation of .
In this context, , together with the preceding verb, expresses a firm request or even a demand or imperative.
**"Open up your eyes and get rid of your weakness!"**
We do not use this way on a daily basis; At least many of do not. It is most often used by the teacher or leader types who need to give advice and cheer people on. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjugations"
} |
Difference between ็บๅฑใ็บ้ใand ้็บ
What is the difference between and ?
According to my textbook, they all mean development. I know that they cannot be used interchangeably, but I don't know when to use each of them.
I know the kanji means to open, so I'd assume is used when something new is developed. Is that correct?
However, I don't know the meanings of the other kanji to distinguish the difference. | is clearly different from the other two. means creation, engineering, etc., and is transitive. means to create/build/engineer computers. As you pointed out, () can be used when something new is created.
and share the similar meaning to a certain extent. and both refer to the advancement of the computer technology in general. Both of these are intransitive when followed by (i.e. , not *)
The difference of and are:
* is more like sophistication, reaching maturity, increasing complexity, etc., while is closer to prosperity. For example, tend to refer to a maturation of infrastructure, economy, or the system of politics, while tend to refer to an expansion of the territory, increase of the population, etc.
* The development of a body/organ/tumor/etc is almost always .
* Additionally, sometimes means "to change", "to evolve." (develop into an incident) (non-straightforward/advanced problem in a textbook) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
What do the words ใใฐใใใใงใญใใ and ใใธใใใฏใใใ mean?
I have found it in a manga. It is a dialogue discussing to the third person going into a Pachinko shop.
Here is the full sentence.
> ** **
What do the words and mean? | is a dialectal way of saying , 'Don't be silly.' () means []{}(), 'say a stupid thing' 'be stupid'.
is a dialectal or collapsed way of saying []{}. , literally means 'should go in', so probably 'He should go in' 'I'm sure he will go into the Pachiko shop'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
Difference between ้ฃไบใใใ and ้ฃไบใ้ฃในใ
I came across the following sentence:
>
Does it sound unnatural if I were to use the following (or rather, is it incorrect)?
> | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
is grammatical but the part is redundant and unnatural because already means "eating a meal" all by itself. It is not something that more careful speakers would say.
/ or []{}/ would sound far "better".
It is like saying []{}[]{}. It says "Japan" twice in such a short sentence when , all by itself, means "coming to Japan".
A more proper way to say it is: or []{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
When would ใจ appear at the start of a sentence?
In the light novel that I'm reading, the narrator sometimes starts his narration with "" like the following example:
>
>
> ****
I've been curious about why is appearing at the start of the second sentence. Searches for a definition or colloquial abbreviation fail to be meaningful because there are too many sites which detail as a particle.
I'm not sure of its purpose, but I figure that it could be one of these possibilities:
* An abbreviation of ,
* the particle connecting it to ,
* an onomatopoeic sound,
* a hesitant pause,
* or some other reason.
The question that I have is, which one? | here is a quotative particle used to quote ; It is not an abbreviation of anything. , all by itself, is in its full form.
It may look like is at the beginning of the sentence, but in essence, it is the same as:
A direct quote, no matter how short it is, is often treated as a full line in stories, which is what you are seeing in in this case. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, syntax, particle ใจ, abbreviations, ambiguity"
} |
What do the words ใใใฃใๅฐใ and ใใฏใใใฆใใฃใใ mean?
I have found them in a manga. It is a dialogue discussing to the third person going into a Pachinko shop.
Here is the full sentence.
>
What do the words and mean? | in this context is a short for , a Pachinko machine. is the past tense of , a verb "to play" in this context. Thus the topic of the sentense is "The Machine which Joe played". is a glass panel which is placed on the front of a machine. is the past form of a verb , to remove. Thus the main sentence is "the front glass had been removed (at that time)". is a short for , which is a rhetorical question "Are you saying that...?". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
Origin of -tai desiderative suffix
Japanese verbs can take the suffix -tai, which attaches to the ren'youkei form and turns the verb into an -i adjective, expressing desire to do what the verb says. I have recently wondered where this suffix comes from. Is it known? I mean, do we know where the -tai suffix in question comes from? Someone proposed it might be from -te + ai, love, as a comparison with how "oi", to love, means also to want in Hakka. Could that be? | According to this article in Japanese WP, - is the descendant of Middle Japanese - (-tasi), which ultimately traces back to Old Japanese (or Proto-Japonic) (itasi; "sore, acute").
A paper referred by that page argues that this form has changed its meaning taking the path of "painful" โ "sorely felt" โ "of physiological necessity" โ "of emotional necessity" โ "desire".
> _Someone proposed it might be from -te + ai, love_...
It's unlikely to be true considering the oldest attested form of this word ended in -asi, not -ai. Additionally, if Japanese speakers want to incorporate Chinese words in such a way, they never use _te_ -form but append them directly to word stem or . For instance, - in {}{} is said to originate from {} ("appearance"). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "etymology, suffixes, auxiliaries"
} |
"Even a crab" - Japanese proverbs (?)
Coming across these kind of constructs:
...
...
etc.
What does it mean? How is it used?
In general, what main associations would a "crab" create from a Japanese cultural perspective? E.g. lion - brave; tanuki - sly; crab - ??? | I personally didn't know the very exact expression, but I can make a reasonable guess that it's a variant of โฆโฆ ("Even monkeys do..."). The implication is quite similar to "for dummies" in English, which is to state its easiness in exaggerated manner.
One of web pages using the phrase declares:
> ****
>
> _There were some (books?) like "~~ For Monkeys" quite some time ago, but we'll go much farther. Bookkeeping **For Crabs**! You don't even need to be a mammal!_
By the way I'd like to add that my favorite one is ("Pokรฉmon RNG Manipulation for Slowpokes"). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "expressions"
} |
combining several participle of verb + miru
I am practicing expressing "to try to do something", using the participle of verbs plus .
If I understand correctly, a sentence like:
>
means something like:
> I tried to drink this beer."
Now, using the same grammatical structure, I am trying to say:
> I will try to talk to my parents and decide whether I will buy it or not.
The first part would be: and the second: (not sure if that is right, this is just my best shot at it right now)
Now I try to combine them in one sentence, but the following sounds quite wrong in my beginner's ears:
>
What is the right way to say this? | >
I think it means 'I tried drinking this beer' (You drank it).
'I tried to drink this beer' would be (You may or may not have drunk it).
If I understand correctly,
'try doing'
'try to do'
'will try to do' (Literally 'I think I will ~' 'I think I want to ~')
> I will try to talk to my parents and decide whether I will buy it or not.
I think it will be or
doesn't sound natural to me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, usage, verbs"
} |
What does ไปๆฅใฎๆใฏ่ฏใใงใใใ mean here?
In this I'm not sure what she would be referring to. Would someone say something like the above in the situation where they are saying "that's enough chitchat/etc for today(as we can do it tomorrow or whenever)" to bring the conversation to an end, or is it referring directly to what was said in the previous line? | is roughly equivalent to "That's it for today." The sentence is used by a teacher or a boss and that means the speaker has finished speaking, lesson or anything else he/she want, and the listener(s) can leave now. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, meaning, usage"
} |
Use of ใฏ particle when talking about doing things on a certain day
# English
One thing that I still don't exactly understand is when to use when talking about doing things on a certain day.
For example,
> ****
or
> ****
Should the be included or excluded from these sentences? Is there a specific situation where it should be included (besides emitting particles in a casual situation)?
#
> ****
> ****
| Student who skip classes often uses ...
* I will go to school tomorrow.
* **** I will go to school tomorrow **too**.
* **** I will go to school **at least** tomorrow.
I think in that sentence implies something.
*
*
*
* ...
Also, it is often used to compare with other day (e.g. today).
> **** ****
>
> We went to the movie theater **today** , so let's go the museum **tomorrow**.
You can omit if you don't need other nuance or emphasis. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle ใฏ"
} |
Is the ๆฐ necessary?
I came across this sentence in jisho.org's example sentences:
> {}{}
And I'm wondering if the is really necessary. I thought already implied a large , so saying that the would be redundant.
Would it be grammatically correct to remove ? If it is, does it change the meaning or make it sound unnatural? | You could omit ;[]{}. It is grammatically correct, but it is ambiguous on what you are talking about, unless it is clear because of the context.
In sentence []{}[]{}, it is somewhat clear you are talking about "number of people" (though still have a little room the sentence can be interpreted differently.) but the meaning of the sentence []{} isn't limited to "number of people", it might mean "number of prize they have gotten" or "the number of TV appearance they have experienced".
If you are already talking about "number of people", then []{}[]{} and []{} means the same. But without context, []{} is ambiguous on what you are talking about. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
noun + ใฐใใ [exclusivity sense] ambiguity
My understanding of so far:
After TE form, the meaning is unambiguous as it applies to the verb, e.g.:
> Do nothing but read books.
However, placed after the noun
>
The meaning is left ambiguous as it could mean
1. read books only (i.e. nothing else, not magazines, not brochures etc., no implication on how much time the person spends actually reading.)
Alternatively, same as before
2. ONLY read books (i.e. do nothing else BUT read, no implication on the actual material).
However, in another example from a grammar book:
>
It's listed as "John is drinking beer the whole time (he doesn't do anything else)."
I'm not sure whether the meaning is left ambiguous here with this particular translation picked arbitrarily (which would confirm my previous understanding) or one-way only (which would oppose it, to some degree). | is basically "read books only", but it actually means "only read books" too, as you said. is the same, it can also mean he may do something besides drinking beer. It's ambiguous in that sense. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใฐใใ"
} |
What do the words ใใใจใใใใ, ใใกใ
ใใฆใ and ใใใณใใจใใใ mean?
I have found them in a manga. It is a dialogue discussing to the third person going into a Pachinko shop.
Here is the full sentence
> ** **
What do the words , and mean? | means you can't do something or can't focus on something, because there is something more important. In this sentence, it says when comes, you can't do businesses anymore. Probably, is a person who interrupt the businesses.
~ means "(someone) says ~". comes right after the content of what they speak. In this context, said "".
mean fear/be afraid of. In this context, is afraid of .
By the way, they all are dialect spoken by west part of Japanese people. In standard Japanese is equivalent to , is equivalent to , is equivalent to . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
Can the onyomi be longer than 2 morae?
I started learning japanese recently, and I looked back at the kanji I've learned, and I simply can't think of any kanji with an onyomi longer than 2 morae.
Is there really no kanji with an onyomi longer than 2 morae, and if so, why? | Recall that on-yomi are derived from the Chinese pronunciation of characters, which are (with few exceptions) monosyllabic. The basic structure of a syllable in Middle Chinese is as follows:
* An initial consonant
* A glide
* A vowel
* A final โ either another glide or a consonant, but not both
For instance, (resp. , ) is _kwรฆn_ (resp. _kwai_ , _kjak_ ) in Middle Chinese and has the kan-on (resp. , ), but there are no syllables like _kwain_. Thus there is no way a trimoraic on-yomi would arise. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
What does ใใฉใฃใใ mean?
In this clip at 19:50, it sounds like he is saying, "Nante na! Kore _dokka_ no kiza na yatsu ga itteta serifu" ("This is just something a ____ pretentious guy said"). Is it indeed ? What does that mean?
I tried looking up in 2 online dictionaries but I did not find a clear definition. Is it at all related to phrases like or ? Since it is followed by the particle , I would imagine not... | is the short spoken form of which means `somewhere`.
There is also an entry here: < | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, particle ใฎ, listening"
} |
In ๅๆฅใจๅพ
ใใใซ what does the ใจ mean?
Probably a silly question, but in this sentence:
> ****
What does the in mean? Is it the "if" , e.g. "when/if 10 days pass, I'd get fired without hesitation?". Shouldn't it say (with the added)?
Thanks for the answers. | This sentence says "(I) will be fired _in no more than 10 days_." `(time)` is a common set phrase which literally means "without waiting for (time)".
This is not "if" nor "then". The role of here corresponds to the sixth entry of 's definition.
> โฆโโ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particle ใจ"
} |
Why the random katakana in ใใใฟใฃใณใใใใ?
Some of you may be familiar with the San-X line of characters called . The shtick is that they're timid and like "living () in the corner ()"
I know katakana is frequently used for emphasis, but what is the wordplay intended by writing just the single syllable in in katakana?
!enter image description here | What is a "corner" shaped like? ;)
In addition to drawing your attention by being unusual, it's visually appropriate for the meaning. I'd suggest it's as much/more a graphic design choice than any linguistic emphasis. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "katakana, puns, copywriting"
} |
Can ใๅฅดใ be used to refer to a female?
Is the word / ( _yatsu_ ) ever used to refer to another female, or to refer to oneself if one is female? Or is it only used to refer to a male?
Answers to this question touched on the word , but I'm wondering if a girl can refer to herself like or or something along those lines.
(I'm not referring to cases in which a young Japanese woman refers to herself as or as an unusual, intentional style, but rather to the case of the average woman or girl in casual speech or inner monologue.) | Yes, I've heard used to refer to females before. Of course, it is more frequently used to refer to males. But remember that the rules of grammar and convention are not so strict in casual, colloquial conversation (which is typically where is used to refer to anyone).
Although I've never heard a female refer to herself as before, I've heard college-age guys call girls on several occasions. I've also heard it used to refer to animals and inanimate objects. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice, words, slang, first person pronouns, gender"
} |
How do you indicate sections in a report if there are more than 5? (ใพใใใคใใซใใใใซใใใใฆใๆๅพใซ)
If you need to indicate more sections in a report than five (beginning each section with respectively), what word(s) should you use to indicate the start of the additional sections?
Do you insert them after but before ? | There's no implicit order which word you should use for stacking sections. You can (basically) freely choose linking words for your additional sections.
A non-exhaustive list is:
> {}, {}, , , {}, {}, {}, {}, {}, , {}, , , etc. etc.
Variations for "firstly" and "finally" are:
> , {}, {}, {}, etc.
and
> {}, {}, , etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice, syntax, set phrases, counters, academic japanese"
} |
What does the word ใใใพใใใใmean?
Here is the full sentence. An old man talking himself with this one about a boy who should have been staying at home but he should not.
****
I'm not sure if it is conjugated from in a specific spoken dialect. | = โI will let the matter passโ = โI will not let the matter passโ
()= โI will NEVER let the matter passโ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
Difference between ็ขบ{ใใ}ใใซ and ่ช {ใพใใจ}ใซ
What is the difference between and ? I found that:
means: certainly, indeed, surely, sure, definitely;
means: indeed, truly, really, surely.
Looks like the meanings are almost the same. When each of those words should be used? | and have very similar meanings. The difference between them is that is often used in everyday conversation, but . usually used in very formal situation or some historical period drama, because it sounds very formal and somewhat old. So I recommend you to use .
Here are some examples:
* (I surely think so; good usage)
* (I surely think so; somewhat sounds like an old people)
is often used when a company or an organization made a serious mistake or have a serious problem and want to make apologise. They sometimes use "" which means "truly shameful", to accept the problem is really serious. You could replace with , like "", but it isn't formal enough for the situation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
} |
Meaning of ๆฅๆฌใซๆฅใใใใใใ็่งฃใงใใ
I wrote:
> HONDABMWTOYOTATOYOTA
>
> TOYOTA
>
> (^-^)
And a user responded:
> ****
I am totally stumped on the last sentence. The best guess I have is:
>
> Rather than coming to Japan, I think it would better if you could understand it.
What is your translation and why? | I would say
> If you were to come to Japan, you would be able to understand it better.
The attaches to not to the V- construction.
See:
< | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, comparative constructions"
} |
Qualifying Nouns With verbs and adjectives in japanese
If possible could someone explain this to me? I have the Genki I book that explains it pretty well but I guess I'm still having difficulty grasping it. I'll leave a example sentence in case my question is unclear.
Ex.
>
I get that is qualifying but what is that part of the sentence and when would I use it?
I think what may be confusing me is the different sentence structure then what I've been use to seeing thus far in what I've studied although I know Japanese sentence structure does tend to be a little more "loose" than English.
Apologies for the unclear question yet again. It seems I'm terrible at asking questions | That's a relative clause. We have them in English, too:
> ****
>
> The **student** [ _who_ is reading the book over there] is Michiko.
In Japanese, you don't have words like _who_ in relative clauses, but apart from that, it's pretty similar. In both languages, the relative clause corresponds to a main clause:
> ****
>
> The **student** is reading the book over there.
In each case, the subject is pulled out ("relativized") and moved outside the clause.
I wrote a longer explanation comparing relative clauses in English and Japanese in another answer. It's not perfect, but if you'd like to read more, you can see what I wrote there. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, adjectives, nouns"
} |
Grammatical name of the form used before -ใฆ, -ใใ, -ใ, -ใใ?
I'm looking for the Japanese name of the specific verbal form used before -, -, -, -:
verb โ ren.yลkei โ XXXX โ + -, -, -, -
โ โ โ , , ,
I assume this verbal form is derived from the {}, with specific phonetic modifications for _godan_ verbs. (see Shimamori Reiko, Grammaire japonaise systรฉmatique.1.48 (my translation): _"-, -, -, - are preceded by the connective base of the verb, [...] yodan verbs [...] being deeply modified [by the suffix]"_ )
So, what's the name standing for "XXXX"? Something like "-t" form? | They are also treated as . More specifically i-type are called . Sometimes is used, but there are no official name.
References
1. in
2.
3. - Wikipedia (Note: This article uses for conveniece sake.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, morphology"
} |
Why is ใคใใด written in katakana?
From which language did it come to Japanese? And why does it have its own kanji? | is a native Japanese word, which is almost as old as the written records of Japanese itself. (Apparently it first appears as in the {} (8th century) and as two centuries later in the {}.)
As practically all native Japanese words (like {} _rain_ , {} _village_ , etc.), , too, was assigned a corresponding kanji from Chinese, in this case .
Fruits (and more generally, plants and animals) are often written in katakana, so you shouldn't be surprised to see it written as . (See for example this question.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "etymology, katakana, loanwords"
} |
What does the word ใใใใใใญใใmean?
It is a situation which a salesperson announces to a group of people to attract them to buy his goods.
Here is the full sentence.
**** | You can add focus particles like or to verbs, but in order to do so, you have to split the verb into two parts so that the particle has some place to go. We'll split the verb into its continuative stem (called in Japanese) and the verb .
For example:
โ
**** ****
Or:
โ
**** ****
Your example is a little more complicated for a couple reasons. First of all, has a suppletive negative form. Instead of saying , people just say , almost like the ~~~~ has been deleted:
~~~~ โ
~~~~ **** ****
Your example also contains a contraction. The /w/ has dropped from /ri wa/, which turns it into /ri (y)a/, and this in turn can contract to /rya(a)/:
~~~~ โ
~~~~ **** **** โ ****
And the final /ai/ has been replaced with the colloquial pronunciation /ee/:
~~~~ โ
~~~~ **** **** โ **** โ ****
This is a colloquial and emphatic negative form of . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "expressions, particle ใฏ, negation, contractions, renyลkei"
} |
why is there a double "ใ" here: "... ๅฒ้็่ญฆใๆ็ดขใใใ่ฆใคใใใใ..."?
From the newspaper article titles , the second paragraph reads:
>
my guess of a translation:
> Being that there is one man whose location is unknown, (security / police) from Gifu prefecture searched in a helicopter for him, and without his being found, they called-off the search due to sundown. From the morning of the first of May, the search will resume."
at the least, what I don't understand is the following:
"... __ ... "
could I segment the sentence as follows:
" **** **** ...."
Even if the explanation is "that is just how newspapers write (in order to save space)", would not it read more easily and sound more natural to add just a single comma as such:
"... __ ... " | The second in the snippet is not the subject marker, but the conjunction particle (which you could replace by ()()) translating to "but":
> ****
> Gifu Police searched [for the missing person], **but** not finding [him, had to call off the search the same evening...]
I don't understand your "sentence segment", so I can't comment on it, but in any case I agree that the sentence might be a tad easier to parse with a comma after the . That said, the commas in the sentence are standard newspaper style: commas after the omitted conjunction (after ) and after the ; and after for easy reading. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles, syntax, particle ใ"
} |
Why is it the postposition ใ used here instead of ใฎ?
> ****
Basic structure to me seems to be XAB, a subject with three verbals (X and A, B being their respective pre-noun and pre-verbal elements). seem to share the same pre-verbal as their object - "the people of the city"(?)).
What I don't understand is the bolded pre-verbal B. **Why is it the postposition used here instead of ?**
NB**one could argue how far the adverbial applies but that seems to be ambiguous (?). | The part simply isn't "the people of the city", but two parallel objects: "the city, the people (accusative)".
In English you have to put a comma between them but Japanese orthography doesn't require it. Japanese commas are not for indicating grammatical structure; they basically just mark where to pause. Thus, you can't place too much confidence in them while parsing sentences.
You can't decide how far could reach by pure grammar. But my what little esthetic sense tells that it can't go over the next heavy adverbial chunk , so its effect must be limited to right after it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle ใ"
} |
What distinguishes ๆฉ, ็พฉๅ, ็พฉ็ and ไบบๆ
from each other?
I have an idea about the basics, but I'm fuzzy on the details, and it's been awhile since I've studied the subject in depth. Anyone have some answers? | - favor or kindness from others that one should be feeling a sense of gratitude toward
- duty rooted in social systems, usually associated with legal senses, such as liability or military service
- duty rooted in personal relations usually friendship. family relations never or rarely come in this category.
- pity or sympathy one feels when facing someone else's undeserved accident/accusation
**Note**
/ - describes a person or people or their relation's being or not being observing such duties
> He is a faithful person.
> He is a unreliable person.
/ - similar to , describing subject's property.
> He is easily moved by compassion.
> He is cold-hearted.
/ - describes such duties' being put on or waived from someone or a group
> He has to serve his country.
> He is exempted from military service.
/ - ~~not a valid expression~~ see comments | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
} |
Where does "gold day" originate from?
Recently I learned what the days of the week are and noticed "kinyobi" . I'd like to know where the term "gold" relates to. Were people in ancient Japan paid at Friday each week? | in refers to Venus (). In fact, "Fri" in "Friday" also refers to Venus, also known as Frige's star. Both are almost certainly derived from the Roman names for the days of the week. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "kanji, etymology, history"
} |
What does ใใใใกใใใ mean?
It is a situation which a salesperson announces to a group of people to attract them to buy his goods
Here is the full sentence.
> {}{} {}{} **** !
What does mean? | This sentence is frank expression.
I think only veteran seller tends to use it.
In politely,
> {}{} **** {}{}
So **** menas **** .
And is like .
I think it can be translated "about" in english.
> There are few stuffs, but we can competitive with near department stores about a kind of stuffs.
If my explanation is bad, someone may correct it :) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
How to properly translate: "ใใฉใดใณใซ้ฃในใใใใใซใชใฃใใใจ" in this context
In the video game Recettear, you can buy a book with the title . The item description says the following:
> ,
The part I'm wondering about is this:
>
a.k.a
> [This book] makes you likely to be eaten by a dragon
Or
> [This book] is likely to be eaten by a dragon
Or what? | As Keigh Rim pointed out, the description summarizes the contents of the book. The most notable event in the book is presumably when the sisters were almost eaten by a dragon.
The part carries the implication that there are other events besides this one that are also described in the book. Since translation is also the art of selectively choosing the words that best carry the original meaning in a concise manner, I would translate that last sentence as:
> It tells of the sisters' trials, including the time they were nearly eaten by a dragon. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Meaning of ๆใฆใชใ in ๅ
้ปไธญใฏๆใฆใชใใปใฉๆใใชใใใ ใใฉ
Someone was talking about the properties of a charger But i don't understand the meaning of in:
> | This is just the "potential form" ([]{}) of . I means "can't hold". So your sentence means
> While charging, it will become hot enough that you can't hold it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
The usage of "ๆงใใใใใใซๅใๅใใชใ"
I came across this sentence:
>
Whats the meaning of "" here? Does it indicate uncertainty or something like that? | []{}[]{} means "to be congenial", "to suit one's taste", etc.
means the opposite of that.
It would, however, be pretty awkward if one tried to translate literally in OP's sentence. Note that the in nominalizes .
I would simply use "congeniality" without hesitation for the whole part instead of using something like "whether or not someone would be congenial to me".
Therefore, my TL of the whole sentence would be:
**"Even though my brain knows that I will need to acquire interpersonal skills like that in the future, there is still such thing as congeniality."** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, set phrases"
} |
Providing definitions/explanations with ใจใใใฎใฏใ๏ฝใฎใใจ/ใจใใใใจใ
Recently I've been trying to wrap my head around the Tobira textbook grammar point on and from my understanding [A B/] essentially means [A means B]. However, I can't seem to understand the nuances of the sentence ending /.
>
> Does Kanto Region mean Tokyo?
Why is used here? Would and also be appropriate? Do all three mean the same thing? When would one form be more appropriate over the other? | AB is "A means B". A is "what's called A".
So, is "Does what's called Kanto Region mean Tokyo?". (Incidentally, the answer is no)
can mean the same thing as โฆโฆ but that () is more likely to denote a clause. It sounds like () or "By saying 'Kanto Region', do you mean you've been to Tokyo?". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, phrases"
} |
help with translation! what's ใใใใใใใชใใฆ?
In a manga I found this line:
>
What's that at the beginning? Is different from "you ni"?
And ?
Since the character is confused about a phrase another one said, he's talking about it with another, but I'm not sure about the meaning.
Is it correct: "I don't understand his speech." I'm confused... | This is basically, but certainly not exclusively, Western-Japan speech.
= = "well" or "very well" in this context. It can also mean "often".
This has _**nothing**_ to do with or , which means "like ~~", "as ~~", etc.
= = "I don't get it.", "I don't understand.", etc.
= "stuff/thing/something like ~~". Think of it as an informal quotative particle. It has nothing to do with the exclamatory []{}.
> []{}
If it helped one understand this sentence better, one could alter it to:
>
>
> = "(He said) "I don't really get it.", but those are my words!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, dialects"
} |
What does ใใจใใฆใใใ mean?
It is a situation where a salesperson announces to a group of people to attract them to buy his goods.
Here is the full sentence:
> {}{}{}{} **** | To answer without looking at or copying from anything,
> means " **On top of all that, it comes with ~~~.** "
>
> This is an exclamatory expression or at least one of surprise.
It is difficult to translate all by itself (and it is not often used by itself, either).
There would have to be other "advantages" mentioned in the immediate context besides the over-50% discount.
Edit: In case you are wondering, I did not use the phrase "to come with" in my translation because the original phrase contains . It is just a coincidence and I did not even notice it when I first posted my answer an hour or two ago. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "set phrases"
} |
Translation of the sentence and its relation with the text in circle brackets
I can't completely understand the second sentence, especially connecting the parts in circle brackets with the narration. I tried to make a translation, could somebody please check if I'm understanding something wrong?
Fast translation: On the other hand, some part of her mind also felt strangely clear (Kei's death)(legend of a witch) (Munakata's family)(this school itself)(Aya and group) various thoughts(red...) gave birth to countless wheerpools(inside of mine...), merging with each other, and racking her tired heart(red...).
Does by various thoughts speaker means all of the facts before...?
> | It seems the words in parentheses are not directly related to the main sentence outside of them. And the words in parentheses are not strongly related with one another, either.
It must be a very rhetorical expression, simulating random ideas pops one after another in the character's mind, disturbing her sleep. The author basically wanted you to be confused just like the character in the story. Your translation seems to be fair enough to me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
verb versus noun + ใใ
In the book I'm reading I keep seeing constructs where I would expect a verb but get the noun form + . Here's an example:
>
> The ogre laughed loudly and said "I will eat you first little boy".
Why is it rather than ?
Here's another one:
>
> I will protect you.
Now I'm assuming the here is honorific (he's talking to a princess). Why is it and not ?
Thanks | The two examples have different reasons.
* * *
The prefix **{} always attaches to a noun** , e.g. see
> ** **
>
> **** [...]
>
> **** ()
>
>
> 1. [...]
>
> 2. โโโ
>
> 3. [...]
>
>
* * *
In the second example you correctly identified that is honorific. The only thing that's missing is the observation that the **honorific also only attaches to nouns** , so ~~~~ wouldn't work. This construction +[masu-stem]+ is very common and also lends itself to raising the level of politeness by replacing with (the proper conjugation of) {}. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, nouns"
} |
What is the purpose of ใใฎ in this sentence?
In the sentence
> user3856370
What is the purpose of ? It seems to me that ...... (because he stabbed) would work on its own. I could also imagine that ...... might work where the is the explanatory- thing. But I can't make sense out of the whole ...... construction.
PS. I didn't really stab the ogre but I couldn't find the right kanji for the correct name. | In meaning, and the two are interchangeable. Both express a reason or cause.
I would recommend that you learn as a unit, but if you have to parse it, it is like this:
is a dummy noun. It is needed to connect []{} and grammatically.
is an affirmation auxiliary verb.
is a conjunctive particle.
Thus, []{} means the exact same as -- "because (someone) stabbed".
Needless to say, **** is often pronounced as **** in colloquial speech. Additionally, one might also need to know that is already fairly informal to begin with. It is definitely more informal than . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, conjunctions"
} |
Psychological state verb + ใฟใ auxiliary?
Two "textbook" sentences + attached translations:
> **** No matter how much you regret it, it won't change a thing.
>
> **** I thought over his remark again and again.
So far I know of two ways auxiliary is used - to signal an attempt to do something to see what happens, or to see something in the literal sense. This here seems more as if it were a signal to the agent's resignation to doing something. Is that how one should treat psychological state verb + ? How would one contrast the 2 above to these 2 below:
>
>
>
Do the (immediately) above 2 sentences sound "right" to a native/fluent ear? | In general, I think it safe to say that the more volitionality the meaning of the main verb includes, the better it goes with the auxiliary verb .
In other words, the main verb's compatibility with depends on how much active effort is needed to perform the action described by the main verb.
To use the main verbs in your examples for comparison, []{} = to ruminate, to think over is at least a slightly more "volitional" action than []{} = to regret.
Though it is true that we say both and , the latter sounds a little more fitting as far as collocation.
For the reason above, the sentence:
> []{}[]{}[]{}
, while grammatical, does not sound as natural as the sentence:
> []{}
That is because it is slightly more natural to say than . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "auxiliaries"
} |
Translation help please โ Meaning of ใใใจใใใใ
I am working on a translation and came across this phrase:
> ****
I am having trouble following the structure of this sentence โ I follow that is the subject of the predicate , but I really don't follow the first clause ****. Is this a nominalization (i.e. would it be correct to say this as )? Another idea that crossed my mind was that this might be a way to show a quotation/abstract idea (maybe something like "The idea that 'the customer is god'"โฆ).
I am at loss here and I would really appreciate any advice or insight that would point me in the right direction. | This consists of the quotative particle , the verb (say), and the connector (as/and/although).
That part literally means "(they) say , and, ...", where "they" refers to the general public. In this context, the author says that is a generally accepted idea, and then explains the spirit of that proverb.
Note that that "and" should be translated as "but" depending on what is said in the latter half of the sentence.
>
> People often say "the customer is god/king/always-right," _but_ I think that's not true. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
The meaning of ใซ in [ๅใๅบใใซๅใๅบใใ]
I don't understand the meaning of in this sentence:
>
Is fashioned after some particular grammar? I can't really think of an interpretation that sounds natural. | > Verb + or + **_Same_** Verb in **_potential_** form +
is a very common phrase pattern that expresses one's inability or hesitation to perform the action described by the verb.
See -2 in: <
> []{}[]{}[]{}
means:
> "I have not been quite able to bring up (this) topic until today." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, meaning, particle ใซ"
} |
Which translation of "Mongolia" is most suitable for everyday use?
Which translation of "Mongolia" is most suitable for everyday conversation?
The Japanese edition of Wikipedia's entry on Mongolia has the article title of , Wiktionary translates it as "" and "", and weblio has amongst others "", which is also what someone suggested I use. | For everyday use, it is definitely . I would be lying if I answered otherwise.
[]{} sounds too formal for everyday use.
is **_very_** rare despite what you have been told by that someone. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What is the meaning of using ใงใฐ to end a sentence?
I've recently heard a number of sentences where is used at the end, seemingly to convince the listener of something. Google has failed me for the most part, aside from one article about particles in Chinese that mentions both "de" and "ba" as mid-sentence particles (I'll post a link if i can find it again), but naturally I'd rather an explanation that actually applies to Japanese. | You probably heard , which is a contraction of . From :
> **** ([...] )
>
> **** [...]
>
> **** ()
>
> โโ
The keywords here are (impatient) and (call out to so.). The nuance of trying to "convince the listener of something" only comes from conveying a sense of urgency with .
Note that this has nothing to do with Chinese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, spoken language, sentence final particles"
} |
ใใใซใกใฏ and ใใใฐใใฏ only once a day per person?
I recently saw a video on greetings in Japan and the guy said something that I've never heard before: "you cannot use more then once per day to the same person". He proceeded to explain that if you meet the same person again later in the same time-frame you have to say something else - you cannot use again .
I tried to confirm this from other sources on the net, but simply can't find anything else.
I apologize for the noob question - sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between joke and serious.
So, is he just joking (did not look like that and the rest of what he said seems to check out), or is this true? | It is no joke.
Among us native speakers, we generally do not say the same time-of-the-day greeting more than once to the same person per day.
Sometimes we do it twice by mistake and when that happens, a fairly awkward moment could pass even though most people would just laugh it off in a friendly way. We actually would sometimes apologize briefly for doing it a second time by saying something like:
[]{} = "Oops, excuse me! We just greeted a while ago." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "greetings"
} |
Need help translating a sentence - ใใใฒ?
I'm trying to read a children's book and have already gotten stumped by the first sentence. " _context_ " The picture shows an autumn day.
It reads:
>
So far I've got ... (chilly wind blow)...
At first I thought was 'walk' and the grammar made no sense to me, but have then realized walk should instead be . Also, made no sense either. So looking up on Jisho I found that together () means "one day".
Is it correct to assume that and can be split apart grammatically?
> **** **(** **)** ****
And if that's the case would **:** One day, a chilly wind blew. =/= A chilly wind blew, one day. **:** be correct? | You are on the right track.
In this case, and should be regarded as two independen words rather than split into two parts.
, all by itself, can mean "one ~~" or "a certain ~~" (and it is used at the beginning of virtually every children's story.)
is a relative clause (not a sentence) in which both and modify .
"One cold and windy day." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.