INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
What are the ways to express someone's condolences?
All is in the title, what are the ways to express someone's condolences when somebody died.
I know but is there something else?
What can/should you say to friends? To collegues? To bosses? etc. | There are some fixed expressions such as:
*
*
Both are formal, and can be used regardless of the relationship; you can say this to friends/colleagues/bosses. "" is sometimes used when nobody dies (e.g. ironically when somebody is disappointed) while "" is almost always limited to the context of condolences, but both are perfectly fine. Additionally:
* ({at least originally} In Buddhism) [/]
* * *
or is the translation for condolence, so if you need something more than fixed expressions, you can search with these words --- many people don't know what to say to somebody experiencing a great loss, and seek for guidance. Additionally, it is common to send a telegram of condolence ("") for funerals (when one can't attend), and expressions for these might also be worth reading. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, expressions"
} |
What's it called when furigana push characters apart because they're so long?
Here on Japanese.SE, sometimes we see furigana like , where the characters beneath the furigana get pushed apart because the furigana doesn't quite fit. Sometimes when I'm writing answers I find myself avoiding furigana because I think it makes it harder to read having things pushed so far apart.
But I've noticed that even in professional published writing, sometimes furigana seem to push characters apart. For example, I took this picture of a page from (the Japanese translation of _Vortex_ ):
!furigana pushing kanji apart
On this page, and each take up three squares instead of two because of how tall the furigana are.
I decided to search online to see what native speakers thought about this sort of thing, but I couldn't figure out what it might be called!
Is there a special term for this sort of thing? | There are several methods of adjustment when the ruby is longer than the parent text. Adobe InDesign has a set of options named . I don't know the specific term for such adjustments in general.
One strategy is to allow the ruby to overlap the main text surrounding the parent text, which is called ().
The style of ruby in this picture is achieved by InDesign's : and : options (see ④ below). means the ruby can never overlap the main text surrounding the parent text. means there is no space _before_ and _after_ the parent text, but the spaces _between_ the characters of the parent text can be large.
One well-known method of inserting spaces in the main text is called 1-2-1.
**EDIT:** Here are the examples of various ruby settings (created using InDesign CC 2014)
* ① (Gets less readable when the ruby is really long)
* ② 1-2-1
* ③ 11-2-1 (This is my favorite)
* ④ (This is worst IMO)
!enter image description here | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "furigana"
} |
Acceptability of 〜ようとしよう vs. 〜ことにしよう
> (source: pg. 55, )
The choices available are:
> **a.**
>
> **b.**
>
> **c.**
According to the textbook, the correct answer is **b** , though I am confused as to why **a** is invalid.
As far as I understand, **a** would translate to something like "let's try to go next week", where as **b** would translate to "let's decide to go next week".
Both choices seem to make sense, and I am seeking an explanation as to why **b** is preferable over **a** , and furthermore, perhaps a more general rule for determining which construct to use.
**c** , on the other hand, does not make much sense to me, though if there is something I should be aware of (perhaps it makes more sense than I think it does?), I would also like to know. | Even without any context to go with, only [b. ] is correct as a phrase. We would never say [a. ] or [c. ] in any situation.
The problem with [a. ] is that it is double-volitional ( & ) and it is ungrammatical. It is grammatical to say **** or **** in single-volitional, but not in double. Though it is ungrammatical, it sounds a little "better" than [c. ].
> As far as I understand, a. would translate to something like "let's try to go next week"
Your translation is single-volitional, not double. means something like "Let's **try** to **try** going next week.", which is why it is an incorrect answer.
[c. ] sounds pretty -- for lack of a better word -- "hilarious"; it is ungrammatical and it makes close to no sense. The part is just out of place. One could say = "Let's become friends!", but not . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, usage"
} |
What is this verb form - 通れ
This is an example from the Progressive Japanese-English Dictionary:
> {} ****
> He thrust his dagger home [up to the hilt] into the man's chest.
What is the grammar behind this verb form of ? Is this a fixed expression? | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
in meaning, is equal to:
>
is the []{} (imperative form) the of the verb .
is what the guy thought to himself as he stabbed the other guy. He wanted to stab deep. = "Let even the hilt go through!"
This is no fixed expression, but you will keep seeing the structure:
> Verb A in imperative + + Verb phrase B=
>
> "(Someone) did (Verb B) thinking/saying/praying, etc. 'Let (Verb A) happen!'"
Needless to say, is the quotative particle. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "verbs"
} |
Why is another photo referred to as もう一丁?
is a cut of tofu or konyaku, so why is it also used for photos? I always imagined it as a Polaroid, flat, like but can't find out the original reason was used for it. | Its use is not limited to photos. is an idiomatic phrase which just means "one more try", "give it another shot".
is also used as a counter for dishes (of food), and today is typically heard as a vigorous call in some restaurants ( . I think you can just memorize it as it is.
Photographers may say to their subjects, but they never use to actually count the number of photos or trials (e.g. [*]5, [*]3). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "counters"
} |
Meaning of だけども / ですけども
I was watching on youtube, and I noticed that he keeps adding
> /
at the end of sentences.
I fully understand the usage of , however I have never encountered (or is it ?) attached to it.
Thank you! | is the short form of , which could be written ()(), because all of , , , are used.
is what, in my experience, is often used in a half formal, half informal setting. It is more refined than , but not quite as stiff as . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 10,
"tags": "grammar, spoken language, conjunctions"
} |
The "3 highs" and "3 lows" when choosing a husband
Recently I was told about a popular concept among japanese women concerning choice of the future husband. The concept was called '3 ' - three high points, meaning that a good husband should have: 1) high salary; 2) high social status; 3) and be tall. Later I was told that '3 ' is not valid anymore, as is nowadays replaced by '3 ' - three low points. Could someone please tell what these 3 low points are? | []{} consists of:
1.[]{}(low profile):
We now must keep a low profile to be preferred by Japanese women in 21st century. We must be polite, non-swaggering and sincere.
2.[]{}(low reliance):
We shall not rely on our female partners for all the household chores.
3.[]{}(low risk):
We must choose a career that is relatively stable like that of a government employee, teacher, etc. We must acquire special skills, certifications, etc. that no one can take away from us.
BTW, the {} mentioned in English by the questioner are {}{} and {} in the original Japanese. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 14,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "culture"
} |
へい as agreement
I've heard it a few times, and would have assumed it was written had I not seen it in writing. It seems to be an informal synonym of , used mostly in masculine speech. Also, it's generally pronounced as written, rather than as like usually is. Is my assessment correct? | I only hope that I am thinking of the that you are talking about.
The I am thinking of is the that is probably more often heard in dramas and period dramas than in real life which is used by male speakers (at least in Kanto) who are being humble to their superiors.
It means the same as .
< | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
～うございます construction
I already know that it's hardly used anymore, but for sentences such as , is this humble? That is to say, is it inappropriate to use the form for someone of higher social standing (provided they have told you)?
Also, would the past tense be ? | This is called []{} and it is one type of the (euphonic sound changes) that took place around Heian period (794 - 1185).
, in the simplest terms possible, is the dropping of the "k" consonant from the []{} (continuative form) of i-adjectives.
The of **** is **** .
Drop the "k" from **** and you have **** .
To make even easier to say, you will have **** .
is a very polite form, and not a humble form per se as you suspected. It can be used by anyone when they want to sound polite. The past tense is just as you formed it.
Lastly, despite a popular belief among J-learners, this sentence pattern is still **_heavily_** used in many parts of Western Japan. Even in Tokyo, the older and more refined speakers still use ,[]{}, etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "honorifics, keigo"
} |
Is "して" dropped in this phrase "ご利用{りよう}ください"?
I happened across this in a document:
>
Why can you say ""? ? But, I used to hear used frequently in the subways...
"" // _(As noted in the accepted answer, this is grammatically correct. But, it does not mean "please work". Rather, it means "please give me work".)_
"" // ok
"" // ?
"" // ok
I suspect that there are a few other that can also have their "" dropped when the intended meaning is "~~~". Is that correct? What are other examples? | is **_not_** dropped; It was not there in the first place.
is an honorific noun and all you need to add is to form a polite request with it. You just **_cannot_** add ; It is not even an option.
Other common examples include:
[]{}(Please have a look.),[]{}(Please come.),[]{}(Please purchase.),[]{}(Please try it out.), etc.
Again, you cannot insert into any of those phrases. **_It makes no sense to_**.
If you absolutely must use for some reason, you will need to drop the honorific / and say **** , but you would need to know that it will not sound as polite or "refined" as **** .
You mentioned but it has nothing to do with it. is not a , so you cannot call it .
Lastly, I need to point out another mistake you have made. I am really sorry but someone had to. makes perfect sense. It means "Please give me (some) work.", but not "Please work." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
'I'm glad I look like my mother'
How would you say it in Japanese? If not, then how? | []{} **_could_** mean "I am glad I look like my mother.", but without any context to explain that you are talking about the physical resemblance, it would usually just mean "I am glad I **am** like my mother."
To express "I am glad I **look** like my mother." in a single sentence all by itself, you would say:
[]{}
Kids would say []{}[]{} and they can say it to anyone. Because of the word , adults can say that only when talking to other family members. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
Pronunciation of 三分 when it means three minutes
According to jisho, when means three minutes, it is pronounced , however Google Translate mentions it as . Are any of these wrong, or is it dialect? Are there other pronunciations? | can be read in three different ways -- pun, bun, and bu.
"Three minutes": ****
"One third": ****
"Percentage": **** "My batting average is 230." = []{}[]{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation"
} |
The meaning of さすがにこれは同情する
Context before lines: (a delinquent) explains to his friends the unfortunate events that lead to him being hated throughout the school, and then they respond as so:
What does actually do here? I've looked up the definition and usage but it still isn't really that clear to me. Could it be do with how him being hated is largely not his fault, but rather his old friend that made him take the blame, and whilst the person who said this wouldn't be sympathetic if it was his fault, but since it isn't then he is. Or what else could it mean? | The nuance of including is like saying "(normally I wouldn't sympathize with you, but) this was just so bad that I have to".
Incidentally, that nuance is already there to some degree with {LLH}, but that's not as explicit or as easy to . :) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
ばかり usage in 目もくらむばかりの宝石の山
An example phrase from
> a dazzling heap of gems
Can here be safely replaced by , etc. without changing the meaning? Is this how + (with working as a pseudo-noun here, I assume?) preceded by a predicative form works, to emphasize the predicate? | Your assumption is right. That was originally used in the form of , which meant "so much that you are only escaping being dazzled" → "so much that you are nearly dazzled". In that sense, it's interchangeable as you said. And, if there's a difference from at all, it could be that 's version is a rhetorical expression and thus, could sound more impressive. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle ばかり"
} |
Use of に in this sentence
> ****
(from the book .)
I understand this sentence as
> The store Taeko entered was a famous jewelry store, and while she was intimidated by the fancy shop, .
I don't get the last part, whether it means "she went on" or something else because denotes a place at which something is or a direction towards something, so shouldn't it be | It needs to be []{} **** []{} and not **** .
**** **** ****
It means "I followed Taeko (into the store)."
**** makes no sense because Taeko has already entered the store. Taeko cannot follow Taeko. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, meaning"
} |
Why is connective form missing from this sentence?
Example sentence from :
> The poet has a truly unlimited command of ideas and manipulates words with complete freedom.
At the moment I can only see it as a compound sentence that could be split into:
>
and
>
is listed as an noun or adjective () by . Therefore, shouldn't it be in connective form or ?
>
>
>
Please help me understand the original sentence. | The meaning of this sentence is the same as those with /.
Omitting certain verbs such as / makes this sentence sound somewhat more rhythmical and crisp. I think this is at least closely related to so-called , a common rhetorical technique in which a sentence is ended with a noun. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
Can a man address a woman with sama 様【さま】?
I've seen Japanese women address their husbands with the -sama suffix. Would it be appropriate for a man do the same in some cases? In which context can this be used? | Yes.
is an honorific and can be easily thought of as a more respectful version of . It is gender neutral, so it can be used by both men and women when addressing either gender.
It is often used when addressing someone of a higher social position, or someone for whom you have high regards. On a day-to-day basis, it's commonly used to address customers. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "usage, honorifics, suffixes"
} |
How did 逸 come to feature in pleasure/idleness words?
I can't judge the reliability of < (and it is probably controversial), but there the speed, movement meaning of is linked to its claimed origins in {. Hence , and such that involve some form of movement.
However, there are also words like , that are linked to pleasure, idleness etc. Where does this meaning come from? | Kanji dictionaries () are what to look up when confronting questions like this. From what I've got from my dictionary:
* My dictionary states actually is linked to in origin: "rabbits run away" -> to run, to astray.
* For and others, it states that they are used (in modern usage) in substitution for "", whose phonetic value is also "". So was originally "" has no kunyomi, and its meanings include " (to enjoy/have fun)", " (to be idle)". comes from +, and according to the dictionary, the origin is "", so perhaps it is a good substitute even when considering the meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
What's the difference between 信じる, 信用する and 信頼する?
What's the difference between , and ? How can I know which one to use? According to my dictionary they all mean "to trust". Are they interchangeable?
For example,
> I trust you. | Off the top of my head I would summarize the differences as follows.
* is to believe a single fact or statement (or, by extension, believe that something exists or is true)
* is to have faith in a source of information
* is to trust a person (or institution)
So, for example
>
> I believe what Mr. Tanaka said.
>
>
> I can ["always"] believe what Mr. Tanaka says.
>
>
> I trust Mr. Tanaka [to always do the right thing]. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, nuances, verbs"
} |
Does 'this friday' take に
I'm happy that the following is correct:
> .
>
> I will eat cake on Friday.
But what about this:
>
>
> I will eat cake (on) this Friday
In English putting "on" in the latter sentence is wrong. Should I use in this case? Thanks. | You are making a mistake lots of people make – you are trying to think about what your sentence will look like in English. You might do this with most European languages, but you definitively can't do this with Asian languages.
So as you said, your first sentence is correct:
> .
Basically, all you did in your second sentence was indicate that you are talking about this Friday (the Friday of this current week). This is all about it, your sentence is, of course, correct:
>
Japanese is like lego, you basically you do: (something + particle)^n + verb. This is not really true of course since you can have several verbs in a sentence, but basically this is like lego so:
> =>
>
>
Since you kept your sentence structure, you shouldn't ask yourself if your sentence is still correct or not. Also, these sentences are also correct:
>
>
I just swapped 2 lego, that's all, so my grammar is still correct. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particle に, time"
} |
What does こと mean in 彼らは騒々しいことおびただしい?
Example sentence from :
> {}{} They are making a terrible noise [racket].
I don't know if that's or , or (or something else?) so no idea where to even start looking... | > []{} of Verb or Adjective + **** \+ adjective expressing an extreme degree
is a fairly common set phrase used to describe an unusually large number or high frequency. It is used most often when the speaker has a **_negative_** opinion of the fact being described.
means the attributive form. nominalizes the preceding verb or adjective **_and_** , at the same time, emphasizes its meaning.
= , but hiragana is preferred for this usage these days. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, set phrases"
} |
What is the difference between 良い and いい?
Consider the following:
> _yoi_ — _yoku_
>
> _ii_ — _yoku_
When typing , IME offers in the lookup table. It makes me wonder whether is just an alias of but it is pronounced differently only in the dictionary form.
What is the difference between and ? | can be read as both and . {} is more formal than . But they are very similar words, and they are sometimes safely interchangeable. For example, the following words are the same and both mean "good boy/girl".
{}
{}{}
Sometimes, cannot be replaced with in casual language. For instance, in the Japanese version of Facebook, you call the "Like" button, the "" button. If you replace it to "", it would be a little bit strange because is a casual word, and is somewhat formal. They should go together. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 12,
"tags": "word choice, etymology"
} |
What do the words 「きてやった」 mean?
It is a situation that a little girl throwing several raw eggs to two policemen. After that, she was running away and saying the below sentence.
Here is the sentence.
> **** | is composed of three verbs, , and .
is an ordinary transitive verb meaning _to sprinkle_. and are called _subsidiary verbs_ (), which are already explained in detail here: What is a subsidiary verb?
The subsidiary verb has several roles, some of which can be a bit tricky at first. From :
>
> …
> ……
> **…**
>
is interesting (see the link), but it's not relevant now. The girl used in the sense of , because she had done it somewhere else. in the sentence in question simply means "go/come and [verb]", "[verb] before coming here", etc.
As for the subsidiary verb , there are two meanings:
> 15
> ――
> **――**
Again, is common, but the definition applies in this sentence. I think it can be translated into English as "dare to [verb]", "[verb] purposely", "even [verb]", etc.
All in all, this sentence means "I even sprinkled _natto_ (on the policemen, before I came here)!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
Which particle(s) can be used to list nominalised verbs?
Here's the sentence I'm trying to express in Japanese. "I have changed my life, I've become a cheerful person, all because of him!"
And this is how I would translate it.
Am I using the right particles? My intuition says that the sentence is wrong. | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
is grammatical and even sounds fairly natural.
The only part that does not quite sound natural is **** . We would rarely use that way to refer to oneself, but again, it is still all grammatical. You could say .
> Am I using the right particles?
Yes, you are. I would never call anything natural here when there is a particle mistake.
The third-person pronoun is not something we native speakers use often, but I certainly could not say it is wrong to use it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "particles, sentence final particles, english to japanese, nominalization"
} |
Are there any differences between 仕事 and 作業
I have ran across these two words being used in some articles and blog sites. It seems they both translate to "work", but when and why would you use one over the other? | is closer to _tasks_ or _procedures_ , which can be 'finished' in a few minutes or a few days.
refers to both small tasks and lifelong vocations.
If you want to ask someone's occupation, you can say "?" but not "?" (well, let's forget about honorific expressions for now). When you look at a calendar and want to check what you have to do today, you ask yourself, "?" or "?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, word choice"
} |
How common/formal is あたくし?
A while ago, I discovered that has a more-formal variant:
This is obviously very similar to the relationship between and . However, there are a couple of details that I'm not too sure about:
### 1\. How common is it?
doesn't seem to be used as much as other personal pronouns; I could only find two examples of it being used on JLU SE, neither of them related to this question. It's also mentioned on this page and on Japanese Wiktionary, though it's currently absent from the English version.
### 2\. How formal is it?
My understanding is that is less formal than , which in turn is less formal than . Given that is more formal than , and (I assume) less formal than , how does it compare with ?
**Note:** It seems that , , , and are _all_ represented by in kanji form, so this question uses hiragana to avoid confusion. | Wikipedia says:
> ()
In my opinion (not ) is typically used by Kantō, classy, pompous, elder, female celebrities, mainly in fiction. Or by someone who impersonates such a person.
I confirmed that uses in her TV show (video). Someone says that she is the only person who regularly uses on TV (I don't know if it's true).
Other than this, I might have heard this actually used once or twice in real life (in a party or something like that), but my memory is vague.
Regarding the formality, it cannot be used in business/formal _writings_ , where we have to almost always stick to anyway. But I also feel that may well give a formal speech using . I guess most people won't regard as impolite, because it sounds similarly enough to . It will sound just funny, if used by a wrong person, for example, me. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "first person pronouns, formality"
} |
What is the meaning of the word たんじゃ?
It is a situation which a boy who is carrying some goods after successfully escaped from chasing by policemen.
> ... **** | **_Colloquial form vs. "dictionary" form_** :
Put together, means "if you just kept laughing".
, in this context, is like in meaning -- "if".
> ...
thus, means:
> "Y'know, I don't get the picture if you just keep laughing." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, conjugations, contractions, explanatory の"
} |
How much does it matter if I use the wrong 'if'?
Specifically talking about and here.
I just read Derek Schaab's excellent reply to this question on when to use the different forms of conditionals -- something I'm really struggling with at the moment. But that is a lot to remember when you're trying to select the correct expression in a conversation. I expect that most Japanese aren't even aware of these rules.
So I was wondering, are there simpler rules that get you the right answer most of the time, and, if you do use the wrong word, how much does it actually matter? Will you be completely misunderstood, shown to be the foreigner you are, or anything in between?
Any tips on how other people have approached this learning problem would be appreciated. | Edited in bold font
1. An action **in non-past tense** in a clause is to succeed that of the main clause, and if you use it wrongly, people will misunderstand which happens before and which after. **Past tense in clauses stands for if it's true or not**.
2. As long as you use correctly, is enough versatile to replace and .
3. You can't use for actions in realized past by the same subject with consistent volitionality. In short, you can say (a) (When I get on the car, I vomited), but not (b) * (When I get on the car, I drove it). (edit: If you wrongly use it, people misunderstand it's an imaginary conditional or a habitual past.)
4. (off topic) Use for "when". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, usage, conditionals"
} |
Confusion on usage of か marking alternatives with verbs
Most textbooks note that using to mark two noun alternatives, the last one can be omitted. However, what about verbs?
Would a textbook sentence such as
>
Stay grammatical as
>
In other words, I've been coming across this single after verb structure and I wonder if it serves the same disjunctive purpose or if it's something else? | > Most textbooks note that using to mark two noun alternatives, the last one can be omitted.
You are probably talking about something like this:
> / (I'll have either steak or sushi.)
However, you cannot omit the second in a sentence like below, even though marks two noun alternatives:
> ()(I haven't decided whether I'll have steak or sushi.)
> *()
Same goes with verbs; you can say
>
> (either have steak or have sushi) -- You don't need a 2nd .
>
> (whether I'll have steak or have sushi) -- The 2nd cannot be omitted.
but not
> * | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, syntax, particle か, coordination"
} |
can one ever say "おいかがですか？"
I have almost always added {} to "" (making ""). However, a native speaker just told me that "" sounds unnatural. I'd like to double check this.
Is it ever natural to add to ""? | **** ("How are you feeling?") should probably be avoided even though some native speakers actually say it.
The reason for that, however, is **_not_** that there is already in there expressing politeness. Rather, it is because the word is already on the pretty polite and formal side. Adding the honorific to it does make it sound overly polite. The non-polite forms of would be , etc.
This is why it is completely "correct" to say **** ("How much is it?") using an as, unlike , is non-polite. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 13,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
What's the difference between 復帰, 復元 and 復旧
What's the difference between {}, {} and {}?
The both seem to mean restore. (I generally use these words in a computer context as in restoring files or settings.
Related: Difference between , , and | **** ( _intransitive_ )
It originally means "back to original location/position", then figuratively refers to "back to work". This word doesn't imply at all the subject was once out of order: you put your PC in sleep mode, then press the power button, the machine will .
**** ( _transitive_ or _intransitive_ )
This word put stress on "to reproduce the original shape". It may or may not indicate it was malfunctioning before you , but if you do , it must look like what it had been like. The "system restore" of Windows is translated as .
**** ( _transitive_ or _intransitive_ )
It means "regain original function, which was disrupted by an unexpected incident". This one explicitly tells that it won't work if you don't . It focuses on function, so if you , the data should be as it was, but if you're not guaranteed that data stored in your PC was saved too. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, usage"
} |
Can か follow である?
I know it can't follow , but is this possible? | can follow in subordinate clauses. For example,
> Whether it is true or not is unknown.
> (You can also say it as )
can also follow in subordinate clauses, as @snailboat says. For example,
> I don't know why. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, words"
} |
Difference between 今{こん}後{ご} and 未{み}来{らい}
When should and be used? Both of the words can mean "future". I have noticed that refers to both present time and what will happen from now on, and is simply what will happen in the future sometime. Is this correct? | means "from now on", whereas refers to a time far in the future.
Note that refers to some point in the future, whereas is something starting from the present, and continuing (indefinitely) into the future.
For the near future (even one's own future), you're better off using . usually has a sense of being farther forward in time than that. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, nuances"
} |
When particle mo is used to mean also, particle wa is omitted. Does mo also replace ga?
The question is clear but I would like to add an example. (My sentence may have other errors as well)
> I am glad that you think the same.
> ****
>
> I am glad that you think the same, too.
> ****
Is this conversion correct? | replaces in the sense that it does not become like you have or
>
It's really hard to make examples. But here the replaces | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, particles, particle が, particle も"
} |
Differences between 'must'
Is there any significant difference between when they mean 'must'? | is usually used for rules, social conventions, very important appointments, and is often abbreviated to just . (with no explanatory clause following)
= Undou wo shinai to ne / 'Cause if you don't work out, then... = "gotta work out"
= gotta wash your hands. (to me personally it feels more like "yeah because if you don't wash your hands then...")
feels colloquial (and in some cases hurried)
feels colloquial
(roughly: must do this at all costs") | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Is "俎板の上の鯉" related to the Vietnamese phrase "như cá nằm trên thớt"?
Is the Japanese phrase "" - a carp laid on a chopping block related to the Vietnamese phrase "như cá nằm trên thớt" - like a fish on cutting board, either because Japanese got the phrase from Vietnamese, Vietnamese got the phrase from Japanese, or the two languages got it from a third language? | I don't have any clue to decide whether it's a parallel evolution or not, but I guess it's from Chinese, considering the phrase is attested in a famous (1st century BC) Classical Chinese literature, namely _Shiji_ , and the fact all Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese shares the similar expressions.
> ****
> _The most powerful never mind small matters; the most polite never care about small etiquette. Now **they are knife and chopping block, we are fish in between** , why need we say goodbye?_
>
* * *
> Chinese:
> Japanese:
> Korean:
> Vietnamese: như cá nằm trên thớt | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "etymology, set phrases"
} |
Why is ゟ considered obsolete?
I recently discovered the kana , which is a ligature of and , so it's the comparison particle. According to a few sites it's obsolete, or 'dated'.
Why is considered obsolete, and why should I use it, or avoid doing so? | The reason is very simple: universal education.
is not a "kana" but an abbreviation () used in the 1800s. In other words, it is not an outdated letter like long s (ſ), but a scribal abbreviation like "Ↄ̄" for " _contra_ ". It was mainly in use when writing was limited to a small literate class, and when language began being taught to the public at large, it was omitted, as can be seen in this 1874 textbook.
Wikipedia says that you can still see in newspapers from time to time; I might have seen it myself at some point. But the most common scribal abbreviations still in use today are the iteration marks , , and . You should not use the other ones. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "kana"
} |
Is the interjection おう really a Chinese loanword?
In Samuel E. Martin's "A Reference Grammar of Japanese", in a section (Chapter 23, p. 1041) on putative etymologies for some Japanese interjections like or , he asserts:
> Although others [other interjections] seem like little more than grunts or shouts — aa, yaa, yoo — they may have originated as shortenings of more legitimate etyma; oo 'yea' is, after all, a Chinese loanword.
Really? If so, a loan from which Chinese word? | I think Martin has (old form ) in mind. This was not uncommonly used to write _ō_ , especially in Edo times. A famous haiku by Kyorai:
>
> ō ō to / iedo tataku ya / yuki no kado
> "All right, all right!" / I say, but the knocking doesn't stop / at the gate in the snow
However, I agree with the commenters that _ō_ is unlikely to have been borrowed from Chinese at all -- not least because it appears in the Nihon Shoki as , i.e. /wowo/ (which incidentally isn't easy to reconcile with any Chinese pronunciation of /), and only got attached to / later. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
Is ごめんなさいませ idiomatic?
If so, how formal is it? Please compare it with other apologies. | It is difficult to talk about the phrase **** mostly because it is not in wide use (that is unless there actually exists an area that I am unaware of where it is often said).
I have probably heard it 2-3 times in my life, but that means only once every 10 years or so. I feel like it has (almost) always been an adult woman who I have heard say it.
To me, a native speaker, does not necessarily sound formal. In fact, it actually sounds fairly informal but, at the same time, pretty polite.
If you want to apologize politely, you would be better off using:
[]{}[]{} or
because those are what we would use most often ourselves. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, keigo"
} |
Difference between 遍 and 度/回 in occurences
I have known for a while about and when counting occurrences, but recently I found a passage that used as well, which surprised me.
> []{}[]{}[]{}
If I understand correctly, is used for degrees, for revolutions, and is more common for larger numbers.
However, where does fit into all of this? Is it more archaic? Is it more similar to or ? | is used to count action,movement or behavior. and It is more archaic and informal than
(I watched the video for 10times but I couldn't understand any of it.)
This word can't be used for Ordinal number.
×3
3
(This is third time for me to watch this video.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, nuances, counters"
} |
Difference between もう いい です and もう けっこう です
I'm going back over my notes from Japanese For Busy People. I no longer have the books but I wrote out many of the examples. What I have not always done is write down my teacher's explanations. Hopefully I can get an answer here.
In these two examples we see and used. I remember using for saying one does not want any more tea ( ) but I don't know if it is the same usage here. More commonly I use . So seeing here has confused me.
Could somebody explain the difference between these two examples please?
>
>
>
>
> | We are talking about two different (though related) shades of meaning of here.
> "no longer in need of ~~"
**** means "I want no more ~~."
**** has at least two meanings. One is the same as , but it is less formal than . The other meaning is "(Something) is ready to (or 'to be') ~~."
> "sufficient", "satisfactory", etc.
**** = "A pencil will suffice (if you have no pen)."
**** = "A credit card would be no problem (if you do not have cash.)" A store clerk would generally speak more formally than that and would say **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What does 許しを乞い mean?
What does mean? And especially what's the role of here? The full phrase is: | []{} is the []{} (continuative form) of the verb . It has absolutely nothing to do with "carp" the fish. is a verb and it needs to be in that conjugation form in order to connect with the following word (another verb) []{}.
[]{} is a set phrase meaning "to beg forgiveness".
The here means "in order to".
**_"Surely, you didn't come here to beg forgiveness again, did you?"_** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, meaning"
} |
Were western soldiers called "鬼畜{きちく}米兵{べいへい}" in WW2?
Part of war propaganda is to assign a nickname to the enemy so as to dehumanize them. The USA has done this for decades in the wars in Southeast Asia, Vietnam, the Middle East, Central America, etc.
Did the Japanese soldiers refer to Western soldiers as ""?
Did the civilian population also refer to Western soldiers as ""?
Was there a slang term used by Japanese soldiers to refer to soldiers from Asian countries in WW2? | is somewhat famous even today as a slogan, and this is what most of Japanese people learn in history classes at school. But this phrase is obviously too long for everyday use, and there seems to be little evidence that this was widely used in speech during the war.
Other shorter derogatory nicknames I know include and . In particular, I've heard used often in war-films (which were created long after the war), but I admit I have no idea how often these were actually used by Japanese people in those days.
Wikipedia has the list of derogatory nicknames referring to people in various countries. I'm not familiar with some of these, though. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "slang"
} |
Translation - "form" (internet form you fill out, NOT an application)
A translation question for ya :) I'm in need of the word for "form". In this case it is a form on a webpage a user fills out to answer survey questions ("how did you think you did? did you enjoy it?"). We have a form generator - we can make many forms like these to present to the user. But I am unsure as to which word to use.
My candidates are: (easy!)
e.g.
(document)
Which is correct for this scenario? | It sounds like you're describing an . This is from French _enquête_ , and I think it's usually translated into English as 'questionnaire' or 'survey'.
If you mean a technical term for the actual HTML `<form>` element, then I think that would just be like you said. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
名前 - used for the name of something?
I am used to seeing on application forms. But can be used on a form where the name of an inanimate object is required?
For example an application form that asks for the name of... your boat. The River Explorer
or the name of some software on a purchase order. Photoshop X
Or would one use another word? | While is the generic term for _name_ , for inanimate objects, is the word that sounds more formal and technical. For example you can say or .
Likewise, for names for people, is preferred on official application forms, etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
} |
Thank you note to Japanese professor
I just finished an introductory Japanese class, and the class bought a small gift for the professor. I'm planning to drop the gift off at the professor's office, so I need to write a brief tag saying who it's from: "Thank you from the whole class." Is something as simple as:
!
\---[class name]
correct and appropriate for the situation? | How about:
> []{}/[]{}/[]{}etc.*
> (class name)[]{} or (class name)
*=for a year, =for half a year, =for three months | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "politeness, culture, written language"
} |
Can a 皇帝 be female?
What would the word for empress (other than of Japan) be? Please give me the word for a ruling empress. | It's [[]{}](
is also used for an empress, e.g.: () | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, gender"
} |
Parsing and making sense of this sentence with multiple が's
So I was signing up for an account at a website, and I came across this line:
>
I have never come across a sentence with 3 's in it, much less one with 3 of them placed consecutively like that. How do you even make heads or tails of this!?
By the second , the sentence had already lost me... If marks the subject of a sentence, what on earth is going on in this sentence?
**Questions:**
* How would you parse this sentence?
* Is there a less confusing / better way of phrasing it? | > []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
is a perfectly normal sentence with a fairly simple sentence structure.
> It says "Condition A will bring Result #1 and Result #2".
Condition A:
Result #1:
Result #2:
In , is used to compare (implicitly) two situations.
Situation 1: ****
Situation 2: ****
It is saying that Situation 1 is "better", "recommended more", etc. (than Situation 2). = **_"If there existed a photo, ~~" ⇒ "If you pasted a photo, ~~"_**
= **_"(Others) will get to know you (better)."_**
= **_"It will be easier (for you) to make friends."_**
> Is there a less confusing / better way of phrasing it?
As I stated at the beginning, the sentence is very simple and it could not be made any simpler. It is already "good", too.
The kind of sentence that you would better understand (even though I have no idea what it would be like) would probably not be a very natural sentence for the native speakers. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, meaning, particle が, subordinate clauses"
} |
Usage distinction between 季節 and 季
is composed of two kanji, and , however, both of them mean 'season' when translated to English. Though I'm aware that originally referred to the seasons of the year and was initially used to refer to segments of bamboo, both kanji have taken the meaning of 'season'. As near as I can tell, is the common word to refer to autumn, winter, summer, and spring, but is still in use. Would anyone be able to clear up the appropriate usage of versus ? Is there a distinction in connotation between the two? Is used on its own, or merely as a component in combination kanji? | Although and both can mean 'season' within various compounds, they are not used on their own to mean 'season' at least in modern Japanese. You always have to say .
Many Japanese compounds are made of two kanji with similar meanings: (danger + danger), (plenty + plenty), (eternity + eternity), and so on. In most cases, you cannot just pick one of these kanji individually and use it as a meaningful word in conversations. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, connotation"
} |
In front of "ほうがいい," is it always past tense?
means:
the particular way "" is "" good ""
So, for example, if it looks like it's going to rain, I might say to a friend:
""
But what I'm curious is, why is "" past tense? It feels like it means, it WOULD'VE BEEN good to carry an umbrella, so it feels quite inappropriate tense-wise. I ask this question because there's no distinction between future and present tense in Japanese. For example,
"" The dude coming tomorrow, is my friend.
" That dude coming our way, is my friend.
So logically, I thought "take your umbrella" would be: ""
Instead of ""
So, why is it that it's past tense? | This is the perfect, not past; that is, it's indicating a time before some reference time, rather than a time before speech time:
>
> Lit. "Having brought an umbrella would be better."
That said, I don't think native speakers actually have such a complicated model (of comparing possible future worlds, one of which where you have brought an umbrella), but rather has just become a way of making suggestions; that is, I think the has become mostly semantically bleached. However, I'm pretty sure this was the original function of here.
* * *
It is also possible to have the plain form of verbs before , but they don't have a future interpretation but rather a "general" or "habitual" one.
>
> "Bringing an umbrella is best."
That is, you're not making a suggestion about something to do at a future time, but making a more categorical statement.
I wish I had an explanation of _why_ it's impossible for the plain form to have a future interpretation here, but I don't. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 24,
"question_score": 15,
"tags": "grammar, syntax"
} |
Meaning of グリッて
!enter image description here
The character doesn't know how to ride a bike and tries to remember what his friend was doing when starting the vehicle.
He then says to himself :
> **** ……
I can't find any info on , what does it mean? | This is a mimetic adverb () which is basically the same as ():
> ―
It's similar to ()/ which describes how something rotates smoothly. But refers to a more forceful, unsmooth movement/rotation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "meaning, onomatopoeia"
} |
"Last edited by" - how to translate?
I'm struggling to understand how to translate "Last Edited By", for an online document.
I think there must be another english phrase to use, and translate that, but I just cannot think what it could be.
(previous editor) ?
and subsequently the "Last Edited Date" | The most natural translation (though not literal) would be and . You can also use (updater) instead.
> : naruto
> : 2015521 15:05
(=prior) would not work as you expect in this case. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
て form of adjective in 'no matter how much' clause
My story book says this:
> ...
>
> No matter how cold it is ...
but my grammar book says this:
> ...
Both of them seem reasonable to me. Are they both correct? Is there any difference in nuance between them? Could I also translate the first sentence (or indeed the second) as "Even if it is so cold..."? Thanks | ...(No matter how cold it is...) is correct, but is incorrect. Maybe it was a typo of or something.
* * *
You form the phrase this way:
with i-adjectives: /+()++
eg.
with na-adjectives: /+()+
eg.
with nouns: /+(adjective)+noun++
eg. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, て form"
} |
How do you say "chunky" or "congealed" in Japanese?
Couldn't find this one in my dictionaries. How would you translate "chunky" into Japanese? As in chunky peanut butter, or, "I left the milk out for 3 days and now it's all chunky," or, "the chemicals congealed into a kind of chunky gel". | Peanut butter:[]{}, etc.
Rotten milk:/, etc.
Chunky gel: same as rotten milk. If it is very hard, one could use , etc.
I only trust you can change these forms freely according to the context. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, food"
} |
Why these words, 「お読み」 and 「お使い」 do not use te-form in this sentence?
I have came across the following sentence in an instruction manual and I'm curious why they did not use them in the te-form.
{}{}{}{}{} **{}** , {} **{}** {} | In formal Japanese, this is the standard . It's used in place of form of verbs when linking. It's usage in {} actually goes beyond this, with these suffixes also helping form verbs. In the context of your quote, both are replaceable with form in everyday speech.
The general rule being to take the stem, remove this, and replace as necessary
> -> Please sit
>
> -> Please tell them
>
> -> -> Please contact / get in touch
Note that you remove if the verb takes this. Other examples for
>
>
>
Not all verbs conjugate like this, and some take rather than . The instruction manual uses them to keep the writing polite and formal to the buyer. As for when to use it yourself, the finer rules are all part of {}, which is itself more complex than can be summarized in one answer. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What is the use of か in 売り始めるか〜
I was reading an article and I came across this sentence:
> ****
What exactly does the in this sentence/what is the meaning? | This is the same as the particle we see all the time at the end of an interrogative sentence. It's also used in a noun clause like so:
> * ? When do they sell the cars?
> (noun clause) when they sell the cars
> * ? Is it Sunday today?
> (noun clause) whether it is Sunday today
>
Therefore, "" is a long noun clause which means "when the automobile companies begin to sell those self-driving cars."
**EDIT** :
I found a related question with an extensive answer: Usage of after a clause? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "particles, particle か, interrogatives, subordinate clauses"
} |
連用形＋は＋せん （殺しはせん。） meaning?
The line is said by a character in anime.
What is here (I assume it's somehow related to negative form of )?
Plain negative (I'm not killing you)? Volitional neg. (I'm not intending to kill you (like the in ())? Potential (like in …)? Is the some auxiliary verb or part of conjugation?
Something else? | (=) is the classical version of , 'do not'.
= the imperfective form () of the verb , 'do' ( = classical version of )
= the negative auxiliary << derived from the classical negative
( + particle (= here it can be like 'at least') + verb + negative ) is the classical way of saying , 'I'm not killing / I'm not going to kill (you/someone)' | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "verbs, particle は, renyōkei"
} |
Particle と in "Feliksas と申します。"
This phrase is used pretty much on every intro page to Japan, as a polite way to state "my name is _____". I think it's similar to _Je m'appelle_. My question is why is it exactly the particle used in this case? Is it a unique thing, or is there a bigger trend? Is it used as a quotative way -- "Feliksas (quote - as in quoting what people say) am called"?
Thank you very much!! | Yes you are right, the is used as a quote. Feliksas - I am called that.
Once you know the root of the word the reason becomes clear.
is the keigo (polite) form of .
can be used for reported speech.
That girl said "I am all right now".
That girl said she was all right at the time.
On a side note - if you are writing Japanese try to avoid romaji, even in names like Feliksas since most Japanese won't know how to pronounce it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle と"
} |
What do つれて and いくと mean here?
>
Can anyone explain to me what and mean in this sentence, I'm having a hard time understanding..
Thanks | is just the -form of the verb {} whose meanning is "to lead (people)", "to take people (from one place) to another one".
And, is the verb {} + the particle. In this case means "when".
If you still can figure out the meaning of your sentence, there is a translation in a spoiler.
> Therefore, your sentence () translates into: Once, Alibaba led the donkeys, when they came close to the forest, a great sound of hooves could be heard. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
Does 文 refer only to written sentences, or can it be used for spoken sentences as well?
I know that this kanji is associated with writing and text, and can mean "sentence." When using it to mean "sentence", is it only a written sentence? I can't find any examples that unambiguously demonstrate that it can be a spoken sentence as well. | refers to a sentence, regardless of whether it's written or spoken. I find no significant discrepancy in usage between Japanese '' and English 'sentence' here.
For example you can say something like (intonation of an imperative sentence), which unequivocally refers to a spoken sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
Can you make an adverb from a noun by adding に?
I think I understand the pattern ... adverb e.g.
>
>
> He makes her happy
>
>
>
> I made my room tidy
I think I'm right in saying that the in these sentences serves to turn the -adjective into an adverb.
I got confused when I saw this sentence:
> {}{}{}{}
This translates as something like "He used chopsticks as oars and went up the river" (not as weird as it sounds, in context). I don't really know how to translate nounnoun. Can you please break it down for me and provide some additional examples of this grammar? | I think you're actually asking about and not just . isn't a verb after all.
It has a lot of uses, each probably worth a question of their own.
Here are some definitions from Jisho.org:
> AB
>
> 1. to place, or raise, person A to a post or status B
> 2. to transform A to B; to make A into B; to exchange A for B
> 3. to make use of A for B; to view A as B; to handle A as if it were B
> 4. to feel A about B
>
For the first two sentences, I think in your case it's the second meaning of _to transform_ or _make into_. Perhaps the third as well, but there the third meaning of _to handle_ as or _make use of_ is better. But yes, it can be attached to nouns and noun-forms.
It has so many particulars to it I don't think a single question or answer can cover it. How and where it's placed, the tense of what it's attached to, affects all of this. So it might be best to ask about a specific use. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "grammar, particle に"
} |
Why does 日本語{にほんご} mean Japanese?
Google translate says means Japanese.
It also says:
* means "word"
* means "this"
* means "day"
So how do you get "Japanese" out of these three kanji? | * is the suffix which means 'language'. Unlike English which needs two different nouns for a country and its language, in Japanese, you can simply add after the name of a country to mean the language spoken in that country. (e.g. = Germany, = German, = France, = French)
* is one word made of two characters, meaning 'Japan'. Etymologically it can be further analyzed ( (Sun) + (origin) => the rising Sun), but no one cares about that in everyday life. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 15,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, meaning"
} |
Difference in usage/nuance between 厚生, 福祉, 福利 and 生活保護
Translating "welfare" into Japanese seems a bit complicated. Could someone maybe provide for context the most typical phrases/chunks that use these words?
I'm aware that is used in the name of the Ministry for Health, Labour and Welfare (), but am a bit confused as to why it isn't , for example. | ### , and
First of all, and are almost outdated words except in legal terms or a combination of ("fringe benefits" according to WP). is the most common word covers "welfare" in every situation today.
particularly refers to benefits or services one can gain from welfare system. And literally means "fulfilled life" or "life enrichment" (or "high QoL" if you prefer), which is used as a fancy word in place of "welfare", much as like we call the judicial administration "Department of Justice".
###
It's a proper name given to Japanese social welfare program officially translated as "Public Assistance". You cannot consider this as a term indicates any kind of generic welfare systems.
**EDIT**
A general term translates "public assistance" or "social assistance" seems to be . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, meaning, usage"
} |
Referring to the English language
I found myself thinking about how to refer to the English language in Japanese.
I realise of course that English originated here in England, and then by colonisation was brought into America, but would that distinction be made in Japanese as in English?
Put simply, should I refer to or , even if the first is the name for the English language? | I think these are the basic terms:
* American English is .
* British English is .
They're both types of , just like American English and British English are both types of English.
* * *
That doesn't mean no one ever puts it differently. You might find and used as short forms to refer to American and British English, for example. Here are some frequency results from the Google Japanese Web N-gram corpus, showing how often people use various terms:
31945067
46649
814
540
57446
75223
3217
2185
Unless is being specifically contrasted with (to mean BrE and AmE), I think it's usually taken to mean English in general, not just British English. And talking about English in general is more common than singling out a particular dialect group, so is by far the most common term. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, translation"
} |
名 and 名前 - the difference
My impression is that, in speech, is polite, and is ruder - but in writing, sounds more literary. Am I correct? | is just "name", and sometimes is used in polite conversation, but would not be used in conversation. In literature you might see it like but it sounds good only in a story context, not conversation unless you intend to sound like you are narrating something in a joking manner.
In school, when we would go to the teacher's room, sometimes teachers would tell us to meaning "Say your name" if we didn't greet properly. But I have never heard being used for anything else. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice, words"
} |
Trying to understand the use of が as の
Many times I come across sentences that uses instead of to indicate possessiveness.
Example:
**** instead of **** .
The dictionary says that can also "indicate possessive (esp. in literary expressions)", but why not to use ?
This confuses me a lot. Is there a nuance using or to possessiveness? | It is not a question of possession.
I'll show it to you using your example.
Let's say : He has built a car.
If you want to say more about the car e.g.’ The car he built got famous in the whole country.’, it comes to the change your question is about. The sentence will be like this. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particle の, particle が, possession"
} |
What is the etymology of the "emphatic" ない?
Upon looking up the term , I was, shall we say, nonplussed to learn that it could mean both "very important" and "not very important". The explanation of the "very important" meaning clears things up, though - the here is not , but rather the "emphatic" . This is super-interesting, and explains why words like do not "mean" "", which is something that had always bugged me.
What is the etymology of this "emphatic" ? Is it related to the classical copula ? | Just to respond to the question part, the origin of the "emphatic" is the Classical suffix , and not .
<
is an adjective-forming suffix with the meanings of "truly ~~", "extremely ~~", etc.
It needs to be noted again that this has **_nothing_** to do with []{}. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
How to pronounce 繁栄 han'ei?
How to pronounce han'ei? Is there a glottal stop between the two syllables? Is it //haɴʔeː//, //haɴeː//, //haŋʔeː// or //haŋeː//? | and , , ... are pronounced //haɴeː// without glottal stop and as //ɴ//.
The combination //ɴ// + vowel is difficult to pronounce, so in some cases, such as , orthography has been adapted to allow for easier pronunciation (although might still be considered a valid pronunciation). Usually though a word has only a single valid spelling, which sometimes may help to distinguish homophones, e.g. and .
This phenomenon is called and usually occurs with //ɴ// + //aou//, although the Wikipedia page also gives examples for > .
I guess one should also mention that in the case of //ɴ// + //i//, there is , which is more often than not pronounced ...
In any case, //ɴ// + //aiueo// sometimes calls for attention to detail, but putting exceptions aside, + is pronounced //ɴ// + //aiueo//. In the case of //ɴe// the phonetic realization usually exhibits some palatalization as in [[haɴʲe:]] or nasalization as in [[hãːeː]] (see comments below). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "pronunciation, phonetics"
} |
Meaning of 間合いを外す
In the context of two opponents facing off each other. Does it mean reducing or increasing the distance between the two? Something else? | It would mean "to increase the distance" to use your own words.
[]{}[]{} means "to sidestep", "to dodge", etc. in the one-on-one type of sports and martial arts.
Your exact context is unknown, but the phrase could not possibly mean the opposite. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Difference between （「~~~」と話した） and （「~~~」と語った）?
In newspaper articles, quotes seem to be always followed by ~~~ **** and ~~~ **** .
_examples_ :
**** (full context)
**** (full context)
What is the difference in meaning and usage between ~~~ **** and ~~~ **** ?
Let me start by saying that~~~ is never used in conversation, right? | In your examples, they're interchangeable. In general, is only used when someone tells a story, opinion, idea, etc. You cannot use when just or is said. In this case I think is closer to _tell_ and is closer to _say_ , because we can say 'say hello' but not 'tell hello'. (Of course the usage of _tell_ and are very different)
is safely used in conversations, but its colloquial use is probably limited to fairly long stories. "" is OK. Sometimes we can even just say "", meaning "Grandpa stared his endless talk again!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Where does the な in 大人 (otona) come from?
As far as I understand, the word (otona) uses the kanji to represent and the kanji to represent . According to this site the readings for do not include . Where does the come from then? | It's []{}. Excerpt from Wiktionary:
> A Japanese word whose kanji spelling conveys the meaning based on the individual characters, but the reading is not directly related to the spellling. For example, (“big”, usually read _ō_ in _kun'yomi_ compounds) and (“person”, usually read _hito_ in _kun'yomi_ compounds) combine to form , meaning “adult” but read as _otona_ instead of the otherwise-expected _ōbito_.
We have tons of , e.g. []{}, []{}, []{} etc. For more, see on Wikipedia. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 22,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "kanji, etymology"
} |
Meaning of 私がではない
Spoken as part of a monologue by an anime character (cutting out parts irrelevant for context):
> ****
Is it a fixed phrase? What does it mean? What is here? Just added modality (disappointment, surprise etc.)? | >
The in is the case particle as a subject marker. 'I did not. / It was not I (who saved my enemy).' It was the (=) that saved his enemy (= me = ), not the other way around, and is saying that it was to him.
Source: <
breakdown:
= /case particle
= /assertive auxiliary, or copula
= /binding particle
= /negative adjective
eg.
XX It's not XX (who does...)
XX It's not to/for XX
XX It's not XX's
XX It's not with XX | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, modality, cleft sentences"
} |
What is that suspentive の particle?
I have come several times across the particle just before a comma but I could not figure out why was use and for what purpose.
Here are some examples I have run across:
> ex1: ****
>
> ex2: IT **** ……
>
> ex3: ※BD-DVD ****
For ex3, I would have expected something like the next sentence on the page (BD-DVD **** )
* * *
I know that the particle can be used to refer to something aforementioned like in the following example, but it does not seem to be the case in the examples I mentioned.
> A:
> B: | (Phrase) + always modifies a noun that follows. That noun can either directly follow or after another phrase that directly follows .
To examine this in your examples:
1. modifies .
2. IT modifies .
3. BD-DVD modifies .
Unlike in many other languages including English, the use of commas in Japanese is pretty much left to the discretion of the writer and that often seems to be the cause of confusion and misunderstanding among Japanese-learners.
In your examples, the comma would feel least "needed" in #1 because the noun follows directly the -phrase. The author probably used a comma because the -phrase is fairly long and s/he saw a need for a "moment of pause" there.
The commas in #2 and #3 seem more "needed" (though still optional) because in each case, there is another shorter -phrase between the main -phrase and the noun that it modifies.
Finally, the possesive that you mentioned at the end has very little to do with the that I have discussed above. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle の"
} |
The positive ～じゃない
Just how feminine is it? How odd would it be if a male speaker said it? I have found one example of someone male using, in a piece of fiction: Lest the main character of Rune Factory 4 at one point shouts regarding something, and his speech patterns aren't that feminine (though not as masculine as they could be) - but I have a feeling that the game's script is nearly identical regardless of gender. | is not particularly feminine in Standard/Tokyo Japanese, as long as the is relatively short (i.e. sticks to the moraic rhythm) and maintains its low pitch.
I would say that the longer is drawn out, and the more rising pitch it is given, the more feminine it sounds. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, gender, feminine speech"
} |
What is the difference between できました and しました?
The answer to this question explains how can have more uses than just as a potential verb. However, are there any differences in usage between and ? They both seem like they can be used to describe something being completed.
`e.g. ! vs ` | There is not much of a real difference between the two when kids say those in real life.
The main difference, however minor it may be, is that the topic (and focus) is in whereas it is the speaker him/herself in .
A more interesting difference is that has another completely different meaning, which is " ** _I have finished preparing the homework._** " said by the **teacher**. does not have this meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, usage, verbs"
} |
What is the name for the mixed ingredients in a bowl?
I am writing a recipe in Japanese. The excerpt is given as follows.
>
>
>
>
> the contents of the bowl
The contents of the bowl is the mixed ingredients. What is the correct pronoun to replace "the contents of the bowl"? Is there a single word for it? | - To be explicit about what you are referring to
And just regarding the rest of your sentence - → and (don't need the ) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
"The way she went about things" as 彼のする方
I'm working to translate this particular line, wondering if it accurately puts across this idea. Alternatives are welcome too! {}{} | []{}[]{} **** []{}[]{}[]{}
or
**** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, translation"
} |
What is 帰す form here?
The relevant bit goes like:
>
>
> ****
>
>
Going off context seems to be a volitional auxiliary () as it would make the middle bit as "to you (the Lord) all living beings shall come". Is it that or something else?
But how does conjugate here? Is an older mizenkei?
Edit: I've found some examples, such as
> **** I **want** to keep the image of the young women for a while.
However, I don't know if this verb is the same as modern , which wouldn't make much sense attaching to volitional. If were a mizenkei form of some other verb it would start making some sense to me, I think. | Yes, it's a mizenkei and the is a volitional auxiliary as you say. here stands for to be attributed to, and the conjugation goes () () () () () . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
} |
Is there a female version of ikemen?
Ikemen means something like cool man, is there something similar for women? | I do not believe there would be a word that everyone could agree upon as the word itself is pretty new.
If you are looking for a new word, we have even though it is not wide-spread yet.
More common (and traditional) words include: []{}[]{}, etc. All are safe choices.
(with only one ) was a very common word when I was growing up, but it feels kinda retro now.
You could say (and we do often say) though it is not one word. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, slang, word requests"
} |
How to translate 以前の問題
How would you translate "" in the next sentence:
Thank you! ) | > Word or phrase + []{}[]{}
means "a matter to be considered prior to (word or phrase)".
What that means is that there is an underlying matter which is more essential (and possibly more important) than the matter at hand.
The sentence []{}[]{}[]{} suggests that whether or not one is good at writing compositions in Japanese depends more on something else than on one's Japanese ability.
What is that something? Only the author could answer this, but if I were to take an educated guess, s/he would probably be referring to one's ability in one's first language. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What does the word 「ようく」mean?
I came across the word in a manga in a situation that a teenage boy is going to explain something to a group of kids. I cannot find the word in online japanese dictionary.
Here is the sentence.
{} **** ! | / is an exaggerated pronunciation of , which is why it is not found in the dictionary.
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
Situational use of politeness
I am often confused on which level of politeness to use between people who are relatively close.
For example, let say I am talking when a friend in Japanese and we use plain form. Although a close friend of that person comes along and joins the conversation. How does the use politeness change between the group?
If its someone I know but would normally use / form with, would the entire group switch to that? Or would the politeness stay the same between each person of the group?
I have read a different question that was helpful but it is more centered around formalities with work. | My experience in Japan is that you mix levels. When in a group conversation, you tend to keep the level of politeness you have with that particular person. If it is someone new, you keep it .
That being said, I have noticed that this rule can be a bit relaxed, in the sense that you may introduce some plain form with the person you almost do not know in the context of the group general politeness level, specially if she/he is a friend of your friends, and you are in a casual environment. However, I personally try to see what is the feeling with the new person, and whether it is or not appropriate to use plain form (for example, in a work meeting, you should probably always keep the appropriate level).
As mentioned by @DariusJahandarie, experience is your best teacher. Also, keep in mind that using you may never be wrong (but mistakingly using plain form may convey the wrong impression). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "politeness"
} |
What does the word 「っぷち」 mean?
Here is the sentence including the word.
> {}!
>
> {}{} **** {}{}[]{} {}{}{}{}{}! | The "dictionary" word is []{}, meaning "side", "edge", "brink", etc. **** is its colloquial pronunciation.
= "a river bank"
The most common word containing would be []{}, which means "edge of a cliff" literally and "critical point" figuratively. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "words, colloquial language"
} |
What is the female equivalent for 「ご主人様」 or "master?"
In _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ novel, the character Aslan orders centaurs and eagles to chase a wolf, saying, "He will be going to his **mistress**." He is referring to the wolf's female master, the White Witch, who considers herself to be the "Queen." The witch refers to a dwarf as her "slave," so she has a master/slave relationship with her followers. What is the correct Japanese word for a dominant female "master?"
I tried searching in online Japanese dictionaries for the word "mistress," but the results seem to be comprised of Japanese words for "mistress" as in an extra-marital lover, or "madam" as in a well-bred lady, rather than a woman who has slaves/servants. When I searched for the word "master," I could not find words that fit females. | The female equivalent of is []{}, and you would address your as []{} or []{}. (You wouldn't address her as []{}.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 8,
"tags": "words, word requests, gender"
} |
How does 「から」 work in regards to 「だから」 and 「ですから」?
I'm confused at how works, and there's very little information on this subject.
is used in front of a adjective or noun.
adjectives simply use .
Verbs can be in form, and only use .
Can be used in place of ? And is the difference between:
and different to each other the same way any typical plain form - form pair of sentences is?
Does the same apply to and ? | > Can be used in place of ?
Technically, yes. In practice, no. It's very rare to use in this situation. When a sentence contains the type of (English "because") that you are using here, it always comes with a second part. As long as the second part is in the whole sentence is assumed to be. So your example:
> and different to each other the same way any typical plain form - form pair of sentences is?
is already considered "polite". That said, here still feels more informal than , so probably better is to use in business situations.
The situation you may hear is when the second part is not present, either because it is implied or because you are answering a question.
> Does the same apply to and ?
Sorry, I don't actually understand what you are trying to say in this example. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, politeness, particle から"
} |
「万が一の場合」vs「念のために」?
How should I decide to choose eithervs?
, by itself, cannot directly substituted for , right? But, adding makes and pretty much the same? | In meaning, the following can be said:
1.[]{} **≠** []{}[]{}[]{}
2. **≒** []{}
> **** \+ (verb phrase) means "to (verb phrase) **_beforehand_** just in case something happens on an off chance."
But
> **** \+ (verb phrase) means "to (verb phrase) **_in response_** in case something happens on an off chance"
That is the huge difference; Thus, I stated #1.
In order to use to describe what to do in advance, one needs to add (= in preparation for)(= for), etc. to it. This is what I meant to say in #2. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What does the word 「ぶったてる」mean?
What does the word mean?
> {}{}{}{}{} **** ! | {}
= " **to build** " or rather " **to f***ing build** " if one were to translate the nuance intended.
is a manly and slangy **verb prefix** that emphasizes the meaning of the verb. The core meaning of the verb itself stays the same even if the prefix is added.
<
Related verb prefixes for emphasis:
, etc. There might be a few more. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 17,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "words, prefixes"
} |
grammar of a sentence explaining a 四字熟語{よじじゅくご}
I read here the following explanation about {}{}, a {} :
> {}{}{}{}{}
I don't feel confident about the grammar in this sentence, specially about the particle after {} : does the whole sentence mean something like "a short gap of time during one day or half, roughly from the morning to the evening" ?
Is the the "explanatory" particle ? And why don't we read {}{} ? | >
> "a half or full day; a morning-to-evening-scale, short time interval"
1. The in can be understood as .
2. The comma after makes it so that and are two separate ways of describing the interval, as opposed to further refining the type of "short time interval" it is. (Imagine removing the comma after "morning-to-evening-scale" in my gloss.) The difference in nuance is subtle, but basically with the comma it sounds more like the entry is expressing the complexity or vagueness of the concept because it needs to use multiple different modifiers to describe it.
3. would refer to the exact time interval of morning to evening. is a morning-to-evening _sized_ interval. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "meaning, particles"
} |
Use of quote marker と before unusual verbs
I'm happy with the purpose of when it precedes verbs like etc. The following sentence puzzles me:
>
I understand that the man feels disappointed and wonders if the sparrow is alright, but I can't make a sensible translation. Did he say it while feeling disappointed, or did he say it in a disappointed manner? Please explain if this is a shorthand way of saying a longer expression or whether it is common to be able to quote feelings in Japanese.
Here's a slightly different one:
>
I know that is used with sound effects (for want of a better word) so needs it, but there's a whole sentence in quotes and it needs to be 'said' or 'asked' or 'thought'. It doesn't make sense for it to be 'looked around-ed'. | You can replace with or etc if that helps structure them for you. Though I like the elegant ambiguity of not knowing for certain if he's thinking silently or thinking aloud.
I think there is some similarity in English though, when books use italics to represent thoughts without explicitly saying "he thought" or "she thought".
Edit, as requested, example translations:
>
_Little sparrow, are you ok?_ worried the old man.
The old man felt miserable. Would the sparrow be all right?
>
_Chun chun chun_ the old man searched, _Snipped-tongue Sparrow, where are you?_
_Snipped-tongue Sparrow, where are you hiding?_ the old man searched. _Here? Chun-chun. Here? Chun-chun. Or here? Chun-chun-chun_ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "grammar, quotes"
} |
頭がいい人 versus 頭が切れる人
I could not find the explanation of my following question in English. What are the main differences between and ? It is still hard for me to understand the Japanese version given in this link (click). | According to that site:
* Born smart
* Academic / scholastic definition of smart
* Good at studying and doing things they are told
* Highly productive
* Smartness acquired through practice and experience
* "Street smart"
* Good at learning things there is no manual / instructions for by exploration
* Not the most productive worker, but has unexpected insights
Bear in mind that is just one net article's opinion, and seems a little biased towards appealing the type, but there's still some valuable distinctions there. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
ごめんよ - what is it?
This appears to be an apology, but it seems a little blunt - its like are logical; they apologize and soften it with those particles. But seems a little forceful. Why would you use it? (For the context, I encountered it in a work of fiction - said by a twelve-year-old prince, if it makes any difference.) | I think there is no significant difference in meaning between , , , and . They all can be used among close friends, either seriously, casually, or even playfully, depending on the situation.
Among these, sounds a bit mild and girly, and sounds boyish. As for , I feel it's a bit less common, and has a small masculine ~~and tough~~ tendency. (This sentence-final particle is associated with both feminine and masculine speech. Women may use , too.)
The first person who came up to my mind as a typical user of was , if that helps. I guess he would say even when he sincerely expresses his apologies to his friends.
EDIT: On second thought, I remember some of my female friends actively use in real life, though I still feel this has a small masculine tendency. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words"
} |
Told About Something
I want to say that my waiter told me about Japanese restaurants or taught me info about them. I was thinking that I might just try ` ` But that would mean the waiter taught Japanese restaurants to me wouldn't it? I would like to say that he told me about something? How do I say "about" something? Any help is appreciated. | First thing I would like to point out is that `` is fundamentally wrong. I think you were looking for `` (Remember that is or "weak" verb).
In this case however, I think you would like to express gratitude for the person who taught you and thus stay polite. I would reach for either the active `` or passive `` depending on where you want to put the emphasis.
To express `about` the easiest is probably to use ``.
Thus something along the lines of :
* ``
* ``
Should do just fine. Note that I used `` instead of `` because the latter, at least in my opinion carries a notion of "canteen", thus a low-end place. Feel free to modify that part ! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, usage, verbs"
} |
What does the 「とって」 mean?
Here is the sentence including the word.
> **** | means to grow old, to age.
Next time try a dictionary first. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, verbs, manga"
} |
What is the difference between Hatsu and Saisho?
Can hatsu be used with activities, like hatsu-no poem? | Both of them are meaning basically the same.
*
*
But in many cases, sentence has a subject at the beginning to say whose first.
* (My first poem)
* A(A team's first point)
* (The world's first car)
And the case of ,this can also have a subject though,in many cases it doesn't.this does not mean always pointing "the world's first" nor distinguishing something particular. So You have to read between the lines and guess the meaning.
* (the first professional tennis player)
* (I was late because I missed the first train)
**EDITED**
It's probably good to mention basic difference between them. is a kanji and is a (idiomatic phrase) which consists of the kanji and which means 'most'. unlike other of ,'s basically does not have any meaning but emphasizing the word,Because is meaning 'first' without . That's the reason why and are almost the same meaning. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What does 尿が近い and 尿が遠い mean?
seeing / in some medical documents and sites, what does and mean in this sense? Does it literally mean the urine is far(ranged)/urine is close (ranged)? | In this case, []{} and []{} express temporal intervals and not spatial distances -- "at shorter intervals" and "at longer intervals", respectively.
[]{} means "having the tendency of urinating frequently".
means the opposite of that -- "not having to pee very often".
We also say euphemistically / to express the exact same ideas without using the word (= "urine").
(Needless to say, / can also be used for their "literal" meanings -- "The restroom is close by / far away.") | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 21,
"question_score": 15,
"tags": "meaning, etymology"
} |
Sentence ending with こと or もの in mathematics definitions
I'm reading a mathematics textbook, and there are a number of sentences which end with or .
I can work out the intended meaning no problem, so what I would like explained to me, are the rules for when I can use this grammatical construction.
This seems to happen in definitions, especially if mathematically written conditions are involved.
For example:
>
>
> 1. m1, m2 ∈ N ⇒ m1 + m2 ∈ N, 0 ∈ N
>
> 2. r ∈ R, n ∈ N ⇒ r•n ∈ N
>
>
>
>
or
> f: S → T (surjection, epimorphism) f (S) = T
I asked a (non-Japanese) mathematician, who told me that this can be used to give commands, e.g., However, I don't see why a command would appear in definitions in this way... | The sentence-final copula `` ("be") is almost always omitted because it's obvious in definitions, leaving the sentences looking like ending with nouns. Both `` and `` are frequently used nominalizers translating "what do ~" and "doing ~" respectively.
> 1. (...) 2. (...)
> _i.e. **what** satisfies 1. (...) and 2. (...)._
* * *
> f:S→T f(S)=T
> _f:S→T is a surjection means **that** f(S)=T holds true._
> less literally, _f:S→T is a surjection when f(S)=T holds true._ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "nominalization, mathematics"
} |
かい and だい - age?
I often see claims that they are only used to people your own age or younger. But is that true, or an exaggeration based on the fact that you'd use more polite forms to someone older, usually? For example, could you use them speaking to your parents, with whom you'd use the plain form anyway? | They would sound pretty funny talking with your parents. In fact, a lot of Japanese people use form with their parents.
There are a lot of regional dialects in Japan and that could influence their usage (though as you surmise age tends to be the most significant factor), but in this case I think they really _are_ uncommon with younger people. Maybe ...sometimes. ... Hmm, yes, rare, even these cases is sort of like imitation/acting more than actual self. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words"
} |
Use of ◯ in titles
I came across something that had favorite works of characters.
One was:
>
>
>
And another was:
>
>
>
Is this simply a way of not actually putting the titles to avoid copyright issues? Is this common? | It is, and it is. It's a way to make references to well-known works without the legal headaches that using the actual copyrighted title would. This is quite common in parodies - Gintama for example has used this trick to no end; the anime does this instead by bleeping out a syllable or two as the character states the name.
I could be wrong, but from my experience it seems like the kind of thing that would be out-of-place in more serious works. I can't remember seeing it used for anything other than humorous effect, but I don't know that that never happens.
Names of celebrities and other famous people often get similar treatment. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "usage, symbols"
} |
貸してもいいですか versus 借りてもいいですか
According to my teacher who is a native Japanese, the second option cannot be used even though it is grammatically correct. What do you think? Any comments are appreciated.
# Option 1
>
>
>
# Option 2
>
>
> | >
This sounds strange. You use for asking for permission (= 'May I ~~?'), so '' is correct. If you want to use the verb , here is the action done by the listener, not the speaker, so you would rather say
>
You use for requesting/asking someone to do something (= 'Could you ~~?')
You can also say
>
Here the subject would be because the subject of is the listener but the subject of is the speaker. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
Can『ます形』やすい and 『ます形』にくい be rephrased as やすく『ます形』and にくく『ます形』?
Consider the following.
>
>
>
Can I rephrase them as follows?
>
>
> | I am afraid your last two sentences make no sense, but at least you are clearly thinking "logically" here because those two sentences would surely work if they were in another language.
(= "easy to do/handle") , in modern Japanese, is mainly used in the format:
> []{} of a verb +
When in that format, one can conjugate into if one needs to add another phrase to it as in:
PC **** []{}= "This PC is not only easy to use, but is also inexpensive!"
(Hope my use of and in one sentence did not confuse some users.)
Your last two sentenes could be corrected to something like:
[]{}[]{}(or )[]{} **** ****
[]{} | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.