INSTRUCTION
stringlengths 11
999
| RESPONSE
stringlengths 0
999
| SOURCE
stringlengths 16
38
| METADATA
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
What does the word ใใจใพใใmean?
It is said by a boy who has just finished talking about his plan to a group of little kids. Here is the sentence.
**** | It means somethng like "So, ~~" used when trying to wrap up a convo or explanation. It is mostly an attention-drawer than a meaningful phrase.
The is, believe it or not, a quotative particle used to refer to the over-all content of the speaker's statement that is now ending. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
What does " ่ชๅใฎ่ธใซ่ใใฆ้ ๆด " mean? Not Literally
Not the literal meaning, I know its some sort of tsukkomi, but I can't quite figure out what it means.
The best idea I've got is something along the lines of "give me back my concern" or something like that. I'm probably way off though. | It most often means:
**"You (should) know the answer deep down."** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "translation, words, meaning"
} |
Can a sentence end in a noun?
This is a complete sentence from a book.
>
>
> (There was??) delicious food and a fun sparrow dance.
For context, in the previous sentence an old man is introduced to the bird and its friends. In the succeeding sentence we are told that the old man had a great time.
1) Is the sentence correct or is there a bit missing from the end? I would like to write
2) If it is correct what is the grammar here? Under what circumstances can I omit the verb and why would I do so?
3) What is doing. It appears to be acting as 'and'. I've never seen this before? | 1. The sentence is fine in a storybook sense. It is not a complete sentence, but books don't always use complete sentences--English included. The verb is implied, though it wouldn't be like you wrote. or more colorfully perhaps
2. You can omit anything that is understood without it. As Japanese is very verb-centric it's more common to omit nouns than verbs, but sometimes, as in this example, it's fine to omit the verb.
3. The here means "in addition to" or "not only". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, conjunctions, nouns"
} |
ๅฃฒใ exact usage/meaning
I was reading a Japanese text, and came across this piece of dialogue : "" "......" But I really can't seem to understand what the second person is trying to say by "" ? "" is supposed to mean "to sell", is he trying to say that fighting sells basically ? I also can't seem to understand what the text is saying by "", even though it means "to buy" technically. I just really can't understand the use of these two verbs here. | Learning phrases like is a hard part of any language because they are often not even thought to be idioms or set phrases. So you will not find them in a book or a book. In the case of , you might find example sentences in the regular dictionary entry for , but for any language, not only Japanese, it is good to also have a collocation reference. Here is one I have read before and found interesting:
But really any will do. It's very interesting to see which nouns and verbs go together and the different meanings you get when you combine them.
In this specific situation
>
means to pick a fight / throw down the gauntlet, and
>
means the opposite of "back down": to accept a challenge | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, usage, verbs, expressions"
} |
Listing modifiers with ใใงใใ
Taken from an educational book with parallel English literal translation. The original work is Mishima's "Patriotism".
>
>
> Reiko recalled the faces of the cheerful young officers who were such dear friends of her husband and had often paid social visits to the house.
What I'm having trouble with is the copula:
****
With that translation, I'd expect the sentence to look like:
**** ****
Where relationship between and is copulative and the sentence becomes
X Reiko recalled X (the noun phrase that describes the officers).
In other words, I am very confused about the original sentence's grammar and looking for an explanation how it turns into what it was translated into in the educational text. | Parse it as
> [{()()()}]
* and all modify .
* is the continuative form of .
()
-> ()()
or, (*)()
* sounds more literary than .
eg.
() -> ()()
() -> ()()
() -> ()() or ()() | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, translation, copula"
} |
Etymology of ใจใซใใ
I was wondering with anyone knew the etymology of or any of its variants. The literal meaning doesn't make sense when you consider its actual meaning, so I got curious. | It comes from Classical Japanese idiomatic phrase , analyzed into ("some way") + ("in") + ("that way; such a way") + ("in"), and as a whole meant for "by some means or other" or "by any means".
The kanji you may often see () is ateji. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
Validity of ็ด
่ใๅบๆฅใ?
Based off my understanding of in this context, it is used to describe something as coming to be. Would saying be a natural way of saying that the red leaves of autumn have come to be (i.e. the leaves have turned red)?
The full sentence of this context is as below.
> | doesn't sound natural. I think []{} is what you're looking for. For example:
> []{}[]{}
Or you could use (Lit. with / because of the red leaves)
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, usage"
} |
"Also..." interjection in Japanese; appending an additional request or afterthought
In Japanese, how would one go about appending an additional request or afterthought?
For example:
> 1:
"Water please."
> 2:
"..Ah **also** , could you add ice (to that)?" / "Additionally, could you add ice (to that)?"
More specifically, what would be the most natural way of filling in ? The closest word I know of would be , though I feel this word may be incorrect in this situation.
**Also** , is there a more natural way of phrasing the example sentences? | Most naturally and commonly, that would be:
> **** ****
We also use as well.
Despite what you stated, is not a bad choice at all. Native speakers use that, too.
You can say , /, etc. as well. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 10,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "translation, words, expressions, questions"
} |
Does XใYใจๆใใใhere mean to feel X to be Y?
I am not confident I parsed this correctly (text from Mishima's Patriotism). Please confirm or deny:
>
Can this be summed up as AB, as in the lieutenant **felt** the words (described by A) to be the **product** (of his "education", described by B). (I am not not looking for translation, but rather for whether I understood the underlying syntax correctly).
Thank you. | Yes, you are correct on this.
is one big relative clause where everything else eventually modifies .
The narrator is saying that the lieutenant feels Reiko's statement to be his huge . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
The meaning of the phrase 'sou janai' (romaji)
What does the phrase 'sou janai' (romaji) mean in an informal speaking context? | 'That's not so', 'no', 'you're wrong', &c. By the way, it's 'Rลmaji' (no N), not 'romanji'. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "phrases"
} |
Can "yee ka ka desu ka" mean "how are you?"
I was learning Japanese a few years ago and a phrase I picked up (I think from the Pimsleur program) was "Yee ka ka desu ka" (or maybe the "Yee" was written as "ii" to pronounce as a short form of "ee"), to mean "how are you?"
I then said this to some Japanese people I met. Some say it can mean "how are you", but some showed a "what is it?" facial expression and when I tell them what I meant to say, told me it can't mean "how are you". Can this phrase mean it? Or perhaps only in a certain context or between really close friends who saw each other recently? | I think you're referring to
>
> ikaga desu ka
which is the polite version of
>
> dou desu ka
> How are things?
It can be used to ask "How are you?" in a polite way, but **only with caution** : ikaga desu ka is mostly used to mean "Would you like some?", so if you're holding something in your hand, one might assume you're offering to give something.
The more complete way of asking "How are you?" in a polite way would be
> ****
> ikaga **osugoshi** desu ka
> How are you doing?
If it's clear from the context of a conversation, short forms like
>
> ikaga desu ka, saikin
> How are things recently?
may be used, but {ikaga desu ka} is **not used to start off a conversation**. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 16,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, phrase requests, questions, greetings"
} |
In what type of social settings could one say "็พๅง{ใฒใใใใใ}"?
My understanding is that " **** " is a very impolite way to refer to modern-day traditional Japanese farmers. A good translation might be " _country bumpkin_ ".
As best I can remember:
I learned that word while relaxing with friends at an {} in Tokyo. Subsequent to that, I tried using it in daily conversations with not very close friends. Each time, I was cautioned about saying " **** ". Those who refer to farmers as " **** " imply that they, themselves, are cultured and refined, while the " **** " lead uneducated, unrefined, bumpkin-ish lifestyles.
1. Is my recollection of meaning and usage correct?
2. In what type of settings would a non-native Japanese speaker be able to say " **** " and not be judged as an elitist jerk? In fact, I'd hope to be judged as being someone who knows clever slang. | > 1.Is my recollection of meaning and usage correct?
Yes, it is correct and that is because []{} is closer to "peasant" than to "farmer" in feeling.
> 2.In what type of settings would a non-native Japanese speaker be able to say " " and not be judged as an elitist jerk? In fact, I'd hope to be judged as being someone who knows clever slang.
Whether you are a Japanese-learner or native speaker, there are basically no situations where you can call a farmer a without offending someone. The only exception would be when a farmer calls himself a , which happens quite often.
We have the term , which sounds more "correct" than the plain but it still would not be used much in public by the more careful speakers -- in particular, by the media. In private conversations, though, is still heard fairly often.
The safest word choices would be {} or . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "words"
} |
What does the word ใใใฆใใใใฃใ mean?
I have come across the word in a manga. It is said by a boy who was talking about the future plan of selling prizes awarded from playing Pachinko.
Here is the sentence including the word:
> {} ****
I'm not sure if the word is related to the word {}. | It has nothing to do with []{}(= to become slimmer); That is for sure.
+ +
, needless to say, is the -form of .
is a colloquial (or regional) pronunciation of .
See here: [ []{}]( (Toward the bottom of the page)
means .
**** **** = "would/will not be doing ~~", "am not doing ~~", etc.
Other examples with the same structure:
> []{}[]{} **** **** = "No one will eat it!"
>
> []{}[]{} **** **** = "There is no way I could afford a car!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "colloquial language, particle ใฏ, renyลkei"
} |
About: ้ใใๅฃใใตใใใใชใ
`` means: `Feel shocked`, or `Unbelievable`, right?
**My question is:**
What does `` mean, what is that verb without ``? | is an intransitive verb which means _to shut_ , _to close_ , etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "words"
} |
ใใใใ่ณชๅใใ versus ใใใใใช่ณชๅใใ
Most people use . But if I analyze it, is .
So I think it should be . What do you think? | * can be used as a standalone adverb. (e.g. , , ...)
* without is a _verb_ , and it cannot be directly modified by the dictionary form of an adjective. (See this similar question on /)
Thus, these three phrases are all natural:
*
*
*
But this phrase is non-standard:
* | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Is the phrase ๅใ็งใ used in ordinary speech?
It seems common in advertising, but is it used in speech? | I don't think it's commonly used in everyday conversations. To say 'we all', we usually use , , etc., depending on the formality. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
Can't quite parse these sentences
I'm reading an interview with a manga artist and having trouble making sense out of this part:
>
I get the first part just fine, but after the part I can't quite work out what he's saying. A little help, anyone? | > โ
| stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "parsing"
} |
On the grammar of ใฟใใช่ฆใใกใญ
At the end of an anime the next episode is advertised with a recurring joke where the character says:
>
It's supposed to translate as 'Everybody watch Mero.'. But surely it actually translates to the incomplete sentence 'Mero who everybody watches...'. Wouldn't 'Everyone watch Mero' actually be
>
or something similar, which, admittedly, is less cute. So my question is, does the original sentence actually translate to 'everyone watch Mero' and if so, why? Or is it funny because it's a word for word translation of how an English person who didn't know Japanese would say it. Or is there a big hole in my understanding of Japanese grammar? | Adding a peculiar "sound" at the end of almost every sentence is an idiosyncrasy of many characters in Japanese anime/manga/games.
Most of these sounds are simply omitted after being translated into English, but there are a few exceptions. For example even in the English version of _Final Fantasy_ , moogles speak like "How are you, kupo!"), and this kupo means nothing.
This typically happens for childish, mascot-like characters. In your example, is repeatedly said by a girl who jokingly plays an imaginary infantile character who likes to always add at the end. Semantically, it just means . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "grammar, nuances, anime"
} |
Trouble understanding the meaning of ๆใฃใ่ฉ here
The man is about to commit harakiri:
****
What is understood here by "pointy shoulders" (if I'm understanding correctly)? How can pointy shoulders (which I assume to be part of his uniform) show that he was gathering his strength? | []{} = square one's shoulders
He squared his shoulders under the uniform. You could see that he was gathering his strength from the shape of his squared, raised shoulders.
> []{}[]{}[]{}
โ []{} or
= his squared shoulders under the uniform | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "comprehension"
} |
Please clarify how to choose ๅฑๆ น{ใใญ} vs. ๅฑไธ{ใใใใใ}
I am pretty confident in saying that **** is a tangible location. Like:
" **** "
" **** "
I've always thought of **** as "ceiling" (but I've never really used it in practice). maybe:
" **** "
So, what are the differences between **** and **** ? | = rooftop floor
>
You say
etc.
>
()() | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Frozen: Idina Menzel pronounces "Sayaka" ( ๆฒไนๅ )?
2021 Update: RIP :'(
* * *
In this video, Idina Menzel says "My friend, Sayaka." (referring to Sayaka Kanda, Japanese voice of Anna from Frozen)
She gives emphasis to the YA which seems to be similar to this review of the anime School Days wherein the reviewer says "MaKOto" and "KaTSUra".
So, what is the correct pronunciation of "Sayaka" ? Google Translate gives 2 different pronunciations. The Japanese one is the one I'm thinking and the American one is the one Idina said. | The pitch for Sayaka is HLL (or in your notation SAyaka).
Also Makoto has pitch LHH and Katsura has pitch HLL.
Stressing the penultimate syllable is a frequent pronunciation mistake that especially native speakers of English seem to be prone to (but of course not only native _English_ speakers).
Stressing the penultimate syllable is one of the main ingredients for speakers of Japanese to emulate an American accent. (Other ingredients would be wrongly lengthened vowels and an American R, as in [SOO]{}-[shi]{} and [ten]{}-[POO]{}-[rah]{}.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 9,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "pronunciation, names, pitch accent, fiction"
} |
The difference between using ๅ
ๆฐ and ๅฎใใ/ๅฎใใ
As the title hints, I'm wondering what the usage differences are between these. I've suggested to myself that it may just be a difference with nouns and adverbs, or maybe that is just a Japanese reading of the similar meaning that can be interchanged with saying you are 'well' or 'good'.
I'd like for someone to clear this up just so I know for other examples in the future, and what sort of context they'd be used in if they are meant for different occasions. | They are quite different words.
is used to describe people (or animals etc) and their moods. It often means something like 'healthy and happy', 'doing well', etc; and when it's used to describe a personality it means something like 'positive and energetic'.
is basically the formal form of , meaning 'good (in general)', 'positive', 'satisfactory', 'permissible', etc. It's used to describe mostly situations and actions. (I don't think you can really use to mean 'high quality' or 'nice' like you can , but I could be wrong.)
Be careful not to let your understanding of English words get in the way of your understanding of Japanese words. English 'good' can mean many things, including 'doing well', 'positive', 'satisfactory', 'high quality', even 'not in need of what you're offering'; and there's no single Japanese word that corresponds to all of these senses. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar, usage, syntax"
} |
In daily conversation, frogs are called ใใใ not ใใใ, right?
I'm pretty sure that, in daily conversation, "frogs" are called , right? Can someone please confirm this?
I know that "frogs" are also called in this {}
> {}
But, by definition, s are archaic. So, in summary, in daily conversation, a frog is exclusively called , right? | Yes, the everyday word in modern Japanese is . The other word is now basically an archaic synonym appearing in traditional poetry, the proverb you mention, and so forth.
They weren't always treated as synonyms, though; if you'd like to learn more about the history of the two words and the difference in meaning they originally had, you might find this blog entry by Matt Treyvaud interesting.
I'm not sure it makes sense to say are archaic by definition. I think it makes more sense to say that many contain archaic language. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, animals"
} |
When does ไปใซ refer to?
On jisho.org, the definition of is given as "before long; even now" and is given as "at any time; soon" so the both seem to refer to the near future with perhaps being more immediate. However, example sentences I've seen seem to give no indication that is referring to a near future. E.g., also from jisho.org:
> You will yet regret it.
>
> You'll see.
>
> You'll get it someday.
Does indicate a near future? If not, why is used in this way? | []{} surely means " ** _in the near future_** " said in the speaker's **inference** or **volition**. A synonym would be .
In all of your three example sentences, is used that way. If it did not feel like it, it would be because of the liberty taken in the translations.
Not that I did not know it before, jisho is not such a good dictionary if it just says means "before long; even now" because "even now" is the literary usage of . It is rarely used for that meaning in one's everyday kind of conversation. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Problem parsing this sentence, particle (postposition) ใฎ
> (
My trouble lies with
>
If I consider to act as adverbial form of , then I don't know what is modified by : taking to work in attributive role modifies nouns, and there is no noun here; taking to work as an agent case marker doesn't make sense to me, as there is nothing for to act upon.
Taking as a noun doesn't make sense either because it's missing a case marker, something like
> **** with in allative role)
**In other words, how does work here?**
A bit more if necessary for context:
| That is not an adverb but two nouns of and .
The functions as the possessive marker for the , in other words stands for deep inside the abdomen. The here is a noun (like that means a deep part and the relation between is 'equivalent'.
In this example, those nouns are used like an adverb by their own, but if you add , it should be . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "syntax, particle ใฎ, parsing"
} |
Grammatical Pattern : VerbใฆใฎNoun
What does this grammatical structure/pattern mean?
I am trying to understand the meaning of the following sentence where the VerbNoun pattern appears.
> "64โโ"
How do you translate the aforementioned sentence? | > Verb in []{} + + + Noun
is a phrase pattern in which the "Verb + + " part describes the condition that generates what is expressed by the following noun.
โ[]{}[]{}โ[]{}[]{} means:
**"casting based upon his reputation as having the 'Showa-esque face'"**
here means "to be regarded highly".
(I am not translating the whole sentence because you did not show us your attempt.)
I am sure some of you have come across the phrase []{}[]{}, which is in the same structure. "You must see it to enjoy it!" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 11,
"question_score": 7,
"tags": "translation, syntax, ใฆ form"
} |
Do ่ฆใใ - ่ฆใใ come from ่ฆใ?
I have not learnt much yet but I am interested in knowing it quickly. My questions are:
* Do (to see, to be seen, to be visible, to appear) and (to show, to display) come from (to look, to see, to watch, to take a look)?
* If yes, what kind of conjugation are used?
The term "conjugation" I mean here is like another conjugation, for example,
* -
* -
* etc | is euphonic change (or slurring) from , which is a form of , which is a form of โ combined with auxiliary verb .
was a form of , which is combination of aforementioned and auxiliary verb . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Confusion in choosing either ่ฆใใใ or ่ชญใฟใใใ
I have done a homework. In the worksheet there are figures of two digital clocks. One is small and the other one is much bigger.
My teacher said the following sentences contextually are not correct. She gave a red cross mark for each.
>
>
>
But I also provided other options as follows and she gave me green marks that mean correct answers.
>
>
>
I am still confused why the first group using is not contextually correct but the other one using is correct. Do you have any idea? In my understanding, we read the clock and reading is a subset of seeing. Therefore if seeing is considered correct then reading must be also considered correct. | Although this seems so a subtle (non essential) problem that everyone understands what you mean, I might support your teacher in the following reasons.
As you stated in your question, reading is in the subset of seeing. In general context, however, you should use general terms. To love is a subset of to like. (Well, perhaps.) Do you feel like saying ''I love you'' to your colleagues as well as to your girl friend?
Secondly, we Japanese don't think that we can read a clock, but rather look at a clock and read off **time** from the clock. So, your teacher would accept
> **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What does ใใใฟใใใใฃใฆ ใใใจใใใใ mean?
I have found it in a manga in a situation that there is a news reporter asking the following sentence to a boy whom the reporter thought that he is living in a ruin building with a group of little kids.
** ** | > **** ?
There is a transitive verb which means _to yearn for_. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "translation, manga"
} |
What does ใใใใ ใช mean?
An example I read is:
> .
> (They) have accepted our conditions...
What does the last part mean, and how does it affect the first part? | >
The is the quotative particle. The subject of is the speaker. consists of (te-form of ) + (good; allowed) + (nominalizer ) + (copula / auxiliary verb) + (sentence-ending particle), meaning "It's okay to ~~, right?"
> May I take it that you/they have accepted our conditions? | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
"้ท{ใใฟใชใ}" is thunder, or lightning, or both?
* In daily conversation, " **** " means both the lightning and the accompanying thunder as a single phenomenon, right?
* At night, I sometimes see lightning on the horizon, but no thunder. That is , right?
* All the time, I hear the thunder, but not see the lightning. That is also , right?
* Does "" sound like natural Japanese?
* Does "" sound like natural Japanese? | Yes, refers to both the lightning and the sound caused by it.
If you need to distinguish, the specific term for the visible discharge of the light is , and the specific word for the sound is . Although these words often appear in news media and scientific papers, we usually just use in everyday conversations.
As for the last two questions, the natural ways to say them are "( **** )?" and "( **** )?". "" is often omitted in conversations, and we don't use "" there. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 21,
"question_score": 17,
"tags": "definitions"
} |
Difference between "่
น{ใฏใ}" and "ใ่
น{ใชใ}" is not ๆฌ่ช{ใใใ}?
So, the difference between {} and {} is merely the level of formality. Based only on the rules of {} you say or . note that the reading of changes by adding **** .
I am almost certain that has _nothing_ to do with deciding whether to say {} or {}. Even though the superficial difference is , the difference is not about . So, what is the difference in meaning and usage? Would a doctor refer to my abdomen as or ? Is my in the middle of my or ? | At times, they are interchangeable, but has a wider range of uses whereas is only used to refer to the belly (particularly what is 'inside' the belly).
on the other hand can have the meaning of 'gut' in the psychological sense of the word as well as the physiological sense eg 'gut feeling' or 'butterflies in my stomach'.
You can see the difference when you search for the terms in dictionaries like weblio ( vs )
As far as medical usage goes, I believe more specific terms are used eg (abdomen) or (stomach), so your would actually be in the middle of your if you wanted to be academic. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
What's the story behind ้ป and ้ป? Why are they different?
In Chinese 'black' is and in Japanese it's , but the kanji are not the same. In traditional Chinese it's exactly the same as in simplified so both are but Japanese is different. Was simplified? | Yes, is the {} (simplified) form of , which took the two dots at the top and turned them into a straight line. The same simplification can be seen in -> . This was all part of the 1945 simplification scheme in Japanese.
is still used in chinese though, both simplified and traditional, and has the exact same meaning of "black", as you pointed out.
Without going too much into it for fear of being off-topic, Japan underwent its simplification of characters in 1945 -- earlier than Chinese. Because of this, it has a few different forms. Simplified chinese has a lot of the same simplifications, but equally there are a few divergences every now and again. is an example where Japan changed the character from , and Chinese never did. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji, chinese, kyลซjitai and shinjitai"
} |
Phrases to describe looking something up somewhere other than a dictionary
Looking something up in a dictionary is
{}{}
But what about looking something up in ALC? Which particle is correct? Would we say
> ALC{}
or
> ALC{}
or something else? | (Just copying comment)
If it's you'd say:
* ALC ****
* ****
* **** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "usage, particles"
} |
Does ใใฃใณใใซใผ come from Indonesian?
Quoted from the Japanese Wikipedia entry about
> campur[1][2][3][1] nasi
Does come from Indonesian? | I don't know about this word's () history in Japanese, but yes, in Indonesian there is a word "campur". Campur means "mix"; from an Indonesian-Japanese dictionary: Because I often hear this word "campur" in Indonesian, in my opinion, it could have come from Indonesian. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
Where does the ใ reading of ่ฝ in ๆด่ฝ come from?
Both wiktionary and jisho.org list the on'yomi for as . The kun'yomi is {}, {}, or {}. So I'm wondering how this kanji developed the reading in {} and {}. | Technically is not a reading of , is a reading of . A reading which ignores the usual reading of the characters.
I think it is arguable whether this is:
:assigning kanji to words for their phonetic value, ignoring their semantic value. This is often used for e.g. native Japanese geographical names, like , .
:assigning multiple kanji to (usually native Japanese) words based on their semantics, but ignoring the morphemes they usually represent. A commonly used example would be the reading of .
If we believe the etymology on < originally had a reading of , which meant something like "frank, carefree", but started to be used for for both its phonetic similarity and semantic similarity.
So maybe the most precise decription is to say that it's _both_ an imperfect and an imperfect . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "etymology, readings"
} |
Understanding the particle ใฎ when used with the verb ็ฅใ
I was looking at the title of the song
>
I thought translated into something like
> Your Unknown Story
but it was actually
> The Story You Don't Know
I'm confused as to why its translated like this.
If the here shows possession, and the verb means "I don't know" it should be Your unknown story shouldn't it? | See this answer. **snailboat** puts it rather nicely.
In short, it may make more sense to think about it as [ **** ] (and in fact, they are equivalent).
The subject of is implied to be , and thus the title can be translated as:
the story you (the subject) don't know
The title could only be translated to "your unknown story" if the subject could be inferred to be "everyone else". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, verbs, conjugations"
} |
What does ใใใใจใใ mean?
In JoJo's Bizarre Adventure anime, Stardust Crusaders arc, episode 3, a person who JoJo (the protagonist) just saved, asks JoJo why he did that, to which JoJo replies
> **** .
Later on, JoJo asks why he decided to join him, to which also replies
> ****
What does it mean? "This and that" (no particular reason)? | Both **** and **** are colloquial pronunciations of:
> ****
This is a very common expression which means " _ **the point (that has just been) raised**_ ".
You would need to memorize , etc. to be able to use them naturally because you simply **will not** arrive at them by directly translating any English phrases.
These phrases are often followed immediately by , , etc. making the whole phrase mean " _ **Regarding the point raised(, though,)**_ ". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "anime"
} |
A Question About the Suffix ใ
While studying yesterday, I came across two words with the suffix :
(translated as innocence) and (translated as generosity).
1) What's the difference between these words and the words without the ? I thought that -adjectives without the are already nouns.
2) Can I add to other too, for example or ? | 1) I know that some people like to categorize -adjectives in this way, but IMHO it's silly. There are many -adjectives that don't work as nouns without the , and there are many nouns that don't work as -adjectives by adding .
2) is quite productive, so in general, I _want_ to say yes. However:
* Although everybody will understand (and I can find many examples of it on Google), it sounds (to me) a bit clumsy or childish, since is already also a noun meaning the same thing.
* is completely grammatical, and is in fact probably the most common way to express the concept. However, there is often another more technical word expressing the same thing, in this case for example . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "suffixes, na adjectives"
} |
What does the word ใใใใฃใฆใใใใใใใ mean?
Here is the sentence including the word.
** ** | It's a colloquial/slurred way of saying []{}(), "If/when you are admired/followed (by these kids)". is the passive of , to respect, admire, and/or follow. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
How can ใๆใใซใ็ฉใใใใใพใ be converted to ใ็ฉใใฏใๆใใงใ?
Consider the following,
1.
2.
What I don't understand is the second sentence which is another form for the first one. It is caused by the fact that there is no preposition in the second one.
If you don't understand what I meant, let consider the following sentences. The first two sentences are understandable because they have English equivalents. But it is not the case for the last one.
* This is a book.
* This book is red.
* This book is on the table. I never read and hear in which there is inserted between and .
Can anybody here explain why? | You can say:
> Where's the book? ()
> It's on the desk. ()
> The book is on the desk. ()
and no one would think you're saying "The book is upper part of a desk".
Similar examples are:
> Dad is upstairs.
> Taro is away at school.
> My sister is in London now.
You can even say:
> (I'll have eel.)
> (I'll have orange juice.)
at a cafe or restaurant, and no one would think you're saying you're an eel or orange juice.
> *
is incorrect. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What does ใใใจใซใชใใใญใ mean?
> {{}{} ****
What does mean? Is it equivalent to | > (~)
I think it's slurred (~)+()+
i.e. (~)()
For example:
> โ (/) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Help understanding ๆกใใใใ็ฃใใๆใ
>
>
> It is better to get down to work than (just) to worry about it (beforehand). Fear can magnify a danger. A danger is not as great as it seems in advance. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
I am a bad with classical Japanese so please need some help understanding the grammar here.
All I can see is is old of , and the perhaps a contrastive adverbial clause ("rather than worry...") if modern rules apply but what is the part - how does that translate to "fear"? (a somewhat detailed grammar breakdown would be appreciated!) | * : rather than worrying
* : to worry (archaic version of )
* : than
* : bearing (a baby) (is)
* : to bear (a baby)
* : (subject marker)
* : easy (archaic version of )
Since this is a proverb, here is used to figuratively mean "to actually do something". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "classical japanese"
} |
If ็ตๅฉ is written as ็ต{ใใฃ}ๅฉ{ใใ} rather than ็ต{ใ}ใฃๅฉ{ใใ}, why do we write ๆ{ใ}ใฃใฆ rather than ๆ{ใใฃ}ใฆ?
My question is:
If is written as {}{} rather than {}{}, why do we write {} rather than {}? | is a Chinese loanword; is native Japanese. In chinese loanwords, sometimes final sounds like get contracted to , but because it's still {}, the is still "part of" the reading. Often 2-kanji words are chinese in origin.
In the case of , the is a suffix to 's root, . on its own doesn't have a sound in it. Same goes for -> .
On the note of Japanese vs Chinese, you do actually get some words with for 2-character compounds that are Japanese in origin. An example is {}{}, moving house. This one again has it because doesn't naturally contain is the Kanji -- the kanji alone with its Japanese reading is (though you would never say it alone). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "orthography, okurigana"
} |
Meaning of sentence
I have some trouble understanding this sentence:
> ABC | It's the format of a traditional Japanese joke in the form of a riddle (). The wording is kind of fixed and outdated, so you may find it a bit difficult to understand from today's language.
> ABC
> Literally: _(I) pose (you) A, and (you) answer B. The clue is... C._
> Meaning: _What do A and B have in common? It's C._
What goes in _C_ is the punch line and often is a pun on _A_ and _B_. Sometimes the entire joke is given in monologue, sometimes it's played in Q&A style (the original way): "What is like _A_?" โ " _B_ is." โ "Why?" โ "Because _C_."
An example from Wikipedia:
>
> _Why is a "mini-skirt" like a "wedding speech"? Because "the shorter (they are), the more are pleased (with them)"._ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Are ่ญใ{ใใใ} and ่
ใ{ใใใ} related?
Do {} and []{} have similar roots? They obviously sound very similar; the only difference in pronunciation is the final mora, but maybe that's only because of the part of speech. The meanings are related as well. When things rot, they tend to smell bad. Of course, isn't restricted to just bad food, but meanings tend to change/broaden over time.
So I'm wondering, were these once pretty much the same word, separated once they were given kanji? Or have they always been thought about separately, and the sound/meaning is just coincidence? | lists theories that they might be connected for the very same reason you mentioned, among others.
>
The way I understand it, it is generally believed that , along with , stems from , but that is not proven (and there are other conflicting theories, such as stemming from , whose reading I can't quite explain).
Apart from that, I've been able to retrieve two related citations from the , from two different sources. The first one is for , from a Yahoo! question.
> ()()
The second one is for (classical form of ), which can be found here.
> <()()>
As you can see, both entries cross-reference each other.
So, it seems like the connection is definitely the most agreed upon theory, although there does not seem to be a definite proof. There definitely seems to be some kind of connection between (at least two of) , and , though, although we can't know for sure how exactly it's laid out. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "etymology"
} |
In what contexts might one say "้ขจๅ{ใตใ}" instead of "ใ[้ขจๅ]{ใตใ}"?
In what contexts might "" be used instead of ""? "" has been lexicalized. "" is almost lexicalized. What about ""? | Off the top of my head....
1. In scholarly and/or technical writing regarding bathing or baths.
2. In advertisement for apartments, describing whether they are equipped with bath tubs or not.
3. In the news about a bathroom.
Regardless of the context, many male speakers choose to use over on a daily basis. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "honorifics"
} |
Meaning of ๅฝๅๅ
(ใพใๅฝๅๅ
ใ ใใใช)
Colleague talking about a very expensive business event:
> 1
What does mean in this context? | It means "not in the near (but further into the) future". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning"
} |
Difference betweenใๅบใใใใใๆกใใใ
These have the same reading as , but a different kanji. Is there any variation in connotation between these, or is it just variant spelling? Is then, as I believe it is, the more commonly used of the two? | Although _Shinmeikai_ and _Daijiten_ have these as being exactly the same, _Meikyล_ provides a narrow band of usage for . [This answer was rewritten to reflect this.] is used for "broaden" or "enlarge," but not for "unfurl". can be used for all three.
There is another kanji associated with , , which is used only in the sense of "unfurl". It's comparatively rare. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "word choice, words, kanji"
} |
Polite/nice way to ask for a language exchange partner
>
Is what I currently came up with but I think it is much to direct. I want to express something like this: "I would be very pleased to find a Japanese language exchange partner" (meaning a male or female, native speaker) | I would say
(or French or Russian? I don't know what your mother tongue is.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "politeness, english to japanese"
} |
Possible idiom or grammar structure I don't understand
Taking the sentence below:
> โฆ
The first part (), I take to mean "as a food source".
The second part (), I take to mean "hunters".
Tying that together with the , it looks like "Hunters __ as a food source...
The last part (), I believe is "exist(s)".
It looks like the sentence says "Hunters exist as a food source..." However, this doesn't make sense in context. Does anyone know where (or if) I'm messing up on my grammar? | > "Hunters exist as a food source."
This translation clearly makes no sense and needless to say, it is not what the original means, either. Basically, you are making at least **two** mistakes here.
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
1. You are not "seeing" the unmentioned direct object for the verb []{} = "to hunt". **In Japanese, it is the reader/listener's job to, from the context, "fill in the blanks" created by the writer/speaker**. You must learn to "see" them.
2. You translated into "hunters". That cost you in the end, did it not? That is "translating too much". It means "those who hunt".
That said, the biggest mistake you made is not giving us the context if I may get down to business here. How do we know what kind of translation fits the context?
I am imagining the context to be like there are those who hunt animals for pleasure and those who hunt for food -- that kinda stuff. Thus, my TL attempt would be something like:
**_"There exist those who hunt (animals) for food."_** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, particles, verbs, particle ใ"
} |
Does ไบฌ้ฝ use ใใใใใor ใ ๏ผ
Also, is used at all in I know is at least more common, even among female speakers. And has fallen out of use? | My experience with speakers in Kyoto is that they use most if they're going to use dialectal patterns. men also, surprisingly to me, use fairly regularly.
I've never heard , but it's possible I just never caught it. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 0,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, dialects"
} |
Can ใญใผใฆใฃ be used to mean New Zealander?
Outside of Australia and New Zealand, am I likely to be understood by Japanese speakers if I use to mean New Zealanders?
Based on what weblio and Wiktionary say, I suspect not, but I want to check as sometimes dictionaries don't mention slang terms. | I would have to say no.
refers only to the kiwifruit to at least 99% of Japanese-speakers -- perhaps even more.
Those who have lived in New Zealand or Australia **_might_** refer to a New Zealander as among themselves, but that kind of private usage still would not count as an established meaning of the word within the Japanese language. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "meaning, slang, loanwords"
} |
How to say ''Mathematics is the most beautiful and powerful creation of human spirit" in Japanese?
My attempt is as follows:
> {}{}[]{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Is it correct? | To use as much of what you used as possible, just **drop the ** and you will have at least a grammatical sentence. You **cannot** say **** \+ adjective to mean "most (adjective)" or "(adjective)est".
The next step would be to replace the conversational by the more formal[]{}.
Then, I would seriously think about the validity of the in . Having been here so long, I know is Japanese-learners' favorite subject marker. (They often use it even when it should **_not_** be used at all.) More context is needed to choose between and here. Generally speaking, one needs a very good reason to use . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Is there any difference for using ้ฃ็จๅฝข vs ้ฃไฝๅฝข when listing ๅฝขๅฎนๅ่ฉ to modify a ๅ่ฉ?
E.g.
>
>
>
Are they both grammatical and mean the exact same thing? | If you mean "risky **and** speculative", then you should say **** , because that's one of dedicated meaning has.
Saying (putting a comma is a good practice) for this meaning is not prohibited, but it either sounds like adding words one by one while you're speaking, which isn't very nice for written language; or could mean "risky **or** speculative".
Otherwise, might well be interpreted as "risky speculative business", that is, modifies all what comes after. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "conjugations, na adjectives"
} |
Change of viewpoint in mid-sentence
A man has just returned home to his wife and says:
>
>
> Today, I went to the sparrow's house and (ate) delicious food and (came and) saw a sparrow dance.
In the first half of the sentence he moved away from his current viewpoint (which makes sense, but in the second half doesn't suggest that he is at the sparrow's house when he is speaking (I came and saw)? Why is it not ?
I also don't understand why either or is actually needed here. Doesn't in the first half of the sentence provide all the coming and going information needed?
Lastly, I read the sentence literally to mean "saw both a sparrow dance and delicious food". I'm assuming that the "eating" is somehow implicit. But it could equally well be "cooked delicious food" for example. Am I missing any subtleties here? | is the te-form of the verb + (), the subsidiary verb () . It's used for "went (and came back)" or "have (just) been to", e.g.
> I've just been to the post office.
* * *
> []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
It literally says "Today, I went to the sparrow's house, saw delicious dishes and sparrow dance, and came back." (The []{} here is not inn but house; when ojiisan sings "suzume, suzume, oyado wa dokoda?" he's looking for the little sparrow's house, not their inn.)
But as you can see, the writer intended to say "Today, I went to the sparrow's house, ate delicious dishes, saw sparrow dance, and came back."
I'm not sure this is grammatically "correct" (actually I think it's probably sloppy/wrong) but, we often say and hear sentences like this in daily conversation, or sometimes even in tv drama:
> * I drank bread and coffee for breakfast, and...
> * I ate juice and cake for snack.
> *
> | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How to say "I see things differently than any others do" in Japanese?
I am a Japanese language student in the beginner level. I have just learnt a grammar as follows.
>
I am impatient to learn something like,
> I see things differently than any others do.
Could you give me a crash course for this? | Natural ways of saying that would be:
> **** []{}[]{} **** []{}[]{} or
>
> **** ****
Back in high school (in Japan), we would have been "required" to translate it to something like:
> ,[]{} ****
with referring to . This sounds a little more formal than the first two sentences above. The first two are more informal if not necessarily colloquial. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Can "ใ" ever mark the direct object?
A sentence in my book:
> {} **** {}{}{}{}{}{}{} {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
The very start of the sentence reads: _" **** ...."_
Why is the "" instead of " **** "?
Isn't "" the direct object of ""? | is a relative clause. It has a gap in object position:
> - - ~~~~
The gap is filled semantically by the following noun phrase :
> โ โ - -
> โก [ - - ~~~~ ]
These can be translated into English:
> โ Kanji have a systematic relationship.
> โก the systematic relationship [ _which_ kanji have ]
The details are different in English because of articles and relative pronouns, but hopefully you can see the parallel:
In example โ we have an independent clause (a complete sentence).
In example โก we come up with a noun phrase by **relativizing** the clause; we pull out one of the arguments and turn it into the head noun that the clause modifies. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "particle ใ, particle ใ, relative clauses"
} |
Can't find this kanji
Normally, I don't have much trouble finding written kanji. However, this one has me stumped:
!enter image description here
The closest character I can find is . | These are the same character, but the image you showed gives in its traditional form, and an old style. in previous forms has 2 dots in its radical , as with many other characters.
Also, the writing style is slightly old, so it looks different in "font" if you will to the computer graphics version of the character.
Looks like you didn't have much trouble finding this kanji either! | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "kanji"
} |
Nuance between ๅคฉ, ็ฉบ and ๅคง็ฉบ and between ๅฐ, ๅคงๅฐ and ๅๅฐ
I was wondering the nuance between those words.
seems to have a more mystical flavour (like in the word ).
I don't get the nuance between / and /.
seems to be a smaller/more localised land than the other two.
**Feel free to edit my post and add any related word that seems relevant.** | and both mean the same thing, but emphases the vastness of the sky. Analogous to that, and mean the same thing, but stresses the size of the land/earth.
has a nuance of being distant to or above earth and it is the word you would used to contrast against it: . For that reason, it should not be surprising that it can also mean heaven.
A recommendation for the future: I personally think the goo dictionary is very great to quickly get an overview over the differences of similar words (I also used them for reference here), see ()() and ()()(). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "nuances"
} |
How to simplify a sentence with multiple ใชใใ + ใใ?
How can I simplify what the student said in the following dialogue?
>
>
> | > **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
The biggest issue with that long sentence clearly is the overuse of and , which is making the sentence look kinda sloppy. What is worse, you are, without exaggeration, mostly saying when you are not saying and .
Thus, we need a **_major_** operation in order to make it sound like it was written by an adult speaker.
For starters, I would suggest something like:
> []{}[]{} **** **** ****
(I know that is not the kind of sentence a Japanese-learner could arrive at, but hard as I try, I cannot write like a Japanese-learner. I almost wish I could, though.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
ๅฐใใพใใ or ๅฐใฃใฆใใพใ
I'm reading a graded reader about the folktale. The gets to the statues and finds them with snow on their heads and bodies. He removes the snow from them and places hats on five out of six of them. Then he says: . After that, he realizes there's one left without a hat, he takes his off and places it on it's head. My question is, when he says , does he mean he was troubled before he put the hats on the five statues, and after that he wasn't? Or that he's troubled because there's one without a hat left? I think it's the former, and if it were the latter, it would be . Is that assumption correct? | It sounds like he said it after he realized there's one without a hat. In daily speech people say to themselves or about someone else at the moment they realize something's wrong. Saying sounds like you're asking for some kind of long term help. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, verbs"
} |
Spellings of ใใชใ๏ผใใ๏ผ
The usual spelling would be hiragana for the first part and kanji for the second, but the spellings (if the addressee is female) and (if the addressee is male) are also in use. On to my question: the spelling is more common than either, but then how would you write ? My IME offers , but that looks rather clunky. It doesn't offer , but I can find examples of that spelling. Would the first or second spelling be more common? (As I've said, the _most_ common is ) | It would depend, but would usually be fine. I simplify a bit, but overusing kanji when not needed is not preferable in everyday text. Not saying would be taken bad in anyway, just have the master nit pickers frown.
This isn't something major or thought about normally, but in newspapers and such, they will usually use
over
over
over
As for that is most likely a typo, since having after a kanji means repeating that letter, there is a word, but in this case it's (you)[](people | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "spelling"
} |
How to express that you "find" something boring, interesting etc
How can I express the nuance "I 'find' studying Japanese interesting"?
>
>
> Studying Japanese is interesting
>
>
>
> I think studying Japanese is interesting
The difference in nuance in English is that when you 'find something interesting' it implies you have some experience in the activity. This nuance is not conveyed by the above sentences (in English at least). | doesn't really mean "studying Japanese is interesting", it sounds like "I find it interesting/odd that he/she is studying Japanese".
"I find studying Japanese interesting" can be expressed as "" (or โฆโฆ). If you add โฆ, you can still express the same thing. But it's ambiguous and can also mean "I think it's studying Japanese that is interesting". If you insert after , i.e., you can get rid of the ambiguiry and it means "I find studying Japanese interesting/fun". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, nuances"
} |
Difference between ใ่ฉฑใ and ใง่ฉฑใ
> ****
> ****
I found that those two sentences can be translated as "I speak Japanese". Is there a difference regarding the particles? | On the one hand, `` in this case indicates the direct object. You are talking Japanese.
On the other hand `` indicates the means by which you accomplish the action. You are talking in Japanese, or talking using Japanese.
Note that both sentences could be extended :
* `` : I talk Japanese on the phone (using the phone).
* `{}` : I talk in Japanese (about) what happened.
* `{}` : To speak the truth
Note that the second example is not the most natural, you would often use or {} to indicate the topic. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "particles, particle ใ"
} |
็ฎฑใฎไธญใซไฝใใใใพใใ versus ็ฎฑใฎไธญใซไฝใใใพใใ when I don't know whether it is an animal or object
Suppose there is a box which can contain either an animal or object. I am confused in choosing either or when asking the contents of the box.
*
*
Which should I use in this case? Any comments are welcome. | > 1.[]{}[]{}[]{} ****
>
> 2. ****
First of all, if you want to sound natural.
**_If you absolutely must choose between the two_** , you would choose #1. That is because it is not natural to choose #2 unless you already know it is an animal inside.
There is, of course, a possibility that you say #1 and it turns out that it is an animal inside, but you would not be held responsible for using the "wrong" verb when you indeed did not know what was in the box but somehow thought it was an inanimate object.
If you did not have to choose between those two, you would have better choices and those include:
> []{}
>
> โ Only is possible here.
>
> []{}
Both of those are more neutral in the sense that whatever you find in the box in the end, you will be saved from having used the wrong word in asking your question. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
difference between ๅฎ้ and ๅฎๆ
What's the difference between and ? apparently these are two different words, but looking at the entry for and i can't understand the difference.
> : ,
isn't it the same as
> :
?
What is the difference between these two words and it's usage and nuances? | Firstly, for the overlapping meaning of "real situation", []{} is used **_far more often_** than []{}. Importantly, this is just about the only meaning is used for.
e.g. []{}, etc. ( is the largest yakuza organization.)
Very few people would use to say those in reality.
Secondly, has another meaning that does not, which is "actual practice (as opposed to theory)".
e.g. []{}[]{}(to study the actual practice of bank business)
You cannot use to say the above for the same meaning. If you do, the meaning of the phrase will change to "to study the real situation of bank business". It sounds like you are still studying with books.
Lastly, while is generally used only as a noun, is frequently used adjectivally and adverbially by adding and , respectively.
e.g. **** (Go see it in real life!) **** []{}(This is the actual letter.) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 7,
"question_score": 6,
"tags": "word choice, meaning, nuances"
} |
What is the meaning of the word ใใใใ in this sentence?
Here is the sentence including the word.
> ****
I'm not sure if I can translate it as 'Then' like this:
> Please let me take a photograph of you kids surrounding the boy 'Joe'. **Then** it will be put in a newspaper with a large picture. | As far as meaning goes,
> ****
> ****
The dictionary definitions of this would be "because" or "as".
My own would be "so that (I will be able to) ~~", "so that (it will enable me to) ~~".
This is often placed at the end of a sentence. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "translation, particle ใใ"
} |
Questions about the words ใใใใคใand ใใใฃใฆใใใใใ
It is a situation when a worker noticed that one of his colleagues is working all day and all night without taking a rest. He then said the following:
> **** ****
Then his hard-working colleague said this:
> ...
Questions:
1. Is the sentence ... a question or just an opinion or something else? could it always be a question if it contains the word ?
2. What does the word mean? | > 1. Is the sentence ... a question or just an opinion or something else? could it always be a question if it contains the word ?
>
It is a statement, not a question.
Whether or not makes the sentence a question depends on the other words used (and the sentence structure).
here means " ** _no matter how many bodies you've got_** "
> 2. What does the word mean?
>
(Kanto tough guy speech)
=[]{}(Dictionary form of above)
=(Simplified)
= "will never be enough" means "to be satisfactory in quantity"
The first sentence means:
**_"That way (โ "If you work like that"), no matter how many bodies you've got, it won't be enough!"_** | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words, manga"
} |
Humble language for other people as an insult
In fiction, I've occasionally seen humble language used for other people - it seems to be an insult, and is most common as a command (). Is my perception correct, and is the insult sense restricted to verbs that don't follow the form? (I assume, of course, that this is more common in the past and fiction than present real Japanese.) | was used like this when the speaker was clearly much higher than the listener (... well, at least in fiction). For example, a governor would say to their people,, , , , or .
These are (sometimes) called (arrogant expression?), and insult is usually _not_ intended. I think these were natural wordings between two people with different social status in those days.
Of course, these are almost never used today (except when a joke is intended). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "words"
} |
I'm trying to modify "cogito ergo sum" into "I write, therefore I am" - am I doing it right?
I apologize if I'm not making much sense, very much in the beginning of my studies.
I'd like to modify the phrase "cogito ergo sum" into one that means 'I write, therefore I am'.
What I came up with is **, **.
I figured that **** would be a good choice to convey something more than the act of writing, and indicate it's a creation/creative act.
The part of **** I took from the Japanese Wikipedia page for the phrase.
Can I have some reviews, and perhaps some pointers if I'm doing something wrong? The more details you can give me, the more I'm able to learn from this exercise.
Thank you! | You're replacing a verb with a verb, so there's not much that could have gone wrong. In other words, your construction is fine.
You said you wanted to end up with "I write, therefore I am" and then chose a verb that doesn't mean "to write", so obviously doesn't mean "I write, therefore I am", but something more along the lines of "I make, therefore I am".
You're asking for pointers, so one should point out that just about everything in this phrase is different from standard Japanese that you would be learning in a textbook or basic course.
* is an archaic way of saying "I"
* particles have been omitted
* is a comparatively rare conjunction for indicating causality (and may thus be considered "advanced" vocabulary)
In BCCWJ (Japanese corpus), 453599 results, 2161, 2634
* sentences usually don't end in , but rather in or | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, word choice, translation, nuances"
} |
How to parse ไธญๅฝไบบใงๆฅๆฌ่ชใ่ฉฑใใๆนใฏใใ้ป่ฉฑใใ ใใใ
I have a difficulty to parse the following sentence.
>
I just understood the following partial phrases.
* means "with Chinese"
* means "person who can speak Japanese"
* means "please telephone"
I have learnt that functions as
* I go to school by a motorcycle.
* I eat at home.
But the particle in question is difficult to understand.
What does the sentence actually mean and what is the usage of in this case? | You are mixing up **two completely different** 's.
1. Particle โ **** **** , etc.
2. []{} (continuative form) of the affirmation auxiliary verb **** . (Auxiliary verbs conjugate just as verbs and adjectives do.)
> []{} **** []{}[]{}[]{}[]{}
It is the second above that is used in this sentence; therefore, does not mean "with Chinese".
**** is a relative clause that modifies the meaning "those who are Chinese **_and_** able to speak Japanese".
Therefore, the part can be replaced by .
It uses **** instead of **** because the phrase continues to add more information besides the applicants having to be Chinese.
The sentence means:
> "Those who are Chinese and able to speak Japanese, please call (us)." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 19,
"question_score": 13,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What does the word ใใใใ mean?
It was said by a guy who has just realized that his kid has done something improperly.
Here is the sentence including the word.
> {} **** .... | The word here is 'do'.
+ is a way of demeaning the participator in an action. Much like - + , it indicates discontent with the fact that the action happened; but unlike with , the discontent is directed primarily at the person who chose to do the action (rather than 's focus more on the typically unintended action itself). It can be rendered with phrases like 'had the gall to do', 'went and did', etc; though often it works to just leave it untranslated. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "verbs, manga"
} |
Does ใคใพใใชใ mean to be boring and bored or just boring
If I wanted to say someone is bored would I be able to say
>
or would this imply that the person is boring rather than bored? | It can mean both, but your example is tricky because, as has been discussed here multiple times (e.g. vs. ), one often could not directly express another person's feelings as one's own in Japanese.
>
in the strictest sense, only means "Mary is **boring**."
To make it mean "Mary is **bored**.", one needs to add words and say:
> ****
Not to confuse you, the sentence just above can also mean "Mary seems to be boring." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 5,
"tags": "adjectives"
} |
Implicit topic switching
I'm wondering -- is something like
> ****
considered sloppy writing, or is it acceptable?
These are the intended topics/subjects:
> ****
Namely, in the bolded sentence, the topic switches from to , made especially confusing due to the subject of the embedded sentence under being , in addition to the surrounding sentences having as their topic.
In English fiction, it's not uncommon to intentionally make the reader think about who is doing or saying what by leaving things more ambiguous than one normally would. I assume it's the same with Japanese fiction, but I'm wondering if this specific method doing of it is considered acceptable. | That is totally normal and acceptable, which is exactly why you as well as others understood the sentence itself and the passage.
If a "person" performs an unexpected action the moment you have made a statement, that person would **_not_** be yourself nearly 100% of the time, would it? Thus, the author is successfully communicating with the readers.
In addition, the sentence that follows backs up the reader's understanding of the **bolded** sentence because one would **_not_** say **** to describe a change in one's own character.
Generally speaking, placing a subject where it can be omitted for the reader comprehension could easily break the rhythm and flow of the writing, which any professional writer would like to avoid doing. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "composition"
} |
Meaning of ไธไธๅใซใๆๆๅคฑ็คผใใพใใ
A young employee points out an error made by the boss in a blog post, the following ensues:
> boss:
> employee: ****
**QUESTION:** What does refer to in this dialog?
According to my dictionary, means "becoming an adult or full-fledged member of society".
Does the employee points out that himself has only recently become an adult, and thus is not in a position to point out errors? Or does he points out that he is not in a position to point out errors because the boss is a older than himself? | > []{()}
I think it's like "Excuse me for pointing out (your error) like / as if I am a full-fledged member/worker (of the company/society)." โ[]{}/ | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "meaning, expressions"
} |
Who is doing the action?
****
How can you figure out who is doing the action of ?
Thank you! | Parse it as:
> [()]
is a relative clause modifying .
is the subject for the action .
(Likewise, is the relative clause modifying , and is the subject for .) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Reference of ใใฎใใจ in the following passage
I can't figure out the reference of in the following passage. Does it means that is much more important than ? Or the opposite?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
Master is not , he doesn't even present in this scene. | It is neither.
It is saying that the fact that **** right this moment is more important than . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
Differences between ใใ, ๅใผใ, ไธใใ with ๅฝฑ้ฟ?
All three of these seem to translate to influence/affect. Are there any differences in meaning? Or are they interchangeable? I can't figure anything out by looking at example sentences (although I have a feeling one of them has a negative connotation).
One of these example sentences I found (from jisho.org) is:
>
> His father had a good influence on him
Is there a reason is used here? Or could the others have been used here as well (assuming any necessary shifts in grammar are made)? | > *
> *
> *
>
* is grammatically different from the other two; it is one verb, and cannot be modified by the dictionary form of an adjective like ("" is wrong).
* "" is grammatically correct, but it sounds more like "to affect strongly" rather than "to have a good effect/influence".
* and are semantically the same, but I feel is not frequently used except in formal situations or technical articles. I think "" is perfect in a written biography, but sounds too grandiose in a conversation. "" is better, but it's still a bit stiff. A more natural expression in a conversation would be "".
* I found one person who feels has a negative connotation, but personally I don't think so. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Use of ใซ in ใ็งใซใฏๆฌ็ฉใฎ่ฅๆฎฟๆงใใใใใพใใ
# English
What function is serving in this sentence (the speaker has been asked to pick out the real lord from a group of people):
> ****
>
> I know who the real young lord is
It seems to me that the sentence would make perfect sense without .
# Japanese
> ****
>
> I know who the real young lord is
| is a potential verb. Potential verbs sometimes take or to contrast or emphasize their subjects. So means โI know it while others probably do not.โ Examples are:
> **** **** **** I can do what he can do.
>
> **** **** Do you know how I feel?
>
> **** **** That kid sees ghosts (while we don't). | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 8,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใซ, potential form"
} |
What does ใจ do in this sentence?
> ****
Could someone explain to me what the does at the end of the sentence? Is it used as a quoting particle? | > ****
****
> ****
This is the quotative particle. The inside of the is what the speaker seriously thought to himself back then. It is what refers to as well. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, particle ใจ"
} |
What role does ใใ play in this sentence?
> {}
Does modify here, as in "already moved (lit. swam through air/space)"? So that "while X (tearing hair with one hand due to headache), the trembling other hand **already** moved"? | The here is the same as the one in "another one".
In your example sentence, [he] is scratching off his head with one arm. **The other** , shaking arm [was trying to swim in the air or whatever].
So, means "the other arm" (as opposed to "the one arm").
This can be used with arms, items, people, anything. Like
> ****
> I saw two men. One wearing a hat, the other one with a walking stick. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, adverbs, parsing"
} |
ไธญ{ใชใ} vs ไธญ{ใกใ
ใ}
When to read a character as {}, and when to read it as {}? | is an ( _onyomi_ ) so it is used in multi- _kanji_ compound words and words that do not end in _hiragana_ [ _tochuu_ ], [ _gozenchuu_ ], [ _chuushin_ ], [ _chuutohanpa_ ].
can be a stand-alone word in a sentence. However, it can also be used in combinations [ _nakayoshi_ ], [ _nakanaori_ ], [ _mayonaka_ ]), place names [Nakano- _ku_ ], [Nakagawa- _ku_ ]), and surnames [Tanaka], [Nakanishi]), etc.
If you are in a situation where you need to guess on the pronunciation in a multi- _kanji_ compound word, guess if it is the first _kanji_ in the word and guess if it is the last _kanji_ in the word. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "word choice, kanji"
} |
Help with ใ้ใใซใชใใใใจใฏ
I began reading manga (To Love) and I saw something I don't understand or rather why it is used there.
The sentence is:
> โโ ****
I mostly understand but there's the ending part that makes me confused.
1. Why is even used there?
2. And what's with ? Is it like ending-particle ?
3. And one more: why is there used passive form of ()?
Sorry for asking a lot! It would be great help if you could help me get it right. | > โ[]{}โ[]{}
To give it my own TL,
**_"Good Lord! How you/he/she escaped all the way to this remote place!"_**
> Why is even used there? And what's with ?
It is that we should be looking at here.
expresses the speaker's surprise, anger, excitement, etc. The important thing is that one can end a sentence with this without directly stating how one feels about an event/situation. The sentence in question is actually an example of this. The ending does not count as a meaningful statement. How the speaker feels is left unsaid. Thus, the at the end.
> Is it like ending-particle ?
No, it is nothing like . To end a sentence with , you need to make a meaningful statement first and then, you add a at the end.
> why is there used passive form of ()?
That is not the passive voice; It is the honorific speech. The speaker is being respectful to the person who ran away. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "grammar, translation, particles, manga"
} |
Why is there no agent marker in this sentence?
> . The wind murmurs in the boughs of the pine trees. The breeze is soughing in the pine tops. ( )
Why isn't here followed by a case marker like or if it's treated as the subject of the predicate ()? | The only reason is that that is a poetic expression, not a sentence from "regular" prose; therefore, one should not apply the prose grammar to it.
Insert a and the sentence will sound much less poetic. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "syntax"
} |
What is the difference between ๆฐใใใ and ๆฐใฏใใ?
What would be the difference in meaning between:
> ****
and
> ****
Thanks! | There is a subtle difference in nuance, if not in meaning, between the two.
By sayng **** , you would sound just a little bit less sure of what you are saying than when you use **** .
Even adding a word like would not really change the degree of "sureness" expressed by **** . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
How to say something is not unusually x
In the case in question, my intention is to say that something is good, but isn't unusually delicious.
My attempt has been
>
My concern is that I've made an error in the second part in saying rather than .
Is this right, and if not, what is a correct and natural way to say it instead? | >
(i-adjective + / ) sounds ungrammatical (even though you can say "It's good, isn't it?" / "Isn't it good?").
I think you could say more like:
> **** / / /
Alternatively, I think you could also say:
> * / /
> * / * / /
> * / *
>
etc...
* would sound casual and colloquial. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, words, usage"
} |
"Understand that..." in Japanese
I'm wondering about this specific piece of grammar. I think you use "wakaru", but what do you use it with? Do you use a particle, like "to" or maybe some other construction?
For example, if you wanted to say: "She understood that time was running out.", what would you say/write?
\-- Thank you! ^^ (It says to not post this as a comment and somehow the comment button doesn't even work for me... oh well.) | You can say:
> ()(She realized that...)
> or
> ()(She was aware that...)
using the quotative particle . Or:
> ()(She realized...)
> or
> ()(She was aware that...)
using the case particle : +
If you use , add the particle :
> ()(She realized...)
> or
> ()(She was aware...) | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "grammar, subordinate clauses"
} |
The meaning of ใจใใ in ่จใใใจใ่ใใชใใจใใใฎใชใ
What's the meaning of in ?
>
>
>
In these examples the words in "quotes" were never directly said. Is it correct to view these usages as "indirect quotes" which represent the view/stance/etc. of the listener as interpreted by the speaker due to the listeners actions/words? Or does it serve some other function? | You are mostly on the right track. Those would not, however, be called "indirect quotes" if the words were not uttered in the first place. "Interpretation" is a good word for it as the part of is only what the speaker "assumes" to be true ; He did not "hear" it.
is close to "if that is the case", "if that is what it means" in meaning (even though translating is less important than understanding and becoming able to use the phrase).
There is a reason for writing it as instead of . For a quote, whether direct or indirect, would naturally be used because someone has actually made a statement.
You can say to your pet dog, for instance, when it is not obeying you. The dog did not say anything. It is just you interpreting or assuming from its actions. This is a good example because it contains both and . You say things to your dog, so that is . | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "meaning, spoken language"
} |
How to parse ใฉใใใชใใใพใใใ and what does it mean in English?
I am interested to decompose into its atomic words. My attempt is as follows, is it correct?
*
*
*
I don't know the dictionary form of . I totally get confused. How to parse and what does it mean in English? | is the past tense form of , is the polite form of , and is an honorific form of , "do", so means . is the honorific way of saying "What happened?" "What's the matter?" | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 4,
"question_score": 3,
"tags": "grammar"
} |
What does the word ใใใใใใ mean?
Here is the sentence including the word.
> {}{}{}{}{} **** | means "from" (similar to ).
() is the form of , "to receive", "to be given", etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "words, parsing, renyลkei, particle ใใ"
} |
What is the ใฆ-form doing in this sentence?
> ****
I'm not sure what the -form does in this sentence.
Could it be short for ? | It's hard to say something definitive without more context, but it's probably either one of the followings:
1. The te-form used as a request. "Please include things about Wallenstein, too."
2. The main verb after (, , etc.) is omitted, because it's already specified before this sentence. "(Tell me about the incident.) Including things about Wallenstein." | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "grammar, ใฆ form"
} |
neighbor, but on which side?
I am a beginner in Japanese and so far, I've met two words for "neighbor": () and , as in :)
In Danish, there are different words for neighbor, depending on the location of his/her place in relation to yours. For example, the word for neighbor living across the street is different from the word for neighbor living just next house.
Does the word give any information as for where the neighbor is located in relation to my place? For example, is it neighbor to the left, or above (in apartment complex) or across the street?
If there is no such separation, what is the most commonly used word for "neighbor" in Japanese?
Thank you for reading this far, and any answers are very appreciated! | > In Danish, there are different words for neighbor, depending on the location of his/her place in relation to yours. For example, the word for neighbor living across the street is different from the word for neighbor living just next house.
We have these words in Japanese, too; the neighbor living next door is []{}() or , across the street is []{}() or , and next to (on the left/right) is ([]{}/[]{})[]{} or .
> Does the word give any information as for where the neighbor is located in relation to my place? For example, is it neighbor to the left, or above (in apartment complex) or across the street?
would be , neighbor living next door. is literary and is casual and conversational.
Neighbor to the left/right is []{}[]{}/[]{}, above in the apartment complex is []{}, []{}, or []{}/[]{}(more formal).
> what is the most commonly used word for "neighbor" in Japanese?
We have []{}() (casual), []{}(casual), , []{}(/)(more formal), etc. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 6,
"question_score": 9,
"tags": "word choice"
} |
Where can I find the nuance/meaning differences between words with different kanji options?
This question is related to the questions (here) and (here) regarding a word or verb with multiple kanji options, for example [] or []
Is there a resource somewhere that will tell me the nuance differences in between the kanji? This can be in English or in Japanese. Teachers will often give me a distinction, but I haven't found a way to look this up myself. | There is an official document () that covers a number of these. For example:
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> *
Or this, which is admittedly a little less helpful.
>
>
>
See links from the Wikipedia article or online version | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 3,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "kanji, homophonic kanji, resources, dictionary, kanji choice"
} |
Japanese Term for "Cutscene"?
As in, the kind you would see in a video game. Do people just use , or is there some specific term? | Particularly in film or video games, is widely used. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "english to japanese, terminology, video games"
} |
Is ใคใณใฐใชใใทใฅ a good translation of "Engrish"?
Is a good translation of Engrish?
The Japanese-language Wikipedia article on the subject only uses "" at the start (presumably just as part of Wikipedia indicating how the subject of articles are pronounced). When trying a google web search, many hits were referring to English schools referring to English, not Engrish (for example english-bell.com), and a google image search mainly gets hits for Johnny English, or the English cocker spaniel.
If it's not a good translation, what words or phrases, if any, are likely to be easily understood, preferably without being offensive? | Translating _Engrish_ in Japanese is no easier than pulling yourself up by your bootstrap, since they use it while they don't notice using it. (Transcribing _Engrish_ would face the same paradox, too.)
So, basically you should explain instead of translating. The first sentence in your Wikipedia link shows one of the most thorough samples.
> [ _sic_ ]
But for the sake of brevity, you can just express it as etc.
You could throw a visual knuckleball like (cf. _Toys"R"Us_ ), which might convey the intended oddity but not guaranteed to be understood as you expect, either. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": -1,
"tags": "translation, terminology"
} |
่ณใใใพใใไฝใจใใฟใงใใ๏ผwhat does it mean?
โโ
The sentence stands alone with no context. | >
It means "Listen Carefully". or "lend a discerning ear". | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 1,
"question_score": 1,
"tags": "meaning, definitions"
} |
"ใใฎ" vs "ใใกใใฎ" with regard to implied plurality
****
> {}{}{}{}{}
****
>
1. In all contexts, "..." refers to just _one_ grammatical pattern?
2. "..." might refer to one grammatical pattern, or possibly a list of grammatical patterns (context decides which)? With no context, I feel ambiguity.
**as a side note** :
This might be because " __ " can be made explicitly plural " **...** , however " **...** " would just sound too strange? | 1. Yes, it refers to one or collective one.
2. can be (1) "this one" or "our side" when the other one ("that one" or "their side") is already present in the context, or (2) a polite form of or . The latter usage wouldn't be decent in your context. So, that is "this" opposed to the aforementioned. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 2,
"tags": "plurals"
} |
Can "ใณใณใใฅใผใฟ" be interpreted to include smartphones and tablets?
I need a noun that includes all of: (desktop computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone).
Back in the day, in English, a "computer" normally only meant a desktop computer. These days, I think most people understand that desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones are all "computers", they just have different form factors.
What about Japanese? Does "" mean: desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone? | What refers to greatly depends on the context. When explicitly asked, most people of course understand that a smartphone is also a kind of . But in daily life, people tend to use to refer to bigger ones, such as desktop PCs or supercomputers. If someone just says "", it probably means they bought a Windows PC or a Mac.
One catch-all term you can use in business/formal settings is , which usually includes various products such as desktop PCs and tablets, and sometimes facsimiles, game consoles, and so on. | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 2,
"question_score": 4,
"tags": "translation"
} |
What does the ใใใใใใใใฆใmean?
Here is the dialogue including the word.
A: {}{}{}{}{}...
B: ****... | > ****
> = []{}() ****
() means () in regional (probably Edo / ) accent. ()/ is the humble form of /. () or () is being left out after the .
> ()
> (I am sorry that) I (or, in this context, "he" = ) caused trouble / bothered you... | stackexchange-japanese | {
"answer_score": 5,
"question_score": 0,
"tags": "words"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.