Datasets:

donfu

/

oa-stackexchange

like 7

What is the difference between 「はずがない」 and 「わけがない」? I know the following two sentences give implication that "not expecting me to understand (it)" but I have a feeling that they give different nuances that I just can't put my finger on: > {} **** _sore wa wakaru **wake ga nai** deshou._ > > {} **** _sore wa wakaru **hazu ga nai** deshou._ Would someone explain what is the difference of the two sentences, and also how to choose between using and ?

disclaimer: not a native speaker I think 'wake' implies that things happened as expected, where as 'hazu' implies that what happened is not what was expected. Or, 'wake' is a bit more neutral, a "matter of fact", where as 'hazu' is more of a personal opinion/subjective kind of thing. This is how I would understand the difference: > sore ha wakaru wake ga nai deshou. You're not meant to understand this .. it's normal. > sore ha wakaru hazu ga nai deshou. I see no reason you could understand this .. so what's going on?

stackexchange-japanese

About ご[馳走]{ちそう}: two “runs” would give you “a feast”? `[]{}` is the greeting that people say after being offered a meal while `` by itself means “a feast”. I looked up this word in the dictionary to learn more about the kanji characters. It turned out that both `` and `` have the meaning of “run”, or more specifically `` is “to gallop” and `` is “to run”. So how come two “run” kanji characters give the meaning of “a feast”? Would anyone explain the etymology of the word? P.S. `` is just a prefix you add to a noun to make it sound more polite.

The original meaning is not a feast. means to prepare food and treat guests, and also to run around doing a bunch of stuff. means that someone has worked hard and treated their guests well.

stackexchange-japanese

Does 前提に mean "to require"? I recently came across the expression ``: > feature1feature2 > 'feature1, just like feature2, is a way to embed classification into content, but it is designed for rigidity-focussed use cases, losing in flexibility.' I think it means "to require", but I am very unsure, could someone confirm/infirm this?

has a meaning of on the assumption that, or on the premise of. In your case its meaning is closer to > it is designed under the assumption of rigid focused use cases. or > Designed with rigid focused use cases in mind. Another example from a site for something completely different: > **** 7 Which means > **On the assumption** that there is a boyfriend, the 7 ways of confirming if there's a boyfriend.

stackexchange-japanese

Pronouncing が as 'nga' I'm a beginner and am learning from CD (Pimsleur). There are two native speakers going through the dialogue. One, the man, pronounces as I would expect - 'ga'. The other (female) pronounces it as 'nga'. How common is the latter? Which should I used? Is the usage split along gender, age or geographic lines?

"Ga" and "Nga" are same in Japanese, just a personal difference. Some used to say that old Japanese people used "Nga" more frequently than "Ga"

stackexchange-japanese

Why are some lyrics' words written in kanji whose usual reading is not how it is sung? Some song lyrics in the official lyric book that accompanies the CD is sung as another word. Usually, the way it is sung is given as a furigana on the kanji: > Written: > !enter image description here > (pardon the quality I took it using iPhone) > Sung: > ( by DEEN) > > Written: > Sung: > (Pray by Every Little Thing) I wonder why write the word "" in the first place. Why not just print word "" since you won’t hear the word "" in the song anyway? Is there a cultural/artistic reason for it? **EDIT by Scratch---Cat** : A really significant example in an extremely well-known song (senbonzakura) >

Writing the lyrics this way allows the artist to convey an extra bit of the ulterior meaning. To use the first example, where is sung as , we can assume that was chosen because it fit well with the surrounding syllables. But by itself isn't specific: it could be an abstract dream of what one wants to do or accomplish, or it could be the sort of dream one sees while asleep. To show that the former is meant, the lyrics sheet has a synonym, . Reading as is explained the same way: does mean the day after ~~tomorrow~~ today, or more figuratively, the time after today? Providing in the lyrics sheet lets you know the artist means the latter.

stackexchange-japanese

Stroke order for left and right Why are the stroke orders for and different? starts with the vertical stroke, and starts with the horizontal one.

It has to do with the stroke order of the part underneath it. For this example, I'll refer to as and , and as and . For , since the first stroke of the underneath part (the ) is horizontal, the is started with the horizontal stroke. For , since the first stroke of the is vertical, the is also started vertically. Similarly for and . Since and both start vertically, the also starts vertically. Can't think of anymore off the top of my head where the starts horizontally. But the rule is to look to the first stroke underneath the .

stackexchange-japanese

Pronunciation of 閾値 : いきち or しきいち? Last week I saw the word and when looking it up in Gjiten I see two pronunciations, both marked as "popular": * () (n) threshold (amount, dose, etc.); (P); * () (n) threshold (amount, dose, etc.); (P); Which one should I use? In the context of professional discussion with colleagues and clients, if that matters.

(thanks to Ito's comment who pointed me in the right direction) The characters should read as per their original pronunciation and is used as is by major dictionary Daijirin. is widely used because it's very close to the other word "" () which also means threshold. Pronouncing is thus grammatically considered a mistake although widely used. Key sentences: > > > sources: < <

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between はずがない, わけがない, and しょうがない? A slight expansion of the existing thread What is the difference between and ?, but what is the difference or use cases for when to use , , ?

On and , answers in the original question explain it better than I would so I'll leave it to them. But on , it's totally different from the other two. is used when you don't have other choice but to do it. It can also mean "there's nothing else you can do" p/s: thanks for expanding my question

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 指摘される and 突っ込まれる? I always get this two whenever I make a mistake. I think that more or less they are similar but kind of have the feeling that has a bit stronger meaning than , is this correct? For example, He pointed out my mistakes (rough translation, I'd think)

You are right that they have similar meanings, but I think the connotations are different. is very neutral; you are simply pointing out a fact, not making a value judgement. , on the other hand, has more of a connotation of pouncing on a weakness, especially one the other person was hoping would pass unnoticed. So you can point out a flaw in someone's story, a grammatical mistake--or, relatedly, a joke that the other person made with a straight face!

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between the negative forms -ず and -ぬ? - and - are two alternatives to the negative form - / -. But I noticed that depending on the word, it's either - or -, although it seems like some words can take both suffixes. Some examples I have encountered: # - (lyric in song "" by Younha) (lyric in song "" by Angela Aki/) (song title: "") (lyric in song "" by Kiroro/) # - (lyric in song "..." by KOKIA) (song title: "") (lyric in song "" by YeLLOW Generation) # both - and - / / So are there rules for choosing between - and -?

In the modern form, is only used as an adverbial ( leave without eating). can replace . In , the grammar used in writing until the reformations after WWII and still at least partially in many forms of poetry, songs, and very formal documents, the use of and was/is grammatically constrained in a manner no longer present in modern Japanese. was used with the form of a word, meaning that it connected with a following noun (and it still does that). , on the other hand, connected with the and was used for negative assertions. It had conjugations, too, but those are really really rare now (). Just remember this: can end a sentence, but can't; modifies nouns, but doesn't: . Of course they've also snuck into idioms and : (despite oneself) (a place that knows no heat), (pretend ignorance) (persist in asserting one's innocence). ()

stackexchange-japanese

Can 「XければXほどY」 clause pattern be shortened to 「XほどY」? There is a clause pattern XXY. For example, which means something like "the nearer it is, the more convenient it will be". Can I shorten the clause to ? Will it have the same meaning? But I have a feeling when I use XY when X and Y are opposite to each other, it will give the meaning of "X yet Y" in English. For example, would give the meaning of "close yet unreachable", in a poetic sense. Am I right?

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. (chikai hodo todokanai) means “the closer it (or you, he, she, …) is, the more unreachable it (or you, he, she, …) becomes,” exactly in the same way as (chikai hodo benri) means “the closer it is, the more convenient it becomes.” And in the sentence “the closer you are, the more unreachable you become,” the word “closer” probably refers to physical distance but “unreachable” refers to the difficulty of telling how the speaker feels about the person who is referred to to that person.

stackexchange-japanese

わ usage at the end of sentences What is the difference between the "" sentence ender used by women in general and the one that is used by both Males and females in the Kansai area? I've asked my Japanese co-workers about it specifically and they said that there is a difference to them, but unfortunately, like most native speakers of a language, couldn't concretely explain what that difference is. One comment was that women can say "~" where this cannot be said by men in the Kansai area.

One is feminine and the other is just very emphatic. Both are particles so both can be used in the same context. The wa used by males is likely to be used with less formal language, but only because of the common language of its users, not any grammatical constraint.

stackexchange-japanese

Archaic words used in haiku My teacher who practices haiku told me that in haiku they still use the traditional names for months. I was wondering which other words are still used in haiku.

Similar one would be Kigo (season names) * Kigo list - * Kigo collections - <

stackexchange-japanese

What are the fundamental differences between the ～と一緒に and the ～とともに fragments? I'm accustomed to saying `together with` using the `~ to issho ni` fragment, but I've been noticing that some people I talk to phrase this using `~ totomo ni` instead. i.e. > > Kanojo to issho ni Nihon e kita. and > > Kanojo totomo ni Nihon e kita. seem to be fundamentally equivalent. Are there any nuances that the two have that dictates when and where they should be used? Probably very slight meaning deviations? Or are they essentially perfect equivalents of each other when it comes to saying `together with` (and yeah, I'm aware that `~ totomo ni` has other meanings aside from that)?

, as you say, is regularly used for saying doing something "together". () is more explicit about who you are performing this action with, thereby placing a stronger emphasis on the bond/camaraderie. ! Fight together with me! ! Fight hand-in-hand/side-by-side with me! So I would say you'd pick which to use depending on whether you are trying to place an emphasis on the action or the other person(s) involved.

stackexchange-japanese

Is there a difference between ほんとう (hontō) and ほんとうに (hontō-ni) when used alone as interjection or question? As the equivalent of Enlgish "Oh really?" / "Yes really." as lone utterances I seem to hear both "" (hontō) and "" (hontō-ni) in Japanese - is there a difference? It seems that hontō is a noun and -ni changes it into an adverb but that this doesn't really matter for the purpose of such simple utterances. Am I thinking along the right lines?

There is no difference in utterances for both words, if you speak those alone. But if you add some words after that, you might need to use "~" to get correct grammar.

stackexchange-japanese

Why is 「昨夜」 pronounced as 「ゆうべ」 {yuube} and 「今日」 as 「きょう」 {kyou}? is neither the kun'yomi nor on'yomi of and is not a pronunciation of either. The same can be said about the pronunciation for . So how come the pronunciations of the two words are like those? If they are special, what was the origin of such pronunciations? EDIT: To respond to Mark Hosang answer on , from my dictionary software: !yuube p/s: yup, the "sakuya" pronunciation is also there :)

The reading comes from the still-in-use word , which apparently came from an old reading for (today usually read ). The kanji are just "gikun" (), that is, they're used for their meaning only and their reading is ignored. The word was originally read , which anybody who has read the iroha-uta probably knows. You can also still hear the old today in the word . It probably turned into and then into in the various kana reading changes over the years.

stackexchange-japanese

How can I say "Right now", or "At that exact moment"? Saying "now" is easy, with , but in my experience that doesn't express so much "right now, this instant" as it does "currently". I am looking for structure that translates these examples well: * I have just now been thinking about that. * At that exact moment, X happened. Edit: I also know that I have heard a grammatical structure for "I was in the middle of something (watching TV) and then I was interrupted by X (the phone ringing / an earthquake)". Anyone knows what I mean?

If you are looking for the word for "moment", I think is the most appropriate. At that exact moment, it happened. As for "I have just now been thinking about that", you can use . I have just now been thinking about that.

stackexchange-japanese

How to use へ (-e), に (-ni), まで (made) and の方 (no-hō) with destination and direction? It is common to ask the difference between just "" (-e) and "" (-ni) but it seems to get even more complicated when you also mix in "" (made) and even "" (no-hō). When Japanese people ask me where I'm going they always ask "" (doko made)?" rather than "" (doko e) or "" (doko ni) that I expected. I know "" (made) can mean "until" but when I ask the difference with "" (ni) and "" (e) I'm told "" (e) means "to" and "" (ni) means "in the direction of" but if this is the case then how do they differ from "" (no-ho) which I already learned previously meant "in the direction of"?

and can both translate as "to" and are often interchangeable. The difference is that focuses on the process or course of going in a direction or to a place, while focuses on the destination itself [1]. , being a particle that defines an upper bound, thus focuses on the distance traveled. The function of depends on which particle follows. Followed by , it does indeed mean "in the direction of" as you previously learned. () Followed by , it's harder to pin to a specific meaning, but it often means "in the general area of" or "on the side of" (the latter being when is used to indicate one of multiple options rather than a simple direction of travel). () Sources: 1. 5,100 (PDF)

stackexchange-japanese

How to write hiragana and katakana in Windows? How to write hiragana and katakana in Windows (XP/Vista/7)? My current locale is Swedish and I have a hard time writing hiragana and katakana characters. Usually I have a txt-file open in notepad and copy the individual characters, but that is (obviously) not efficient. The same also applies for kanji.

Windows has Language Packs available for other languages and alphabets. See < for example. They allow you to write in a phonetic transliteration and then translate it into kana; pressing the space bar converts familiar words into kanji and where meaning is unclear you can choose kanji from a list. For example, if I type "totemo benri desu ne?" in English with the language pack it will give me Very convenient, isn't it?

stackexchange-japanese

What is 「々」 and how does it affect meaning and pronunciation? I've seen this symbol in various places, such as , , and . What is it, and how does it affect the meaning and pronunciation of the word?

It's a repetition kanji or "ideographic iteration mark", it means that the kanji just before should be repeated. The pronunciation changes according to the kanji being repeated, but a lot of the time, the second kanji will be pronounced like the first one, but with a dakuten (hi->bi, to->do, ha->ba). It often makes a word mean "more than one of that thing". Here's some examples: * (: days, or every day * (): people * (): various * (): severe * (): a long, long time ago * (): occasionally * (): very early According to Wikipedia, it's called an odoriji ( ) "dancing mark" in Japanese. I've heard the name that Robusto mentions ("kurikaeshi") more often.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the meaning and root of 意味くじピーマン? Recently a friend of mine threw the term (imi kuji pi-man) into a story she was telling, and it totally threw me off. At first I thought, because I wasn't sure how to parse the part, it meant something like "meaningful peppers." Then a friend said it meant "no meaning at all", but that definition seemed to be a little mundane given how colourful the expression is. Surely it has more nuance? I looked it up, but wasn't able to find a straight forward definition. And even if it does mean "no meaning at all", how do you get that from: = , meaning = crush or break = pepper ...?

I was waiting for your reply to my comment before giving an answer. (the one accepted is partly correct and missing some important background) is used as well as in Okinawa The former probably more often used by girls and kids and the latter by young men. You assumed comes from but this is not correct. is an abbreviation for as in () is just a fun word added by You would also see (Uchina- version of I don't understand) All of these, you already know, mean: I don't get it _All these years in Okinawa finally are paying off! :p_

stackexchange-japanese

When learning new verbs, is it best to memorize both the transitive and intransitive versions up front? How do you handle learning new verbs that have both transitive and intransitive forms? Is it best to immediately memorize both forms?

There are rules to transform each others most of the time, you don't have to memorize both. Here is a list about 1200 verbs and derivation to transitive and intransitive forms. * <

stackexchange-japanese

Is the grammar of 心の冷たい人 idiomatic? The phrase (which is given by Japanese-English dictionary on OS X) looks wrong to me, but given that it's an example in a respected dictionary and confirmed by tens of thousands of Google hits, I have to assume it's correct. It's a lot less clumsy than how I'd naïvely write it, , but its word order still doesn't line up with anything else I've seen. Is this just an idiomatic saying that I should just accept as correct, or is this a pattern that shows up a lot?

This doesn't strike me as the slightest bit unusual. Relative phrases such as this are very common in Japanese. You can easily substitute similar phrases for , such as : * ("That person is tall.") * (lit. "A person who is tall"; "A tall person" [with the emphasis on ]) * (lit. "A person who is tall"; "A tall person" [with no particular emphasis]) , being a complete phrase, is perfectly legal as a modifier on a noun (although the does often change to depending on the emphasis).

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between these four forms of "to do"? There are at least four verbs that mean "to do" in Japanese: , , , and . What is the purpose of each, and when is it appropriate to use them?

is the most general, neither too polite nor too formal. is more informal and could tend to lean toward rudeness. Note that cannot replace in sino-Japanese compounds. For example, could not change to . is keigo (), used for someone "higher" than yourself. is humble keigo (), referring humbly to yourself or others in your group. Usage-wise, there is not much difference between them, except for what I noted above.

stackexchange-japanese

Fun with synonyms - "to grab/catch/capture" Here's a question for you experts. I've actually asked this to my Japanese friends, but I want to see how you guys answer too. Explain the differences in the following verbs and which one(s) appear more commonly in everyday speech: 1. []{} 2. []{} 3. []{} 4. []{} - passive 5. []{} 6. []{} - passive 7. []{} 8. []{} - see update below * * * **Update - 2012/05/08:** Looking back at this question after all this time, I knew there was a reason I was including the passive verbs (4 and 6 above). It's because I left a verb out of my original set: `[]{}`. So then the question with the passives is, what's the difference between ``, ``, and ``? Based on @Derek Schaab's answer below, it seems that `` would mostly apply to animals/things that "are caught". But which would be the most correct/natural way to say "The criminal was finally caught"? > (

Ignoring the passives, which can be inferred: * : grasp. . The action ends once your hand closes on the object. This is in contrast to , which focuses on the time spent gripping the object after it has been taken in the hand. * : capture, as in an animal. . Can be substituted with . (There are many kanji for , the choice of which depends on the object, as I'm sure you know.) * : (also) capture, or subdue. (But I usually see this written as , preceded by , and meaning "perceive, see/recognize/take (as)": .) * : prevent something from running away, hold tight to something without any intention of letting go. Can be both physical () or abstract (). * : be bound/taken captive by something (often abstract). .

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between ね and な as tag questions? What's the difference between and as tag questions? For example: vs Is there any difference in level of politeness? Does one sound more masculine than the other? Edit: The examples above are pretty vague (or even just plain wrong in terms of actually being tag questions). The more concrete example from Amanda S better illustrates my question: ? (The party is tomorrow, right?) vs ? (That child is Takeshi, right?)

The particles and have several different uses, but one is to turn a statement into a tag question. For example: * (That child is Takeshi) / ? (That child is Takeshi, right?) * (The party is tomorrow) / ? (The party is tomorrow, right?) For this usage: * is more formal and more feminine * is more informal and more masculine

stackexchange-japanese

What are the most prominent features of Yamagata-ben? I'll be visiting Yamagata City soon and would like to ask: * as an armchair linguist what features of the local dialect to look out for? * what are some common words, phrases, pronunciation differences that I could try to effect to make a nice impression on the locals?

I can't help you with first-hand knowledge, but you can start by looking here. Some of the comparisons (like instead of ) seems to be part of the standard Touhoku-ben fare. ## Edit According to the Wikipedia article, there's some good variety for the expression I quoted () in its formal version (which is equivalent to ). In Murayama, for instance, it would be ,or, while in Shinjou it would be or . I can't find many explanations in that article, but it seems like quite a variety.

stackexchange-japanese

What are the origins of ヶ? The in e.g. is a bit of an odd character - it looks a lot like a small version of the katakana , but is it derived from that katakana originally? Or is it a normal kanji? Or is it something else entirely?

It has two main usages: * As an abbreviation of the counter word /. * More often it has a further word after it and it's read . In this case it's sometimes written as or even so the reading is more obvious. Examples: * Sometimes it's used alone just like is (and it's read too), perhaps as shorthand. I've rarely seen people do this, but then again I rarely see handwritten text, where shorthand would be handy. Example: * As something that roughly corresponds to the modern particle in place names. In this case it's usually read (especially in old Japanese the particle has a close resemblance to the modern ). Examples: Place names will have some exceptions, as always, but I think these rules cover by far most cases.

stackexchange-japanese

When Japanese say KY on the Internet, what does it mean exactly? This comment can be seen very often on Japanese message boards.

KY is short form of (Kuuki Yomenai) KY means _being unable to read the situation_ or _being unable to pick up on the mood of a conversation_.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 「はじめてのX」 {hajimete no X} and 「はじめのX」 {hajime no X}? There is a song with title {hajimete no asa} and another song with title {hajime no hi}. There is also a manga title {hajimete no aku}, and not to forget the popular boxing manga {hajime no ippo}. So what is the difference between X {hajimete no X} and X {hajime no X}? How do we choose to use one over the other?

_hajime_ is "the beginning", so _hajime no hi_ should be translated as "The day of the beginning" or "The day it begun" and _hajime no ippo_ as "The step that started it". _hajimete_ is "for the first time", so _hajimete no asa_ would be "(My) first morning" and _hajimete no aku_ would be "My first Aku" (apparently officially "My first Mr. Akuno"). In normal English both expressions would usually be translated as "first" though: "The first day", "The first step". Compare: * _hajime no kisu_ \- **_The_** first kiss _("The kiss with which it began")_ * _hajimete no kisu_ \- **_(My)_** first kiss _("(My) first experience of kissing")_

stackexchange-japanese

About 「同{おな}じ」 and 「同{おな}じく」 As far as I know, []{} is not a {} (-i adjective) so how does it become []{}? Or does not come from ? Also, are there any other non i-adjectives that have -ku counterparts (regardless of the answer for above)?

is mainly used as (Adjectival noun) like: > (His and his father's hobbies are the same.) but it also can be used as an adjective () with an irregularity that the `-i` ending is dropped. For example: > (He has the same hobby as his father.) But has a special usage to mean . For example: > A- (I am from ~ department and my name is ~) > > B- (I am also from ~ department and I am ~)

stackexchange-japanese

ありがとうございます vs. ありがとうございました When thanking someone, what is the rule for using vs. ? My sensei taught us to use when the action you're thanking someone for occurred in the past, but I've heard used plenty of times right after the action occurred. Does it have to do with how far in the past the action happened?

In my opinion, You can use most of the time, but cannot used when the request is not finished yet. For example., > A: (Could you please check the report?) > > B: ! (ok) > > A > > (B havn't finished yet the checking, so you better use instead of )

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 行ったから and 行ってから　and 行くから What is the difference in usage between and and ? Is there a sense of sequence implied in one and not the other? In the following examples where would i be buying the book and where would i be saying this? Like in I bought the book after i arrived in america. * * *

~ shows "one after another". means "after I go". ~ shows "cause & effect". means "because I went". Note that is also valid, which means "because I (plan to) go" EDIT: To answer additional question added by OP: > I'm going to buy the book because I'm going to America. -> You buy the book before you go, and you buy it because you are going. > I'm going to buy the book after I go to America. -> You buy the book after you go. The reason you buy the book may not be related to you going there at all. > I'm going to buy the book because I went to America. -> You buy the book after you went, and you buy it because you went. Note: in the location where you buy the book can be in America or after you return back to your place. You may need to use specify to show that you are going to buy the book in America, or use to show that you are going to buy it after you return home.

stackexchange-japanese

About cutting the sentences short I've been told during my Japanese classes, and I've also observed in anime and Japanese dramas & movies, that sometimes when talking Japanese people tend to stop halfway and omit the end of sentence especially when the sentence has some negative connotation (e.g refusal etc). For example: > : > : > > Suzuki: kore wo motto yasuku shimasen ka nee. > Tanaka: sore ha chotto .. Another example: > : > : > > Suzuki: buraun-san no nihongo ha naka naka jouzu desu nee. > Brown: iya, watashi ha mada mada .. So is there a cultural reason for this behavior? What is term for it? And how should non-Japanese interpret or react if our questions or invitations are replied with such responses? Meta note: I notice myself that the last question is a bit subjective. Should we or should we not allow this kind of subjective questions in Japanese SE?

Omission of syntax to allow the user to infer meaning (for politeness or whatever reason) is one of the many characteristics of Japanese. What remains unsaid is often stronger than what is actually said. The Japanese abhor "spelling things out" for you, because it is not "harmonious" and puts them in a position of having to be direct. If you've read by , you may recall a passage where the narrator feels revulsion for a Westerner he met, in part because the man does not understand the Japanese feeling that what can be said in a look may be vulgar to put into words, etc

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 重い and 重たい In some situations everybody around me use , and when I went to the bicycle shop everyone was only using . Both mean heavy, but what is the difference in meaning or context between them? Can something be but not ? Or but not ?

is supposed to be used when talking about personal opinions (subjective), while is for general usage (objective). But that said, when someone uses in a situation, another person may use the same word unintentionally because they are very similar. Personally, I think has more feelings than because you can stress the sound "", so it is like saying that you know how heavy it is by experience.

stackexchange-japanese

Do people actually look down on you if you use a regional dialect as a Gaijin? My brother got on a scholarship to go to university in Japan, he was given a year an half language training and then had to apply to Japanese universities. I suggested he study in Osaka as I'd visited there and knew some people he could hang about with but he was advised not to study too far away from Tokyo as people would look down on him if he gained a regional accent. Is this actually the case? I appreciate that they might make fun of locals with a regional accent but is would this apply to foreigners too?

There is a lot of people from Osaka in Tokyo, so that Kansai-ben (Osaka-ben) are not so strange here. And I don't think they will get looked down for that case. But many of non-Japanese's pronunciation and intonations are a bit different with native, so some people with less international communications will somehow look at strangely for few first times. Only that people from Osaka are looks more friendly than from Tokyo, so may be when you ask something to unknown people, will probably get less responsive than that does in Osaka. But still I don't think that is the problem, I believe he will get use to it within few months if he comes to Tokyo.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it ok to use ～て下さりました instead of ～ていただきました? Just to avoid repeatedly saying too much, can I occasionally switch it with or ?

is past tense of , which is a polite version of , which means 'to receive'. is past tense of , which is a polite version of , which means 'to give'. They are different words but can be used in the same context as long as you correctly assign who is the giver and who is the receiver. But do take note that the emphasis of the sentence and the particles used may change if use one over the other. Example: > > This was received from Teacher. > > > Teacher gave (me) this. Note: In general, is only used when the giver is the third person (neither the speaker nor the person he/she is speaking to) or if the giver is second person and the receiver is first person. If the giver is first or second person, should be used. Or another way to see it, is used when the giver is out-group, and is used if the giver is in-group. Maybe it's easier to see from a diagram: !enter image description here Note: the receiver always uses or its variants.

stackexchange-japanese

Which verbs have 辞書形 (dictionary forms) that look like ~ます conjugations? I recently confused {} for the ~ form of {}. Although this actually lead to a rather amusing conversation, I'm wondering if there are other examples of this to watch out for?

Looking at EDICT following Derek, I found two other examples, but in these cases two interpretations are not drastically different as your case. Both are compound words where the second component is (; to increase). * (; to extend (a building)) has the same pronunciation as , the polite form of (; to build) and also as , the polite form of (; to make (sthg.) stand; can stand). There are many other verbs of the pronunciation whose polite forms are pronounced as , too. Basically all of them are made from verbs whose pronunciation is by deriving transitive verbs or deriving . * (; to expand (a budget etc.)) has the same pronunciation as , the polite form of (; to pile). There are several other verbs of the same pronunciation ( and ), and their polite forms are also pronounced as .

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 「ほど」 (hodo) and 「ぐらい」 (gurai)? As in the question title, what is the difference between the two sentences below? > {}{}{} > ichijikan hodo kakarimasu. > > > ichijikan gurai kakarimasu. How do we choose to use one over the other?

Matti's answer is sufficiently correct, but I'd also like to add that seems to have more of an implication of the translation "extent" whereas "" is more like "amount". In the example you gave, I'd say they mean the same thing, but to me the former sounds more like "up to one hour (and very likely to be one hour)" whereas the latter is really "about an hour".

stackexchange-japanese

What are the differences between 〜ので and 〜から? When I was studying this, my kind of brushed over the point, and then years later, I realize that they are different, but I don't know exactly how. The only thing I understand is that is more polite. I suppose that's because isn't actually "because" like , but more a nominalized statement () followed by (), making it more indirect (and we all know that indirect means more polite in Japanese). Anyone have any more information on the pair?

I find the best way to discriminate between these two is the following: * marks an objective cause: The fact that the train ran late is an objective, verifiable fact. The emphasis of the sentence is not so much on the cause as it is on the effect (or the sentence as a whole). * marks a subjective cause: The idea that she'll like this is the speaker's opinion, not an objective fact. The emphasis of the sentence is mostly on the cause. Often the shift in emphasis is enough to decide which to use. If you want to draw attention to the effect (and give the cause an air of objectivity), use . On the other hand, if you want to draw attention to the cause, use .

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference in usage and nuance between やはり and やっぱり? I know that we say instead of when we want to inject a little national pride into the word, but I've never had a good understanding of the difference in meaning/nuance/usage between and . I would guess that there is some variation in some combination of politeness, formality, familiarity etc, but I haven't had enough experiences with them to pin down where they sit on that graph.

is a bit stronger in sense than , but most of the time, it is a personal preference. There are some more versions of like and also is widely used.

stackexchange-japanese

Usage of なんて and なんか as emphasis When are and used as emphasis in casual speech? Are they used when you're surprised, angry or can it be both? What sort of feeling does it convey to the listener compared to a normal sentence without it. For example, in the following 3 sentences I'm not entirely sure what the "” and ”” are expressing. > []{} There are no ghosts in a place like this. > > []{}[]{}[]{} I had no idea she got married. > > []{}3[]{}[]{} I cannot even write a 3 page report.

They are basically "weak" form of in this context. My grammar book says . Basically when you're kind of ignoring the importance of, or even slightly putting down, the topic of the sentence. (I don't need love!) So like for your first example to me sounds like, "There's no stupid ghosts around here" (like almost taunting any that might be there). Or the second one has the tone of "Well, I had no idea she got married, but whatever." The usage is []{}. Don't overuse it, or you'll sound like you're better than everyone/everything. Especially don't use it if something **needs** to have importance placed on it.

stackexchange-japanese

Is the use of 先生 and similar titles context sensitive? While it is generally safe to use - when taking to someone and the use of - is appropriate for use in a school environment when talking to a teacher, would the use of - carry over outside of the school environment if encounter the person under different circumstances? For example, while the use of the honorifics is pretty obvious in a school environment, suppose the teacher of one of the classes starts to learn a new martial art where one of their students holds a higher rank within the art, how would this affect the use of honorifics?

I don't think the earlier three answers are completely correct. Japanese adopts the relative honorification system, meaning that whether to honorify a particular person depends on the existence of a third person. Suppose A is B's teacher. Within a conversation between A and B, it is appropriate for B to use `` to refer to A, irrespective of the situation. However, suppose A and B are doing a venture business together, perhaps selling products that came out as result of study. Suppose B picks a phone from a customer C. In this situation, B cannot use `` to refer to A. Otherwise, it would be considered rude of B to C. Here, A and B are one group as opposed to C, and hence, B has to use the humble form to refer to A, just as B would do when referring to him/herself. I heard, although am not completely sure, that this is where the Korean honorification system differs from the Japanese honorification system.

stackexchange-japanese

Is there a rule for when to use くらい vs ぐらい? I see phrases like 200, , and , which seem to indicate that and are synonymous, if not interchangeable. Is there any kind of rule for deciding which to use, or is it a stylistic preference?

This page at the goo.ne.jp Q&A site quotes the NHK, which states that while there were at one time rules for when to use and when to use , modern-day Japanese has no such distinction. I agree with Tsuyoshi that "feels" colloquial, but more often than not I think it's a matter of which rolls off the tongue with the most ease.

stackexchange-japanese

Can somebody explain the various words and combinations thereof used for thanking? To my knowledge there are three words which can be used in thanking and they seem to be usable together in some combinations: * (d­ōmo) * (dōmo arigatō) * (arigatō) * (arigatō gozaimasu) * (dōmo arigatō gozaimasu) Are there nuances of each of these words? I know "dōmo" alone is informal and I assume the longer the combination the more formal or respectful. Are there rules as to how they can and can't be combined? (Did I include any wrong combinations)?

You can't just gloss words like that with Japanese (i.e. Thank you = arigatou, go = iku etc.) To express thankfulness, there is a whole palette of expressions that Japanese people use. For example: 1. yoroshiku: said after you have asked someone a big favor and they haven't done it yet but have promised to do it. 2. tasukatta: means like "thanks man I appreciate it". 3. o-seiwa ni natta: said after someone helped you out when you were in a bind. 4. kansha shimasu: I'm truly thankful. 5. arigatou: thanks man. 6. arigatou gozaimasu: said to people you should respect. 7. o-tsukare: thanks in appreciation for someone's hard effort. 8. o-tsukare sama deshita: same as above but towards people you should respect. 9. gokuro sama: like "good job man" thanks for doing the work that you were supposed to do anyways.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the origin and usage of the word いい? According to Denshi Jisho, and share the same kanji, and that both roughly mean "good". Why are there two different pronunciations despite the similarity, and what are some ways to figure out which one to use?

The original form is definitely , and that's what you'll find in old texts. As often happens with common words, the pronunciation was simplified a little in its most common form, the Rentaikei form (which is the dictionary form), and became in western dialects (Kansai-ben) and in the Tokyo dialect, which serves the basis for Standard Japanese. Today, is no longer considered colloquial, and it can easily be found in formal speech or writing, alongside (). It is actually which is now considered formal-only, and its effectively gone in everyday speech, and replaced entirely by in the Rentaikei, while all other forms are still conjugated as if the base form was .

stackexchange-japanese

Why are furigana for number kanji almost always omitted? Here's an example sentence from which uses a fair amount of furigana throughout. > xxx... Which includes furigana for , , and, bafflingly, even the of , but none for . While I already know that is , there are plenty of other words with numbers that are beyond me. I'm sure I'm not the only student frustrated by this practice. What's the reasoning, if any, for this?

The number kanji are included on the list of first grade kanji that all Japanese children, theoretically, should know by they are in the second grade of elementary school. The other kanji you list (except for , but they may not cover that reading) are at higher reading levels. It's likely that they made an editorial decision that, well, pretty much any child who knows the kana well enough to read them fluently is going to know the number kanji at least. The other kanji in grade one - well, they may know the kanji itself, but not necessarily the compound it's in, so I wouldn't be surprised if they furigana'd those as well.

stackexchange-japanese

Can I say なるほど when talking with customers? I was told in class by a Japanese teacher that can not be used when talking with people above, but in the same lesson we listened to a CD (training material) where a student was saying to his teacher. Here at work I often hear my Japanese colleagues saying when talking with customers (consulting). Can I do the same? **EDIT** : A Japanese friend just told me she would never write it to a customer, even by email, but it is perfectly acceptable over the phone as an (sound given during a conversation to indicate comprehension).

Technically speaking, is something of a casual/frank word. However, it seems that native speakers can be confused as well, and there are plenty of people who use it anyway in business settings. Apparently it's not a particularly noticeable faux pas, but one to be avoided. Some of the commenters in that thread suggest replacing it with something like (depending on context) or.

stackexchange-japanese

What to say after someone sneezes It's happened several times: I'll be chattering away with a friend in Japanese, and they'll sneeze, and without even thinking about it I'll revert back to English to say "bless you." Is there a set phrase in Japanese I can use after someone sneezes?

Here are the results from a small poll on Facebook. Six native Japanese replied. The results can be interpreted as: 1. Don't say anything if you don't know them (6 people) 2. If you know them you can ask if they're okay, if they've caught a cold or have allergies: "", "", "", or something to that effect. (2 people) 3. There's no such phrase equivalent to "bless you" in Japanese (2 people) And here are the actual results (I didn't create any of the options, it was a blank poll when I asked the question): !enter image description here

stackexchange-japanese

Looking for expressions similar to なるほど or やっぱり for situations that are opposite of speakers' previous suspicion This is an extension of the question: Using (naruhodo) and (yappari) in the same situation From what I understood from the answers to the question above, and imply the speaker's suspicion that he/she somehow and to some extent knows about the situation before getting the affirmation from the other party. However, what would the speaker say if it is revealed that the situation is opposite to what he/she was suspecting? I know he/she can say "?" (with a surprised face etc) but that is too strong an interjection, unlike the softer or . I guess in English it might be something like "oh dear me". "?" sounds more like "OMG!" to me.

I'd say can be used in this situation, even if it contradicted your expectations, since it basically expresses a neutral _"I see"_. Depending on the situation this may be the best to choose, since you're not usually supposed to show that you are thinking along completely different lines than your interlocutor. You may later turn the conversation around to introduce your point of view carefully, otherwise you keep it to yourself. To show open surprise though, you might say or and possibly many other things. (Note that these are colloquial versions, change to etc. to be more formal.) Combinations work fine too: You may want to show a little bit of surprise here and there—whether it's true or not—to acknowledge that you have just received valuable information which you would've missed otherwise (a backhanded Thank You).

stackexchange-japanese

Is there a difference between この小さな街で and 小さなこの街で? I noticed in songs, there are lyric lines that push the demonstrative adjective (*) , etc to the middle of sentences by switching it with an adjective/verb that describe the subsequent nouns. For example: > {} becomes > > {} becomes Is there any difference between the two sentence structures? Or is it just to make the latter sound more poetic? (*) Thanks repecmps for providing the correct English term there

At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I'm going to agree 100% with Kentaro and say that putting the demonstrative determiner (learned a new term today!) in the middle sounds more literary. But there are cases where you can (and indeed must) use this "literary" form in everyday Japanese to avoid ambiguity. Take the following examples: > () - **That** child who drew the picture. > > () - The child who drew **that** picture. So when the relative clause ( and in your examples) begins with something that the demonstrative determiner could modify (like a noun), you have to choose where you put the demonstrative determiner based on what you want to convey.

stackexchange-japanese

Does -ou / -you / -mashou conjugation have a negative form? Does the -ou / -you / -mashou (the "let's X") form have a negative counterpart? For example, how do I say "let's not X" for the following?: * * * As far as I can remember, the Japanese courses I took in college did not teach me the negative of this form. Does it even exist? If it does not exist, how do you say "let's not X" in Japanese?

The -ou/-you form does have a negative counterpart, but it's considered rather literary, and in any case never used in a cohortative meaning ("Let's X"). That form is the form, e.g.: , which means "[He/I/etc.] probably wouldn't eat." and is equivalent to the more colloquial form "". I think the most common simple way to express the meaning of "Let's not X" in Japanese is: * * Another option is to use a compound expression such as X (which literally means "stop doing X") or X (which literally means "Choose not to do X"). For instance: * * * * There are a quite few more possible combination such as X, X, X, etc. Each has a slightly different nuance, so there's no direct equivalent of the positive form, but rather many different ways to express the negated idea.

stackexchange-japanese

Concretely, on what scenarios should I say either お世話になっています or いつもお世話になっております? Furthermore, what is its different in meaning between the both? When I was in training as a fresh graduate at a Japanese company, they told me to use all the time and so I did. But after being a assigned to a department they told me to stop doing so because it sounded too weird within the team. Does it also has something to do with status?

The 2 equivalent forms (from your question title) should be: and (not ) The former being the humble form (keigo use) and the latter being the neutral form. This way you can see that has been changed into the humble form (if you prefer = but very polite) They told you to drop it probably because the team is more friendly. ( in itself is already quite polite, adding keigo to it would probably work with your boss but not with your colleagues) PS: I would avoid using keigo for the moment and stick to formal japanese until keigo makes sense to you. PPS: at the beginning adds a layer of politeness making quite heavy and excessive in most cases.

stackexchange-japanese

How can I thank somebody for pointing out my mistakes? Thanking and apologizing in several forms is essential in a Japanese working environment. I currently have the following list that I have picked up from mails amongst my Japanese coworkers but I'm curious what could be other examples to do this... * Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. * Thanks for the feedback! . .

I would also use "" has meaning pointing out, and is more like guidance.

stackexchange-japanese

What does 思いっきりどうぞ mean? I heard this phrase a few times but I still can't grasp its meaning. Does it mean, "as much as you would like"?

You can translate it as "Knock yourself out". It means "Go ahead and do that thing, if you want to". Sometimes it's said sarcastically, as if the thing the other person wants to do/try isn't going to work out. Sometimes it's just used as "Please, go ahead", without a sarcastic tone. If there is an exclamation mark after it (or the spoken equivalent) it's probably sarcastic. I usually see it written as .

stackexchange-japanese

What are the differences between 帰る and 戻る? Can you give an example of when should be used instead of , and vice versa? The reason I ask is that I sometimes get corrected when using the two, such as in: > × **** **** (ignore the other problems with this ) > **** ****

Examples would be * (go back to work from appointment or something) * (go back to home, (when there is no plan in mind to go back to same place for today)) * Forgot the wallet and go back to home once (need to go back same route again)

stackexchange-japanese

Use of ～のか (～んですか) in questions not seeking a yes/no answer I would like to know if there is a shift in nuance in questions such as these: > vs. > > vs. I wish to limit discussion to only non-yes/no questions (so questions asking Who? When? Where? Why? and so on). I have read a paper (PDF) which states that adding indicates that the asker's feelings of wanting to know the answer are stronger, and that it puts more of a burden of responding on the askee. Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

/ often indicate that the speaker is attempting to explain or account for some fact. This can connect the question to a previous statement made by the addressee. For example: > A: (Wow, some of the people who participated in the tournament were really good!) > B: Here B would like to know which people inspired A to make that statement. > A: (I got to this party so early that the host looked at me funny.) > B: B wants to know how early A was to the party, thus explaining why the host looked at her funny.

stackexchange-japanese

Is there a general counter word for objects that you can fallback on if you're not sure which one to use? I guess we could use the native Japanese numbers, , , ...but we'd run into a problem at or after ten (not sure how works — same for ). Is there a general counter word that we can fallback on? For example, if something is mechanical I'd probably fallback on (), if it's flat (). For more general objects like 11 motorcycle helmets, or 15 packs of cigarettes, or 24 clothes hangers, could I fallback on something?

You'd fall back to . It's understandable to count everything as , and in many cases it's acceptable (or the only common way) as well. Counting animals as does sound quite weird though, so you might want to avoid that. And never count people as . That's just wrong.

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 創立、設立、樹立 Can anyone explain the difference between the words {}{}, {}{} and {}{}? They all basically mean "to set up / to found", and from what I've researched, it's all very {}{} to me.

is used for foundation/establishment of buildings (refer to physical items, have some sense about first time establishment one's life or pioneer alike) > 1970 This school was founded in 1970. is used for foundation/establishment of organized associations (kind of logically, general word) > This association was organized for preserving nature. is more general word, so it would be used for those kind of foundation stuff, and there is another word , which is combination of above two kanjis, and make and more close when related to company. **Note** : But why I used "refer to physical items" for is, it suppose to be point to physically visible building, but for "associations", main point is not about assciations's building, but refer to logically grouped one. is used for foundation/establishment of new goverment, parties, records (similar to but only for special things) > Founded new political party

stackexchange-japanese

What to say after someone dies What is the proper response when someone tells you, for example, that their mother has died? Relatedly, what should you do to express your sympathy? Do you send a card? flowers? bake a casserole?

There is a common phrase for that. > - _go shuushou sama desu_ For example > I'm very sorry about your mother's death Regarding sending something, there is a special custom in Japan called []{} - giving money to remaining family members with the purpose of offering it to the departed soul. (Originally, this was used as an alternative of []{} - incense and flowers) In my experience, I have seen this two times: one for a colleague's mother, and one for someone from another department. In both cases, another colleague started to collect money and put it in an envelope to give to them. And there is another custom, []{}, which refers to getting back some present/food from them.

stackexchange-japanese

How can I differentiate between 「もう」 that means "already" and 「もう」 that means "more/additional"? I noticed that can mean both "already" and "additional", such as the following sentence: > Can mean either one of: 1. I already drank two glasses. 2. I drank additional two glasses. How can I differentiate between the two meanings?

I guess that the most reliable way is decide from the context. But at least in the Tokyo dialect and other dialects with the same accent pattern, they have different accents. * _I think_ that meaning “already” is pronounced as HL (where H is high and L is low). Therefore becomes HLHLL. * meaning “additional” is pronounced as LH. Therefore becomes LHHLL. This can be confirmed by the Daijirin dictionary. This meaning is shown as 1-[3], and the small “0” at the beginning of this meaning means that the “standard” accent is LH.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between "マグロ" (maguro), "ツナ" (tsuna), and "シーチキン" (shiichikin)? It seems that there are (at least) three words for "tuna" in Japanese: * "" / "" / "" (maguro) - Seems to be the native name for the creature and used at least in sushi * "" (tsuna) - Seems to be from English and used for canned tuna and o-nigiri * "" (shiichikin) - Mistakenly read as "chicken" by other gaijin besides me and also seems to mean canned-tuna style as used in o-nigiri, but what is its etymology?

(also written as and ) is the Japanese word for thunnus, a specific kind of tuna. It refers to both the living fish and the food. Traditionally, also referred to billfish because billfish was considered to be a close kind to thunnus. Because of this, even today can also refer to billfish. comes from the English word tuna and it refers to drained and flaked tuna (not necessarily thunnus), which is mainly used for tuna salad. I do not know if drained tuna before being flaked is also called or not. is the product name of canned made by Hagoromo Foods Corporation. (The Japanese Wikipedia states that it is named after chicken because its taste is similar to chicken.) But this product is so common in Japan that in general is sometimes called . _Edit_ : Revision 1 contained a mistake about the meaning of the word .

stackexchange-japanese

Which kanji to use for saying ありがとうございます in emails? When sending emails, I've noticed that Japanese colleagues use all sorts of kanji/kana combinations for the simple phrases and . For example: 1. 2. 3. 4. and 1. 2. 3. Are there hidden nuances to using more or fewer kanji? Do you sound like a try hard if you use all kanji, or do you sound more polite?

Amongst all the business teachers I have studied with (and then worked with), the rules to remember were: **-The auxiliary verb should be written in hiragana:** should be is correct as well as **-Thank you should be written in hiragana:** -It's ok to use all kanji in literary work.

stackexchange-japanese

When to use だ before と思います? If you want to state what you think you can put at the end of a sentence. However I noticed that sometimes you're supposed to put before so that it becomes , and sometimes you're not. How do you know when to put before and when to leave it out?

The (to) of works like the quotes in English. So the part before must be a valid sentence. > > × ( is not a valid sentence) > (very strong feeling) > > >

stackexchange-japanese

What does ~頂ければと思います mean? Why does such a construction happen? I've heard phrases sometimes like: > _chekku itadakereba to omoimasu_ "If you check this ... I think."? Why is that ~ at then end of the phrase?

It should be > chekku shite itadakereba to omoimasu and it means "It will be great if you could check (this (for me))" also there is other similar usages with straight forward meaning. > **** ~ shite itadakeru to saiwai desu. > > (If you could do this, I will be very good luck) <\- not sure this is correct English though. > > **** ~ shite itadakeruto arigatai desu. > > (If you could do this, I will be very thankful / appreciated)

stackexchange-japanese

About writing numbers using Japanese numerals vs using Arabic numerals I noticed that even though Japanese language has kanji characters for numbers (e.g. etc), there are many places where Arabic numerals are used instead, for example, prices for shop items are written as instead of . I am curious about: 1. When did Arabic numerals start replacing Japanese numerals for writing numbers for normal daily uses (e.g. price tags, signboards, phone numbers etc)? 2. Other than writing small numbers like in dates (e.g. ), are there any places where large numbers are predominantly written using Japanese numerals (e.g. )? 3. For places that use Arabic numerals, when there are large yet trivial numbers, for example "three hundred millions", do you still write it as 300000000, or switch back to (since it saves space)?

What I can think of is Japanese numbers are using when registration of house, family registrations, and some contracts. But they used instead of on those kinds of registrations, contracts to prevent obvious modifications. And according to trade law, session 2, No. 48 are mandatory. Old books using those Japanese numbers a lot in (years, phone numbers, addresses, postal codes) but recent one most of them are in arabic numerals. Here is screenshots of the Old one (Natsume Souseki's Kokoro) and one of recent book at 2009. ![]( ![]( Regarding big numbers like company capitalization, they may just used roman numbers of japanese units like 3, for example like this for this company > : 1,8877,534 But for statistical data like company achievement/results data for stock share owners, they may use those numbers in long numbers like following, and they may use one Million's equivalent Unit. > : 3,004,640

stackexchange-japanese

Are first, second, and third person in Japanese all the same as in English? Are first, second, and third person nominals in Japanese used in the same way as in English? What should English speakers keep in mind when considering the three persons in Japanese? Particularly for the second person, English _you_ is used to directly address someone, but in Japanese, we are taught to address someone by their name, which is third person. Does this make any sense? Does it affect grammar in anyway? Also, supposing we're talking to Mr. Yamada, and we want to ask him what he wants to do. Which of the following would be correct? > []{}{} >

I would argue that there is a correspondence between the two languages with all three viewpoints. There are pronouns that are commonly used for the first, second, and third person just like in English; however, there is a bit of a cultural difference on when it is appropriate to address someone by name or a more informal second-person pronoun like "you". Addressing someone by name doesn't necessarily mean you are talking in the third person. For example, "Mr. Yamada, what would you like to do?" isn't a third person question, you're just being polite by addressing them by name. Of your two examples, I think the first one is closer. > knows what he wants to do, so is appropriate. The second sentence reads more as if you are asking someone else what wants to do.

stackexchange-japanese

When would you use 低い【ひくい】 vs 短い【みじかい】 Are and interchangable or do they have specific uses?

_hikui_ is "short in height" or "low", _mijikai_ is "short in length". * - I'm short (in stature) * - a room with low ceiling * - a short skirt * - cutting one's hair short _(Examples from )_ A short piece of string cannot be and calling a low bridge would mean the wrong thing.

stackexchange-japanese

Are there differences in nuance and usage of [内]{ない}[緒]{しょ}, [秘]{ひ}[密]{みつ}, [隠]{かく}し[事]{ごと} and [秘]{ひ}め[事]{ごと}? They all carry the meaning of "secret" in English, but are there differences in nuance and usage of each of them: > []{}[]{} > []{}[]{} > []{}[]{} > []{}[]{} Incidentally, why is it that there is []{}[]{}[]{} but you have to add into []{}[]{}[]{}?

I think that has two usages, one of which is interchangeable with and the other is interchangeable with or . and are synonyms although sounds more poetic to me. **Cases where and are correct but and are incorrect** : * That is secret. [] * Let’s keep this between us. [] * secretly , or In this usage, I feel that is more formal than . **Cases where , and are correct but is incorrect** : “Something which is kept secret” is , or , but not . For example, * “He has secret” is [, ] As for why is much more common than , ~~it’s secret~~ I do not know. It seems to me like one of the many cases where one phrase is used more often than another for no particular reason. By the way, I would not say is incorrect. If someone uses the word , I will understand its meaning naturally and it will not strike me as incorrect.

stackexchange-japanese

Meaning of 〜あれだ > _____ What is in this context? Is the speaking making a positive or negative statement about _____?

I have also ran into this phrase and now I kind of understand its meaning though, getting used to applying it to the correct scenario is very tricky indeed. I still can't. The instance of this phrase that I remember, is from when we were waiting for somebody to finish something: > To which answered: > … Which I guess could be translated into something along the lines of: > Hey, saying that you all are waiting for me, (...vagueness...) you know. Where the vagueness could imply something like: "you're putting pressure on me", "is kind of, you know?"

stackexchange-japanese

Counter for chopsticks Just curious about this one. I'm never sure what to say when I ask for chopsticks in Japanese. I know that "by-the-book", you can count them with ) or . So I always say to ask for a pair. But as with other things I say in Japanese, I'm afraid that this sounds too "textbookish". So I'm just wondering how native speakers ask for chopsticks (if they ever need to). Do they use these counters, or the basic counters, or something completely different? I hate sounding too textbookish.

In a restaurant it is usually enough to simply ask for . It is perfectly understood that that means _"enough chopsticks for me [and my companions], please"_. Anything more specific is usually unnatural. If you do need to specify how many pairs of chopsticks exactly, you'd usually use _-zen_.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between [plain form of verb]～そう and [root of verb]～そう? I heard both forms of [plain form of verb] and [root of verb] in an anime I watched, reproduced below, so I'm wondering how are they different and how to choose to use one over the other? > > What are these conjugations called? And how do their negative forms look like?

after the plain form of a verb indicates you are reporting secondhand information, rather than your own direct observations. means "it is said that it can go." The negative form is -: "They say it won't rain." - after the stem (- form) of a verb means "looking/sounding as if ___." means "it looks as if it can go." It is similar to constructions like or , but - emphasizes evidence of the senses rather than general "seeming." The negative form is -: "It looks as if s/he can't do it." (Explanation paraphrased from _Japanese: The Spoken Language_ )

stackexchange-japanese

The difference between が and を with the potential form of a verb When using the potential form of a verb, I was taught that the particle becomes . However, in real life this seems to not always be the case. I've even heard Japanese people use instead of quite often. What's the difference between the following two sentences? Is actually grammatically correct? > > >

In the + potential construction, the focus is on the noun. > (what I am able to read is newspapers [as opposed to other written media]) > > (is this where tickets [as opposed to other items for sale] can be bought?) In the + potential construction, the focus is on the entire phrase. > (what I am able to do is read newspapers) > > (is this where I am able to buy tickets [as opposed to doing some other action]?) + potential is not yet considered standard, but has begun to gain acceptance among some speakers. (Paraphrased from _Japanese: The Spoken Language_ )

stackexchange-japanese

When to use 「とにかく」 and when to use 「とりあえず」? This is a variant of the top definition question @ Area51: < When to use and when to use ? I have heard both adverbs used in similar sentences so I'm wondering whether they can be used interchangeably. Or is there a difference in nuance between the two?: > > >

**** is usually translated 'anyway', and just like 'anyway' in English, it's used to change the subject of the conversation. **** has a more specific meaning. It's often translated as 'for the time being', which is quite an accurate (if cumbersome) translation, since it's used only in cases where you want to tell the listener that you want to leave the issue at hand to later and move to something else. For instance, if you were talking with your friend about a letter you have to take to the post office, but then he told you that the post office is closed now, you can tell him "", meaning "Ok, we can't do anything with that for now, so let's leave it for later. For the time being, let's go home." Also, many cases where is being used cannot be counted as 'change of subject' at all, and there difference from is even more striking. For instance, I guess you could say: > meaning: "For the time being (until I get a new mail address), you can send stuff to my old mail address)."

stackexchange-japanese

In what situations can you use ぞ as a sentence ender When can one use the sentence ender ? I've only ever heard it anime, so I'm unsure of it's actual usage in the real world. Is it not used that often or limited to specific age/gender groups?

Borrowing from page 277 of this grammar textbook and the Daijisen entry flamingspinach linked to, is a (primarily masculine) sentence-ending particle used to * express strong intent (), * persuade someone to go along with your action (), or * (directed at yourself) indicate your judgment or resolution (). can usually substitute for in the third category. (This is covered in the same section as in the abovelinked Google Books preview.) Note that when using in the second category, follows the dictionary form of the verb. This is in contrast to , which often follows the volitional form when the intent is to get someone to participate in an action with you: > I'm going [and so should you]. > > Let's go. (More emphatic than .) never follows the polite form, and is only used toward friends and persons of lower status.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the equivalent of "alphabetical order" in Japanese? I know there's , but what about at the consonant level? Also, are there any common mnemonics used by Japanese children to remember these?

Hiragana syllables are always schematised in a given order which is this one (from right to left, as you may already know): * * * **HIRAGANA** !enter image description here * * * **KATAKANA** !enter image description here * * * After a while I started Japanese, I also found this video, the Japanese Alphabet song (only for hiragana), that can be interesting for absolute beginners. One of the best ways to remember Hiragana (and Katakana as well), in my opinion, is to write vocabulary words using Hiragana. It might seem banal, but it works. After you master it, you can start learning Kanji to substitute the "hiragana word" with the appropriate Kanji. I remember I used to write them, some examples are: * ( _kindness/gentleness_ which is ); * ( _desk/table_ which is ); * ( _mountain_ which is ).

stackexchange-japanese

What is the counter used for doors? This is from deceze, but what is the counter used for doors. Is it (mai) or something else?

According to this page, it's (, ). Found it under ().

stackexchange-japanese

Native word for "pen" Is there a native, non-loanword for "pen" (the writing instrument)? Or is there only ? There is one for "pencil" (), one for "ruler" (), one for "paper" () and even though the one for "eraser", , is half loanword due to the , at least there is an alternative to the full loanword . It would be weird if there is no native word for "pen".

There's one for a fountain pen: (), but pens haven't been around that long, so everything else seems to be . Mr. Biro only started making his ballpoints in the 1940's. Even one of the types of pencil has become a pen - (it's a shortening of ).

stackexchange-japanese

When did the "wu" character drop out of use? In the last century, the and characters were eliminated from common use. But it seems like there used to also be a "wu" character that has since been lost. Given that it's a lot harder to find information about "wu", I assume it vanished much earlier. Around when did the pronunciation and written character for "wu" drop out of use?

The English Wikipedia article on Kana suggests that there has never been a "wu" sound in Japanese. > There are no kana for Ye, Yi or Wu, as corresponding syllables do not occur in Japanese natively[.] The Japanese Wikipedia article on the sound that would be "wu" confirms this. > [w][u]/u/ > > Because in Japanese the consonant "w" and the vowel "u" both share the /u/ sound, "wu" becomes the same pronunciation as "u" and the two sounds cannot be distinguished. This page gives information on why there is a kana for "wu" (). > ②[yi][ye] > > Because of the "Fifty Sounds" view that was ascendant in Japanese language teaching at the beginning of the Meiji period, apparently some textbooks even forced kana on yi, ye, and wu, as you can see in figure 2. The Japanese Wikipedia pages on ye and yi seem to give more information.

stackexchange-japanese

How important is one's pitch when speaking Japanese? I'm aware of some words in Japanese that have the same reading but different meaning depending on the pitch of each syllable. The canonical example is **** (hashi), which can mean either **chopsticks** (HAshi) or **bridge** (hashi or haSHI). However, most Japanese language books I have come across ignore the concept of pitch completely, and vocabulary lists never tell you the pitch you should use. How important is it to speak with the correct pitch? Can I be understood without knowing the pitch sequence for each word?

It is worth pointing out that in Japanese, different dialects use different accent patterns for the same word. The Japanese language taught as a foreign language is most likely to be (), which is based on the Tokyo dialect. Therefore, probably the “correct” accent pattern to use should be that of the Tokyo dialect (as in your examples of ). However, of course not every native speaker speaks the Tokyo dialect, and some dialects (such as Osaka or Kyoto dialects) have completely different accent patterns from that of the Tokyo dialect. As a result, I believe that using the “correct” accent pattern is not crucial to make yourself understood.

stackexchange-japanese

How to differentiate ～られる conjugation between passive form and potential form? For verbs of group 2, whose form is formed by dropping the ending from the plain form, both the passive and potential forms have the same conjugation: . Example: > > 1\. to be eaten > 2\. can eat / edible Other than looking at the context, how do I differentiate between the two meanings?

I don't think you can differentiate them without looking at the context. > * → I can eat hamburgers > > * → Someone ate my hamburger!! > > With the passive form, you'll usually see the doer/"culprit", indicated by (there are some rules about which to use, but that's beyond the scope of this topic): > * **** → My hamburgers are often eaten by my father ("My father often eats my hamburgers") > * **** → The "Mona Lisa" was painted by DaVinci. > Don't forget that there is a third conjugation of this form that is a type of keigo (somewhat between normal politeness and super politeness) > * → The section chief is going to the meeting tomorrow. >

stackexchange-japanese

How many dialects are commonly used today? Which dialects would one normally encounter when visiting/living in Japan (in popular places like Tokyo, Kyoto and and so on) or reading something produced in Japan?

The biggest dialects that often come up are. * Standard Japanese (Tokyo - What TV announcers speak) * Osaka-ben (Manzai and Comedians) * Kyoto-ben (Supposedly prettiest female dialect in all of Japan) * Okinawa-ben (It's totally out there, and is supposedly the closest to orig. Japanese.) * Hiroshima-ben (more so because of Yakuza and their portrayals in movies) There are of course more, but these are the ones I _Believe_ you have the highest chances of hearing during Japanese language study or TV watching

stackexchange-japanese

What was the origin for the term 水{みず}色{いろ} to be associated with youth, adolescence and puberty? I am particularly interested in the phrase {}{}{}{}. Did it come from the old manga that used the phrase as its title, or has the phrase been carrying that particular cultural connotation long before the manga? So how and when did the term start to be associated with youth, adolescence and puberty? p/s: While on the same topic, I'd like to share this interesting chart on how different cultures interpret different colors: <

I do not think that the word (; cyan) is associated with youth, adolescence or puberty in Japanese. As YOU wrote, (; usually blue in the modern Japanese, sometimes refers to green) is associated with immaturity and youth. But does not have this connotation. I had never heard of the phrase . Unless I am much mistaken, it is only used as the title of manga by Yuu Yabuuchi and not a common phrase in Japanese.

stackexchange-japanese

How do I use うく as casual slang (as in ういた)? Sometimes I hear Japanese people say in conversation when describing something (usually someone) unpleasant. I asked my coworker once "what is this word", but I got a very poor explanation (not her fault, it just seems very much like a "sense" thing). The only impression I have of it is a word that describes someone (or their actions) that everyone else is thinking, "uhm, OK?" in sort of a dumbfounded way. Am I close? Does anyone have a good example of this usage so I can get my head around it?

Basically () means to float, but has many other meanings. When used for a person or an action of a person, can mean “being out of place,” “not belonging to the place he/she is,” “being the odd one out,” and “not being able to interact with others well.” For example: * () Mr. (Ms.) Tanaka is out of place in his (her) office. / Mr. (Ms.) Tanaka does not really belong to his (her) office. / Mr. (Ms.) Tanaka is the odd one out in his (her) office. We can also say (), talking about what Mr. (Ms.) Tanaka does instead of the person him/herself. I believe that this meaning arises from the basic meaning “to float” by considering figuratively that everyone else in the office is deep “inside” the office but Mr. (Ms.) Tanaka is “floating” on the surface of the office. From Daijisen: > ― From Daijirin: > 5] > >> ― From the Eijiro on the Web: > can't interact with the other children > > be the odd one out in one's class > > He just doesn't belong.

stackexchange-japanese

Significance of the kanji 茶 in the set phrase 滅茶滅茶{めちゃめちゃ} / 目茶目茶{めちゃめちゃ} While having fun looking up random words in my dictionary software, I found out that the phrase "", which is often used in colloquial sentences like "" has two kanji variants: > > For the first variant, , I can imagine the significance of , which implies "destruction", but why with "tea"? The second variant is even absurd (or can I use "mecha-mecha" as a pun here :P), because it's from "eye" and "tea". Does the kanji character "" has any significance in the phrase, or are they just ateji?

That's just ateji, but they used like that because * related with / (muchakucha) and base word is , * There is some saying that supposed to mean (No o-cha?) (Don't provide tea to customer, which is unreasonable just like . But meaning from are not suppose to be used, so above is wrong approach. * There is also another saying that comes from Buddhist word (musa/musaku), which has meaning (greedy, covet) and is just to emphasize the former. ref: <

stackexchange-japanese

When asking 'What is your name?' or 'What is your job?', why is it 'は' not 'か'? As per the title, when asking 'What is your name?' or 'What is your job?', why is it '' not ''? For example, we are taught this: > > 'What is your job?' But I don't understand why it isn't this? > > 'What is your job?'

_Oshigoto wa?_ is basically short for _Oshigoto wa nan desu ka?_ _Anata wa shigoto desu ka?_ means "Are you work?" and is nonsensical†. _wa_ (not BTW) is the topic marker.* Just asking basically means "About ~..." and only hints at the actual question. Leaving things unspoken is a very typical thing in Japanese. _"About (your) work..."_ is the subtle, polite way to ask "What is your work?". Simply _Shigoto ka?_ would mean something like "Work, eh?" and is more of an exclamation than a question. It's also rather rough, at the very least _not polite_. * * * * That's why _Anata wa shigoto desu ka?_ marks "you" as the topic and is wrong. It's basically saying _"About you, are you work?"_ † In the context of this question at least, see comments.

stackexchange-japanese

Nuances of "give" - あげる／与える／授ける Can someone give some good context and scenarios for using these? Not only when to use them, but when **NOT** to use them as well. I know is kind of the most common, but I'm just not sure of the nuances between them.

**** Usually involves the transfer of a physical object from one person to another of equal (or sometimes lower) status. > **** Can function as , but in modern Japanese it comes with a formal ring and often involves something given as a favor for someone of lower status. Beyond this, its alternate uses include "assign" as in "assign homework", as well as "give" in connection with abstract concepts, such as influence or impressions. > (can replace with ) > > ("assign homework", note this also goes from higher to lower status) > > ("exert influence", abstract) > > ("give a good impression", also abstract) **** Limited to giving something special (a privilege, a prize, etc) to someone of lower status. Closer to the English "award", "grant", or "bestow" than "give". > ("award a medal") > > ("bestow wisdom") * * * Definitions and example sentences taken from the definitions for , , and .

stackexchange-japanese

The use of -さん when answering about oneself If someone says, > Chris- > Are you Chris? Do you answer > Chris Or > Chris-

> Chris `` is never used (except jokingly perhaps) to refer to oneself. The same goes for other common endings such as ``, ``, ``, `` and ``. That's because these endings usually convey a kind of relation: for instance, `` conveys respect, `` and `` convey some endearment and while `` conveys very little meaning, it does convey separation. You can't use `` on yourself because it's pointless to specify your relation to yourself. And this is even truer for the other endings.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference in usage between 氏名 (しめい) and 名前 (なまえ)? What's the difference in usage between () and ()? I often see these two words used interchangeably, but more often than not I see on websites. Is this a politeness difference or an actual word definition difference?

always refers to a person's full name, both family and given. It also has the connotation of "legal name." also refers to a person's full name--but it can also mean their given name, in the right context (for instance, "We gave the baby a name" or "I want you to call me by my name"). can also refer to the names of objects, while cannot.

stackexchange-japanese

Why does "to tweet" something on Twitter become つぶやく? Related to this question: What is the Japanese word or phrase for "to post on the internet"? I have noticed that when you post something on twitter they don't say _toukou suru_ , but instead say (murmur). Why did this happen?

Well in English Twitter doesn't use the word "Post" but "Tweet". Twitter's translator decided to make it an equivalent word that would make sense to someone who had never heard of it before. Check out this J article covering the use of and . <

stackexchange-japanese

Japanese dictionary for mathematics/computer science jargon I study mathematics and computer science, and I'm starting to learn japanese. Could you suggest me dictionaries/sites/etc where I could learn terminology on these subjects?

EDICT (which is the corpus JquickTrans apparently uses) has several special dictionaries for technical terms. The "Computing/Telecomms" dictionary includes such wonderful words as: (n) variable initialization (n) call by reference []{} (n) object-oriented programming

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 交ざる / 混ざる {まざる} and 交じる / 混じる {まじる}? Both {} and {} with both initial kanji characters and are intransitive verbs that are translated into this by rikaichan: > to be mixed; to be blended with; to associate with; to mingle with; to join > ( has an extra meaning "to interest" though) What is the difference between the and readings, in term of nuances and usage? Are they interchangeable? EDIT: To further investigate the two variants, I conducted Google searches using + form, and here are the results: * About 40,900 results * About 5,330,000 results * About 861,000 results * About 1,230,000 results * About 74,900 results * About 1,050,000 results Someone please tell me how to interpret those results. Does {} become {} or {}?

So based on the IME hints pointed to by repecmps, the quick answer is that and differ in that the former deals with mixing things that, through mixing, become indistinguishable from one another, while the latter deals with mixing things that remain distinguishable. , therefore, is used for mixing colors, liquids, smells, and related things that can't be separated once they're mixed. , on the other hand, is for people and other objects that can be easily separated and identified even after mixing. (Now for the native speakers in the audience, when mixing oil and water, do you use or ? :)

stackexchange-japanese

How can I learn and recall okurigana? As time goes on in our age of increasing reliance on computerized kanji input, this question may become increasingly irrelevant, but when I'm writing a sentence with (gasp!) pen and paper, I have always struggled to remember where the dividing line between kanji and okurigana lies with each character. Is there any way (aside from brute-force memorization, which I'm attempting at the moment) to learn and reliably recall okurigana? Are there any patterns I can rely on?

Other than brute-force memorization (), the only thing I can suggest is material regarding the Kanji-Kentei (), because I know some of the (lower?) levels focus on . Some materials I have are books of tests from previous years (), and a Nintendo DS game. However, I got all of this in Japan, so I don't know how accessible this kind of stuff would be for you (Amazon.co.jp, have friends from Japan send you stuff, etc.) There's always Google to maybe search for some online quizzes. For -adjective, of course the is always . There are also the type adjectives, where that suffix is always as well. Learning verbs by their dictionary form will also help. Note however, that there are often times where multiple forms of are accepted. For example, the verb can be written both as and . This can throw a kink into some verbs, but I think the ratio of multiple-accepted- verbs to one-accepted- is probably pretty low.

stackexchange-japanese

The many ways to write {かっこいい} Apparently there are so many ways to write {}. Hiragana/katakana only: * * * EDICT: * * Other possible variants: * * * * * (notice that a different initial kanji is used) * ... In general, which is the most commonly used variant? Are there also specific places where one variant is preferred over the others (including the common one)?

Some native feelings about the different spellings: * is neutral * , or anything with katakana looks like written by someone pretending to be young * is frequently heard from young people. When a high-school student writes this in school, it would be corrected to * looks sixty years old-fashioned.

stackexchange-japanese

When/why did 電話する replace 電話をかける? In some older learning material I came across, they use for "to make a telephone call". When/why did this come to be replaced by in popular usage?

It randomly occurred to me today that while these are indeed similar in meaning, they are not always interchangeable. If you're talking about making a call **to** someone/somewhere, either can be used: > **** call the office > > **** call the office But can also be a joint action. Consider the following: > **** talk on the phone with one's boyfriend > > **** (?) (Technically you could argue that the second sentence is grammatically correct, but the picture it gives is that of two people dialing the same phone together, so it doesn't match the meaning of the first.) So while can be used in both a directional (calling to someone/somewhere) and a joint (talking on the phone with someone) sense, can only be used in a directional sense. As a **purely speculatory** note, it may be that is more common today because it covers more cases than , which may lead you to think that is on the way out.

stackexchange-japanese

や in Kansai-ben when it is not だ The following sentence occurs in The Legend of Zelda: (This would be and was famously translated as "Buy somethin', will ya!".) From the , it's obvious he's speaking Kansai-ben, and I suspect that this usage of is Kansai-ben as well. (I know that is used instead of in Kansai-ben, but this is obviously a different usage.) But what does it mean? Does it indicate some sort of insistence?

This actually most likely Oosaka-ben's variation of as, becoming something like: > The usage is explained in more detail here: < (Japanese) **EDIT** The original quote from the just in case site downtime happens: >

stackexchange-japanese

全然 {ぜんぜん} with positive adjective / na-adjective In Japanese classes, I was taught that can only be used with negative-meaning words/phrases/clauses, for example: > > However, I've observed that, especially in spoken Japanese, some positive na-adjectives are allowed to follow adverb, for example: > > Or even: > OK Are there any reasons why these na-adjectives do not have to follow the +negative rule? Given any other na-adjective with positive meaning, how to decide whether or not I can use it with the adverb? (e.g. ) p/s: I am fully aware that we have to look at the full sentence to determine whether the word/phrase/clause that follows is positive or negative, for example: {} has negative meaning so {} is OK. But I hear {} a lot in anime/drama, hence this question.

Like YOU mentioned, Zenzen being used with positive words is slang and not correct Japanese. That being said, Japanese people use it all the time, especially young people. Typically I hear with OK, and with others possibly I haven't heard. That is to say that the words that are used with in a positive sense are probably limited to just a few words, but because language is living, this list will probably change. Total off shoot, these words listed above seem like words a uses all the time and can't get that image out of my mind.

stackexchange-japanese

お金と「ちょうど」の使い方 (usage of "chōdo") What is the reason/meaning for cashiers to use when accepting money? > 500 This I understand, since 500 Yen are a "round" amount. _"Exactly 500 Yen."_ > 812 If I'm supposed to pay exactly 812 Yen, I understand this, too. _"Exactly 812 Yen, [as required]."_ What I don't understand is the usage when it's neither the amount required nor a round number. Say I'm asked to pay 612 Yen and I'm giving 1,112 Yen to get a 500 Yen coin in return. The cashier will still often say > 1,112 Is it just the habit of saying , or is there a different meaning behind this than _"exactly"_?

Actually, If there is extra amount, they should be using > 1,112() because they are temporarily taking the amount 1112 to calculate the difference. That said, it's hard to change the manner of speaking to suit with received amount, and wrong usage will lead to some kind of impoliteness. So, I guess, most people just remember most used one.

stackexchange-japanese

IT system renewal: Can I say 更新 for "renewal"? I am starting a new project and have to come up with a name for it so that everybody knows what we are talking about. The project is the renewal of an IT application that I will call . Improving the existing software and adding a few features. Can I call it ? Is there a better word/expression? _I looked up on ALC and others but could not find. Your methodology for translating this kind of term would also interest me :-)_

Yes, renewal (of a computer system/hardware/software) can be . For example, the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) renewed their system in Jan. 2010, and the heading on the website of the news agency Kyodo News was: > ( ) TSE to start a new system on (Jan.) 4th; the first renewal in ten years Another candidate for the project name might be (the project for developing a new version of XYZ). Compared to , this focuses on the development of the application program. (By the way, this has nothing to do with the question itself, but the letter Z in the English alphabet is usually read as rather than in Japanese.)

stackexchange-japanese

とっても versus とても I've had a teacher flatly tell me that is incorrect, but I do see it written here and there and I'm pretty sure I hear it as well. Is it just so informal relative to that I should never use it in a classroom or on schoolwork?

is a spoken variant of , just like is a spoken variant of and is a spoken variant of . If you're writing a paper or speaking in a formal setting, it's better to use .

stackexchange-japanese