Datasets:

donfu

/

oa-stackexchange

like 7

Difference between ◯◯を掃除 and ◯◯に掃除 What's the difference between **** and **** Trying to understand the following, which using "" > ****

I suppose you meant ``. In ``, `` is the object to be cleaned. There can be sources of a `...` phrase that are **not directly relevant** to this predicate: * Time: `3` * The subject of a causative: `` * An adverbial phrase expressing the purpose (can be translated as 'as'): ``

stackexchange-japanese

What are the origins of ド when used as emphasis, and is it always negative? Sometimes I've seen as a prefix that adds emphasis to words. So saying someone is is saying that they are much more stupid than just . I'm wondering what the origin of in this context is. Does it come from ("degree"), as in, "the degree of X is higher"? Also, is it always negative? I usually see it attached to negative terms, but I don't know if it's exclusively negative. Lastly, is it impolite?

In present Japanese, the usage is not limited to negative terms > 'right in the middle', 'bingo!' > 'strong guts' but does not seem to be productive either (i.e., usage is limited). When it is used with a negative term, that is surely impolite, but the words listed above are not particularly impolite. `` seems to have derived from the 18th century form ``, whose meaning is not clear. There is another descendant form ``, which developed mainly in the context of kabuki (), and seems to be used only for negative terms. > > > [Recent slang] Here are some discussions on other sites: * < * <

stackexchange-japanese

How to break down who did what in AにBをCさせる I'm trying to understand the following: > I guess this could be generalized as ABC. It's confusing. Maybe if someone can break down how to understand this and then I can memorize it.

Usually, you have a sentence like: > > koohai ga saihu wo hirak-u > 'the junior opens the wallet' where the subject takes `` and the object takes ``. There is a morpheme `-(s)ase-` 'let', 'make' that expresses causative. The way you use it is that you embed the sentence, and change the embedded subject `` into ``, take another subject that will be the causer. > > kimi ga [koohai **ni** saihu wo hirak]-ase-ru > 'you let [the junior open the wallet]' In your example, the subject `` is actually omitted, so you have >

stackexchange-japanese

What is the らせ form of a verb? I'm trying to understand this: .....​ The last word, , is confusing. Is this a combination of different forms?

`` is the causative form of the verb ``. See my explanation to your previous question for the meaning of the causative `-(s)ase-` > damar-u [Original form] > BeQuiet-NonPast > > > damar- **ase** -ru [Causative] > BeQuiet-Causative-NonPast

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 照{て}れる and 照{て}れてる? According to my dictionary, both `{}` and `{}` mean to be shy, or be awkward. I don't _think_ one is a different verb form of the other. The ``+`` form of `` would be ``, not ``. So I think they're different words, but do they have a difference in meaning? Also, the kanji by itself seems to mean "to shine". Is there some kind of association in the word origin or in the culture between shyness and shining? _(Please note that the green check will only be awarded to answers that do not rely on technical linguistic terminology to be understood.)_

As Lukman comments, `` is simply a contracted form of ``. ` + ` can be used to mean either or both * Progressive (as in English `be ~-ing`) * Perfect (as in English `have ~-en`) depending on the verb. In this case, `` will mean that the person generally gets shy; not that the person is shy at a particular moment. > > 'He always gets shy in front of people.' In order to describe a particular event of getting shy, you have to use the ` + ` form. > , > 'He is being shy now.' [literal translation] > 'He is shy now.' `` can be translated into English as 'shine', but it also means 'glow'. When you are getting shy, (stereo-)typically, your face gets red with increased blood flow. The origin of `` is this face described metaphorically as 'glowing in a fire'.

stackexchange-japanese

What is a 割り込みタスク? One of my coworkers todays said something like: > "Today I have too many so I cannot pay too much attention to this project" Literally translating it into "interrupting tasks" sounds rather vague, so how would a be defined?

I'm not sure how common it is in general business Japanese, but `` isn't that out of place among lifehackers. It roughly means "unexpected work created by external factors". Here are a few articles that use the word... * * * ”” In lifehacking jargon, "interruptions" seems to be the corresponding term, though not exactly interchangeable (to be exact, interruptions = , tasks created by interruptions = ): * Plan for Interruptions to Minimize Their Impact The point is, when you say , the tasks themselves are interruptions to your coworker's planned work schedule, and that interruption has already happened. I think that's a more natural interpretation/transcription than " **** " (tasks keep interrupting me).

stackexchange-japanese

What does する mean when it does not mean "do"? （血のにおいがする） What does mean when it does not mean "do"? Like: > ****

does not actually mean "do". It's much more generic than that. "to do" is just one way it parses into English. For your sentence . It would mean "I smell blood on you too" in this sense takes on the meaning "to perceive non-visually" Summarising from nihongoresources: > The kanji form of is . And the kanji represents some objective. So as a verb it means "to act in a way that accomplishes [objective]" If your objective is then to "accomplish" it would be to smell. > > This is also why means "to decide on (whatever your choice is)" > > And for since marks the direct object, it means "do " (Because it's a direct object, doing directly accomplishes ) can also be used for describing some attribute: > to mean "I have long legs"stative resultant form of ) > > To accomplish "long legs", the simplest way is to simply "have" it.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the differences in nuances between とうとう and やっと? What is the differences in nuances between and ? is it true that has a more "happy" feeling attached to it?

means that something realizes after spending/waiting a long time for it or making a lot of effort for it. Therefore it is understandable that has a happy feeling attached to it. If I understand English correctly, “at last” has a similar meaning. means that something happens as a final outcome, and what happens can be either a good thing or a bad thing. For example, suppose that some company has been financially in a trouble for a while. Today you heard that the company went bankrupt. > () I heard the company finally went bankrupt. is a usual sentence. If you say > () I heard the company went bankrupt at last. that means that you were waiting for the bankruptcy of the company.

stackexchange-japanese

does anyone know of any o-words or go-words which are absolutely neutral? Does anyone know of any o-words or go-words which are absolutely neutral (have no nuances of being polite / courteous / respectful / womanly / cute etc etc)? The only ones I'm aware of currently is and **Update** Does anyone know of any o-words or go-words that when the or is omitted, becomes another word or not a word altogether? The only ones I'm aware of currently is

Here is a list of neutral o- and go- words: > * 'small bag for juggling' > * 'written oracle' > * 'being angry' [Not crown] > * 'being angry' [Not eye ball] > * 'pickle' > * 'rice ball' [Not sushi] > * > * 'something positive gained (unexpectedly) from someone else' [Not falling off] > * 'a portion given away' > * 'used thing (clothes, etc.) often given from a senior to a junior sibling' [Not going down] > * 'cancel' [Not current] > * > * > * > * > * > * > * >

stackexchange-japanese

What is おやすみNASA胃？ I've seen this in several places. Is that a set phrase? What does that mean? I know that it's a way of saying "Goodnight," but the NASA doesn't make sense.

is read and NASA reads "" so what this actually says is ("Good night"). However, I don't know wether this is a typo or an intentional misspelling.

stackexchange-japanese

What does 「父なる砂漠」mean? There is a line in the , which is a song of ZARD (Sakai Izumi): > I don't understand the meaning of . It's quite strange to think of it as the desert that has been a father... Thank you very much.

As sawa suggested, (which literally means “the earth which is a mother”) is a fixed phrase to refer to Mother Earth, a common personification of the earth. Just to clarify, is not a common phrase, but it clearly builds on top of the phrase . The phrase may be an invention by the writer of the song. Interpretation of song lyrics is a delicate art, and I will not try to do it here.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the meaning of すます in 耳をすませば? What's the meaning of in ? How would you translate this?

`` is `` without the kanji, and it means "to clear, to purify". ``is a set phrase, listed in the dictionary in its complete form, meaning to listen carefully. You can think of ``, then, in this context, as meaning to clear out your ears so as to listen better.

stackexchange-japanese

Combining に/で particles with 等【など】(or other "etc." stand-ins) I was recently trying to make an **open-ended** enumeration of places in a construction that would require the use of a particle. E.g.: > AB or even: > A[and the like] Preferably using a stronger indicator of open-endedness, such as (to me only has a weak implication of other possibilities, whereas here I want to convey the idea of "places like A [or B]"). But then I realised that the combination of and did not sound quite right, and even if it was, I had no idea how it would go (`A`? `A`?)... Thus my question: Can (or a suitably similar word for "and the like") ever be used with a / construction? (not necessarily just locations... Tools or "means" as well: `AB`)

A particle normally follows ``. `` and `` are marked as optional (my dictionary puts them in parenthesis). > For tools: `` "There are also people who eat it with things like forks and spoons." > > For places: XY()"Shall we go to places like X or Y for the summer vacation?" Interestingly, my dictionary says that if the particles precede ``, the sentence is given a derogatory meaning. (``, `` and `` cannot precede ``) > "We can't eat with the damned chopsticks." * * * Alternatively I think you can try: > For places: X "Places like X" > > For tools: X "Tools like X" > > And by extension: XY "Y like X" for other categories of things you might think of.

stackexchange-japanese

Does the letter "C" attract any superstition? I've heard that the number four attracts superstition because of its similarity with the word for death. For example, yon is used instead of shi in some circumstances, and sometimes the number 4, along with some other numbers is avoided. Does the Roma-ji letter "C" attract any superstition, as it is usually pronounced "shi" (for example, CD is pronounced "shi dee")? Or are the pronunciations different?

As Dave stated, there is no widely shared superstition arising from the similarity in pronunciation between “C” and death (). Actually their readings are different. Four () and death () are both . Letter C is , pronounced as . is sometimes pronounced with a prolonged vowel (e.g. when counting numbers), but its reading is still , not .

stackexchange-japanese

Use of になります in the context of time While attempting to translate the sentence "It will soon be two years since I started learning Japanese", I started wondering how works in the context of time. Ignoring any other translation errors, is the correct word to use at the end of the sentence > For some reason, the sounds like it is incorrect. My main reason for using is in order to keep the 'becoming' part of the original sentence. Something like > holds a vaguely similar meaning, but is more like "I started learning Japanese two years ago" Is my usage of here correct, and is it common to use it when talking about time? I often hear my friends say 10, but is it also correct to say 10? Even typing that, it seems as though it can't be correct, perhaps because needs some sort of state to transfer into? The sentence 10 seems like an appropriate usage, but I really don't know.

Your first sentence had grammatical mistakes irrelevant to the question, so I fixed it. > * > * 10 > are both correct. `` does not need some state to transfer into. It can be just an instantaneous event, like 'becoming 10 o'clock'. The sentence > × 10 > 'Since it will be 10 o'clock soon, let's leave.' is strange under the intended context because the first part means that it is not 10 o'clock yet, but the second part is suggesting to leave which is conditioned by becoming 10 o'clock. The correct way is to say > 10 > 'Since it will be 10 o'clock soon, let's prepare to leave.'

stackexchange-japanese

How to get clarification in Japanese I sometimes find that when Japanese answer my questions, their answers are too vague. For instance, I asked what is in a given context. A Japanese person told me it is , "a type of work clothes." That's still too vague for me. Is it a kind of cloth? What are the other types? What can I say to get more clarification to get a better explanation of what exactly is?

…… Which means something like "Hum… more precisely? I am not sure I understand with such a concise explanation". This is quite oral, as you may guess.

stackexchange-japanese

How do you do a countdown? For example, when JAXA launches a rocket, or people count the seconds to the New Year, do they use or to count 4? do they use or to count 7?

Usually when you count, you use `` for '4' and `` for '7'. That applies to when you count down. > **** **** However, in some situations, pronouncing a certain sequence of numbers became so frequent end became a fixed expression. In that case, '4' and '7' may be pronounced `` and ``, respectively. That includes a situation of counting up: > **** ****

stackexchange-japanese

Is 二ヶ所 slang for something else? Can't find this in the dictionary. Is this the slang form of something else? What does it mean?

It sounds like , so probably (two places) or (two parts).

stackexchange-japanese

Does 髭 refer to the beard or the moustache? My dictionary lists `` as **moustache / beard** , but from the example sentences in WWWJDIC, it seems like `` is more often used to mean "beard" than "moustache" ? So for example, in this sentence: ``, is it clear to the listener that the speaker wanted to say "He grew a _beard_ to look more mature", and not "He grew _mustache_ to look more mature"? Or is it ambiguous and it could mean either one?

Your example says he grew facial hair. If it's a Japanese person, I would even dare say that it unambiguously refers to a beard, since I haven't seen many moustaches recently in Japan (beside mines), while I keep seeing guys struggling to get a beard :) The unambiguous words you can use are: * chin beard * moustache * moustache * goatee * sideburns * whiskers

stackexchange-japanese

から and ので formation/conjugation differences Consider the case when `` and `` follows a noun, -adjective, or noun-equivalent: > **** ... "Because it is quiet..." (Subjective causality) > > **** ... "Because it is quiet..." (Objective causality) **(Question)** What causes the difference in the parts in bold above? * * *

`` 'since, because' attaches to a clause, whereas `` 'with (the reason being)' attaches to a noun. `` is an indicative clause (ordinary sentence), so you can simply attach ``, but not ``. > * > * × > In order to use ``, you have to have a noun. To do that, you use the formal noun (or nominalizer) `` taking an appositive clause. In appositive clauses and relative clauses, na-adjectives take the adnominal ending ``. > * × > * >

stackexchange-japanese

Etymology of 土産 {みやげ} The pronunciation "" does not correspond to on'yomi nor kun'yomi of ``, so I thought it was a _gikun_ (), but the combination of kanji `` and `` does not seem to provide the meaning of "souvenir" either. Based on the pronunciation, I previously thought that it was taken from the verb stem of `` and the meaning "to look up at" does sound like it's related to giving souvenir, but the slight difference in the second syllables of "" and "" has a lot to say against this theory. So what was the origin of the word and kanji `{}`?

There are several explanations I found on gogen-allguide: The kanji are obvious, it's a souvenir, a product of the land. The reading can come from () as you "look" () for something to "give" (), from which is a place with stocks (of souvenirs?), from , , which all evoke some place and some container. The ateji was probably chosen at the end of Muromachi. PS: I don't see why the -> mutation "has a lot to say against this theory". On the contrary, I find it very likely.

stackexchange-japanese

just by the phrase 試験を受ける, can we imply anything on the 試験? since is the same verb associated with "sustaining damage", "incurring losses", "suffering injury", all 3 seemingly have _negative_ nuances, I'm wondering when we use it () with , does imply anything on the ? are there any clues to the listener what kind of it is? Or is it the case that we cannot derive any traits of the just by the phrase because by itself the phrase is a neutral one?

does not by itself imply a negative outcome: > receive an order > > receive aid > > catch a ball in the hand Therefore does not tell you anything about the type of exam or whether it is a difficult or easy exam. It simply means to "undergo (take) an exam".

stackexchange-japanese

Is there a polite saying like "May I?" Looking for a phrase that has the same meaning as "May I?" in English. One that would work in situations that would indicate I would like to try to solve a problem at hand, or receive control over something. For example, if someone is stuck with a Rubik's cube, or maybe I want a user to get up from a workstation so I can sit down and try a solution. I know I can use words in a sentence to say what I want, but is there a phrase that accomplishes the same? I'm thinking could work, but is it enough alone?

Like pretty much anything in Japanese, it entirely depends on context and your relation with the person you are addressing. `` or `` sound perfectly fine for most situations. If you are offering your help to someone of higher status, the kenjōgo construct `` is a good start. E.g.: > > > To anybody else, `[]`/`[]?` might also do...

stackexchange-japanese

Kanji 行 with なみ, なめ, みち and アン pronunciations I have only found being pronounced as , and for kun'yomi and as and for on'yomi, but my dictionary software also lists down , , and as the other pronunciations of this kanji. !Pronunciations of In which words is the kanji pronounced as , , or ?

Names, mostly. Hence most of them being nanori readings. But a few as as well. * () - foot warmer * () - pilgrimage * () - temporary lodging built for an imperial visit * () - a lamp with a paper shade

stackexchange-japanese

Plain verbs that end with ぬ other than 死ぬ Are there any other verbs than whose plain forms end with ? Why are they so rare? Is it because the verb itself has special etymology why it ended up having the ending?

As Axioplase has indicated, the verb was originally a n-stem irregular verb (). There was only one other such verb, namely . It survives in modern standard Japanese in derived forms such as , from the stem of + the stem of the past tense auxiliary + the particle ). It is also thought that the noun is derived from . (The main evidence for this, as I understand it, are Ryūkyū languages in which /nisi/ means north instead of west, indicating a migration from the mainland spreading southwards into the Ryūkyū islands and eastward into Honshū.) There are also auxiliary verbs which end in -, the most well known of which is the negative verb. It survives in modern Japanese as the - in -. (- is another form of this auxiliary.) The other one, which does not survive into modern Japanese, is the perfect auxiliary -, also derived from .

stackexchange-japanese

Are there names like ワンコイン for the other coins? So refers to a 500 coin, but is there other names for the other coins? Also in conversation does refer to any specific currency or only to 500 yen (as in the sense of being a default).

I'm not sure how SE works and why there are only comments with answers and no actual answers... However, , as mentioned by Dave and others in the comments, is not a term for any particular coin, but just a sales practice by any shop. Whenever they sell items where you can pay using just one coin, then it's a sales point they'll put on signs. It could apply to any of the coins. So if a shop had everything for 100 yen, or 10 yen, 5 yen, or 1 yen, then they could say . I have never heard the term used in conversation, at least not in reference to currency. It would only be used when talking about a shop or sale.

stackexchange-japanese

Contraction of particle の to ん before nouns in colloquial Japanese I am familiar with contraction of to before (and variants , , etc) but I noticed that is also contracted before in spoken set-phrases like and . Are there any other instances where is contracted before some particular nouns? I remember hearing in some anime/jdrama but I might have misheard. Also, are there any dialects that utilize these types of contractions more frequently than the other colloquial dialects?

Chakoshi to the rescue! (Chakoshi is a tool for searching both the Aozora and conversational Japanese corpora at Nagoya University.) A quick search for a "[noun][noun]" pattern in the conversational corpus gives 262 results, most of which are what you are asking about. Broken down, there's actually not much variety in the nouns that follow : > (99): **** , **** , **** , … > > () (78): **** , **** , **** , **** , … > > (62): **** , **** , **** , … > > (11): **** , **** , **** , … This contraction is present in both masculine and feminine speech. I can't think of any other phrases offhand that use this way, but I can't say that means they're not out there. If you can think of some, please put in a comment. As far as dialectical variation goes, the Chakoshi corpus covers a fairly wide range of speakers, but I would have to do a deeper analysis on the results to find out if there are any trends.

stackexchange-japanese

Meaning of しやしま as sentence ender Look at this conversation from Twitter. Do you know what dialect it is? > shohei110h: dead stock(´ω`) > mao_sid: The part I don't understand is at the end of the first sentence. What does that mean?

My guess is that it's a typo of either or . At first glance, looks pretty hard to mistype as , but on second thought, it's likely to happen on mobile phones. Considering that most Japanese mobile phones have keypads like: > `````` > > `****`` ``` > > `****`` ****`` ` it's quite easy to mistype , and , which are arranged next to each other. can be a loosely pronounced slang for , or the author may be writing in the Edo dialect, either genuinely or for a comical effect ( is often heard in Jidaigeki/samurai dramas).

stackexchange-japanese

How to parse the proverb [艱難]{かんなん}[汝]{なんじ}を[玉]{たま}にす? I found this particular proverb on WWWJDIC when I looked up for : []{}[]{}[]{}. It is translated into English as: Hardship makes the man. How do we parse the proverb? I know {} means "hardship". But {} means "thou" (archaic 'you') so what nuance does it contribute when suffixed to ? And does {} mean jewel or actually refer to the family jewels? And what about , is it an archaic verb, or simply abbreviation of ? How are all these in the end summed up as "hardship makes the man"?

The sentence is classical Japanese, not modern Japanese, and should be parsed as such. I analyse it as follows: > > kannan nandi-wo tama-ni su > hardship thou-ACC jewel-LOC make > _Hardship will make you into a jewel._ In classical Japanese, the subject of a main clause is usually not indicated by a particle. In a typical sentence, the main verb will be in the terminative form (); the classical form of the modern verb is an s-stem irregular verb () and its terminative form is just . is its attributive form ().

stackexchange-japanese

I've seen 達人and 名人used to indicate master or expert. What's the difference? I'm not familiar with either word, but just looking at the characters, would seem to indicate 'accomplished' (ie an accomplished pianist). While seems more like 'renowned'. Is that a valid assessment?

Consider the following: > as a kanji has the meaning "accomplish", "(to) reach" > > as a kanji has the meaning "name" or "reputation" Kanji compounds: > : "achievement" > > : "famous, celebrated" > > : "fame, prestige" And in Chinese, `(míng rén)` has no connotations of skill as far as I know, it simply means "famous person". `(dá rén)` however means "expert" and does not imply fame. I would say your assessment is a reasonable one.

stackexchange-japanese

What would be the best way to express the term 'master', as in a master of some sport? For example, 'a tennis master'?

If you are looking for adjectives to describe skill here's a few: > (generally speaking) _good at_ ~ > > _mysteriously skillful at_ ~ > > _a genius in_ ~ > > This one is my favourite, it has the meaning of _practised to perfection_. Some examples: > > I am good at tennis. > > > That tennis player is skillful. > > > a genius in tennis > > > an expert at tennis > > > an expert tennis player

stackexchange-japanese

When are ふう and よう interchangeable? Lately has been on my mind. Often it seems interchangeable with : > 1. **** **** Please make it like this. > > 2. **** **** In what way do you interpret that? > > 3. **** **** When I was about to leave, I was told to pick up some cake on the way back. > > ### Questions When and are used in this way to mean "manner" or "like": 1. Are they always interchangeable? 2. Is there any difference in nuance?

First of all, as you already implicitly show in your examples, their modifiers are not interchangable. > {///} > × {///} > {///} > {///} I think `` means some manner freely picked out, whereas `` is a manner chosen from the possibilities set by the context. This difference parallels the English `what` vs. `which`. > In what way did you do it? > In which way did you do it? > > What kind of music do you like? > Which kind of music do you like? English `what` does not presuppose the possibilities whereas `which` requires a contextually specified set from which one is chosen (i.e., in linguistic terms, _discourse-linked_ ). On top of that difference, `` is less approximate than ``. To reflect the difference, I would translate your examples like this: > > 'Please make this kind of like this. > > 'Please make this (look) this way.

stackexchange-japanese

Why did オレンジ replace 橙【だいだい】? This question about colours got me thinking: Why, and how, did `` come to replace `` to refer to the colour orange? It seems weird to me that a word taken from a foreign language became adopted as the norm when there seem to already have been a perfectly good local word for the same thing. I've seen `` used very occasionally, but it seems to be reserved for deliberately attaching a Japanese style, or ``, context beyond just describing the colour.

Ah, I found something on this particular example... > [...] source: < Not sure from what source this information is in turn, though. Looks like Japan didn't have a name for the color orange (see here for what color they had). So the Japanese borrowed from China, and from English. The kanji was not one of the kanji that is taught in compulsory education, thus became more common.

stackexchange-japanese

Is 見物{みもの} derogatory? To say something is a , does it have a derogatory nuance like we are making fun of that person / that thing? If so, is it derogatory to the extent that even if I intended it as a fun joke it seems a bit too much, or is it just _a bit_ derogatory and fine to use in informal situations?

It can be. The most common usage of this term is as follows: A) Hey, I'm going skiing with Jack, together with his brand new girlfriend. B) Why? He has never been skiing and he sucks at sport. A) Yeah! It will be a ! hahaha When you say , it implies that you are looking forward and will enjoy seeing how he/she will fail. So you risk to be seen as an asshole. If you are really close with the conversation partner and you fully understand the nuance of this term, you could use it to joke, but my advice is to stay away unless you are really confident. Usage of as simply something worth seeing is rather archaic now and is not commonly used.

stackexchange-japanese

The phrase 乞うご期待 What does the phrase mean in English? Can you show some example sentences?

I was reading this chiebukuro, I think the gist of it is that movie theaters would give a preview of what they had coming to the screen, and a big **** would be written on the trailer. I guess this is like the **Coming Soon** in the U.S. I can't translate it to English, but perhaps something along the lines of "for your anticipation." To give the meaning, the same chiebukuro rewords it: > [] > Please look forward to this.

stackexchange-japanese

まち: what's the difference between 町 and 街? My impression is that tends to be used for smaller cities and tends to be used for larger ones. Is this correct? If not, what _is_ the difference?

That is correct. According to , is similar to `town` whereas is similar to `street` or `avenue`. can also refer to a developed town with lots of streets and avenues, so to say. For example, you can say (center-gai), but not (center-cho). This is because refers to "streets with small businesses". If there was a , hypothetically speaking, a Japanese would imagine some area where small businesses are scattered here and there, rather than an area with a few streets with small businesses packed together. Hence the different usage.

stackexchange-japanese

Can the ったら form of a verb be used to mean "after?" Take this example: AB Could this mean, "After doing A, B happened?"

Yes, if B is in the past tense. This adds a flavor of surprise at the results to the sentence. > Source: Tae Kim

stackexchange-japanese

the difference between じゃん (jan) and だろう/でしょう (darou/desho) I would like to know what's the difference of and . the meaning I know it's similar, but when I should use each of them? Is it same to say: > > > > > thanks

is , i.e., When you say "", you actually _affirm_ "that's great, isn't it?", you give your opinion, and don't care about any one else. The intonation is that of a strong affirmation. / is rather an introspective form, or an "open to suggestions" affirmation. When you say "", you say "that's great, isn't it" and you look at the people around you, expecting an agreement, a reaction. The intonation is that of a question. ! is something you say while doing it: "see, I can do it!". Though more naturally, I'd say "" or "". is something you say before he does it: "I'm pretty sure he can do it, can't he?" (If I were to say "I'm pretty sure I can do it", I'd say it differently, that's why the subject changes in my example.) Also, grammar dictates that you can't say , so usage has it like "", when you want to leave politeness apart (even though as in the example above is perfectly ok in informal conversations).

stackexchange-japanese

で　used for abstract location? Consider the sentence: > **** I would roughly translate it literally to: > For this trip, **in the domain of "total"**(abstract location), how many people will be going?" And then more naturally as: > How many people in total are going on this trip? **My conjecture:** is taking on the role of "location where a verb/event occurs". **(Question 1)** What is the role of for this type of usage? * * * Other things for your consideration: JMDict and WWWJDIC categorises as: > Adverbial Noun () **(Q1.1)** , > > noun (temporal) (jisoumeishi) **(Q1.2)** **(Q1.1)** But I don't think acts adverbially to modify the verb . Am I right? (Please correct me if I'm wrong) **(Q1.2)** I don't think this part is relevant right? (Again please correct me if I'm wrong)

> is an expression meaning "in total", and is strongly related to the fixed way to say "N of us went to X" (XN). Rather than an abstract location, it's closer to the "mean" , the one you use to say "I went by car". So, it's like "By what did you go there" (), "By what number did you go there" (), and so on.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it true that all verbs have a corresponding noun form? Is it true that all verbs have a corresponding noun form (which is formed by making the -masu form and removing the -masu)? Like and and and and

For the most part, yes. There are a few outliers that don't though. Most and verbs don't form nouns with their . And some , such as , are specialized almost to the point of uselessness.

stackexchange-japanese

Proportion and Rate How do I form a sentence pattern for: > The more/less X happens, the more/less Y happens > >> E.g. The more you stir, the faster the salt dissolves. >> >> The colder the weather, the more time it takes for snow to melt.

There are also several other grammar patterns that express "as one thing changes (grows/increases/decreases/etc.) another thing changes with it" (the key is that both things are **changing** ). 1. (noun) 2. (verb in dictionary form) 3. (the noun of a suru-verb) > * (2 or 3) + (cannot express volition or intention, but the rest can). > * []{≪≫} **** → As anime is becoming more popular, the number of people learning Japanese is growing. > * (2 or 3) + > * **** → The-more/As the police investigation progressed, new questions kept arising (one after another). > * (1 or 2) + > * **** → As I continue to recover from my illness, little-by-little I intend to work longer (and longer) hours. > * (1 or 2) + > * **** → As technology continues to expand, writing letters (by hand) will surely decline. > These used to be JLPT patterns, but since they changed it to the new N1-N5 system, I don't know which level they are anymore.

stackexchange-japanese

Was sake always called nihonshu? Was nihonshu (what English refers to as "sake") always called nihonshu, or was it only called that once western alcoholic beverages were introduced to Japan?

The 's earliest cite for (nihonshu) is 1886, in Tsubouchi Shoyo's , which is to judge from the title a book about foreigners in Japan. I'd say the chances are good that (nihonshu) is a recent coinage, and before that, the drink was simply called (sake). Incidentally, again according to the , the word (budōshu) for "[grape] wine" has been around for at least 500 years.

stackexchange-japanese

寂しい can mean "pathetic"? Is it true that can be used to describe someone as "pathetic" ? (pathetic in the sense like someone is cheating in a game: pathetic. and like someone is robbing a grandma: pathetic. and like someone who doesn't wish to work and just wanted to live off others: pathetic) The dictionaries I use only list them as "lonely, lonesome, solitary, desolate" so I'm wondering if the "pathetic" meaning of is widely used (or used at all)

I hear used as a derogatory word, usually in the form . The literal meaning of would be “lonely person,” but it means more like “a person without friends.” So calling someone as is equivalent to claiming that the person has no friends, and it could be an insult. I consider simply as yet another phrase used to insult someone, mostly independent of whether the speaker really thinks that the referent deserves no friends or not. I do not know if it is similar to “pathetic” in usage.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between 〜以上は and 〜からには The textbook I'm currently using defines both of these grammar points as: What is the difference between the two grammar points, can they be used interchangeably like the following: **** vs **** If they can be used interchangeably, is there any nuance I should be aware of?

They're basically the same. It means, "Hold onto your responsibilities until the bitter end because your word is your bond." If there's some slight difference in nuance, then the second sentence would be more officious. If two people, a boss and his or her subordinate were talking, it would be kind of an unfriendly admonishment of the worker's poor performance. If two people know one another as friends, then maybe they would say 'kara'. It would still be said in a strict tone, though. So, just the setting: friendly vs business setting. You could say `` with friends, but if you use that then the atmosphere would become very serious. If you used ``, it's not serious. You know, you might say it to a child who played a video game but didn't clean, and he didn't do the cleaning part. So, it still sounds like you're talking down, a little, if you say ``.

stackexchange-japanese

Expression equivalent to "as far/long/much as I/you X" Is there an expression in Japanese that is equivalent to "as far/long as I/you X", for example "as far as I know", "as far as I'm concerned", "as much as you want", "as long as he is still alive" etc? Or perhaps are all those English expressions expressed differently in Japanese? Some example sentences: 1. As far as I know, it only takes 15 minutes to travel from Kyoto to Osaka by bullet train. 2. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of questions is not suitable to be asked here. 3. Please take as much as you want. 4. He is working hard to achieve that golden dream of his as long as he is alive. EDIT: One more expression: "as soon as possible"

Usually that construction is achieved by using . > * (as far as one knows) > * (as far as possible) > * (as long as one lives) > * (as far as I'm concerned, i.e. "for my part [but I won't speak for others, because they disagree with me]") > The construction in your second sentence ("as far as I'm concerned") is usually expressed with other expressions like or . Edit: "As much as one wants" is usually expressed as . That can be used in other phrases, like (as much as one needs)

stackexchange-japanese

以上 vs 以上 for numbers vs words: half full/half empty? Well, is used after a speech to indicate that the speech has been concluded (i.e., 'Everything before this has been said.'). is used in numbers to mean 'or more', as in `%` (as in, 'Everything after this is included.'). If you want to say, "80% or less", you say `%` or `` for "anything but 80%". Are and only homonyms and homophones, or are the words somehow synonymous, by definition?

In both examples, `` means 'above'. When you are talking about something that already has a scale, that naturally applies. Towards the higher end will be 'above' and the lower end will be 'below'. In case of speach or writing, there is no inherent scale, so a scale has to be added. And the normal habit is that, in writing, the flow goes from the top of the page to the bottom, so if you refer to something previously mentioned, that corresponds to 'above'. That is carried over to speech.

stackexchange-japanese

How to say "Please direct all your future correspondence to email"? Soon I am leaving my job and I would like to leave an e-mail for future correspondence with my colleagues. How do I write in Japanese something like "Please direct all your future correspondence to **my private email** "? I could go with some simple expression like: email, but there probably exist better ways to express it.

> my email

stackexchange-japanese

Saying 「おかわり」 when requesting second helping: what is being exchanged? I am aware that the phrase that is used when asking for second helping (of meals especially) is an idiomatic expression, so its usage is understood as it is. But, I'm curious about the origin of this phrase because it seems to be derived from / (P) / , which means "to be exchanged/switched". How did this phrase come into the usage? Is it the case that in the past when people asked for second helping, something was exchanged (bowl, chopsticks etc)?

It means 'replacement'. What is being replaced is the content, not the container. You can use a related expression `` in a wide variety of replacements. Mostly in Kyusyu area, when you go to a noodle shop, you can ask for ``, which is (a ball of) replacement noodle that fills in your empty bowl still with leftover soup. `` means a replacement lead for a mechanical pencil or replacement staples for a stapler.

stackexchange-japanese

食べやすい and 食べにくい I'm wondering what does mean exactly? "easily-eaten" doesn't seem to make any sense at all.. Does mean that something is soft and easy to swallow, or does it mean that something tastes nice? Does mean something that is hard to bite/swallow ?

Lukman gives a good answer in the comment. If Lukman turns it into an answer, I will remove this answer. ``, `` respectively mean 'easy to' and 'difficult to'. Reason can vary depending on the context. * It may be so because it tastes good/bad * It may be at the right temperature or too hot/cold. * It may be the right/wrong size to swallow * It may be the right hardness or is too hard/soft * It may be reasonable price or expensive * ...

stackexchange-japanese

Honorific form of i-adjectives (e.g. はやい → おはよう) > **Possible Duplicate:** > - keigo -adjectives I still remember the introductory lecture of the first Japanese course I took in college, my sensei told the class that does not mean "good morning" but it is actually derived from which simply means "it is early". Some time later, I've been told that this honorific formation of i-adjectives is not restricted to only, but can be applied to any i-adjectives. I've not been told how though. I'm assuming that for any i-adjectives that end with X-ai, they become o-X-ou: > → > → But what about adjectives that end with -ui, -ii etc? Turning them into -ou does not sound right. For example: > → ? > → ? > → ? [triple ] What are the rules for turning i-adjectives into honorific form? And also, are this honorific still in use today and in what kind of scenarios?

These forms are archaic in Tokyo except for a few fixed expressions like ``, but may be observed in Kyoto. You attach `-u ` to the adjective root. The polite prefix `` is optional. As you wondered, it is probably unnatural to attach `` for `` because of so may consecutive ``s. > * [adjective root] + u gozaimasu > > Depending on the final vowel of the adjective root, there is a sound change. > * au → ou (→ oo) > , > > * iu → yuu > , > >

stackexchange-japanese

「かしこまる」と言う自動詞について / About the verb "kashikomaru" "kashikomarimashita" is usually used as a response to somebody's order or request, but are there places where the verb "kashikomaru" is used other than in this expression?

Yes. (Daijirin, Daijisen) has three usages which are commonly seen. The examples below are from Daijisen: 1. To behave humbly to show the respect to the other party. Ex. 2. To sit up straight in the style. Ex. 3. (As you wrote in the question,) is a humble expression used when the speaker accepts a request from an honorified person.

stackexchange-japanese

Reversing the clause pattern "～ほう～より" Consider the two sentences below: > (1) **``** **``** (I drink more than Mr. Tanaka.) > > (2) **``** **``** (I drink more sake than beer.) I think the pattern for the second one is a reverse of the first to put the direct object in closer proximity to the verb so the sentence feels smoother. EDIT: By "reverse" I meant "reverse of each other" as opposed to "reverse of the "correct" construction". And I also learned that precedes by default in sentences involving comparison except when there is a direct object marked by . (I may be wrong so please don't hesitate to correct me) **(Question)** But if it is not a direct object, does it have any difference in meaning or nuance? i.e. Instead of (1), I change the sentence to: > (1') **** ****

Depending on whether you put or before, you emphasise on one or the other. It's natural to say first the most important thing, so: In (1) you are the topic of the sentence, _you_ are the one who drinks most. In (1') Tanaka is the topic. As far as Kobayashi is concerned, no one knows. But at least for now, what's important is that Tanaka drinks less than you, and that's why you said first. In (2), it's often natural (in Japanese) to have your object not too far from your verb. So you start by saying you're comparing (), and then you have "I drink" + near object "sake". By creating a (2'), you could have a nuance too (as above), but I think that this order in (2) is the most natural for proper communication.

stackexchange-japanese

What does the use of a dash (instead of a character) to extend a sound mean? I came across the sentence `` in my manga. I have translated it, but the use of the dash (which was vertical in the actual vertical text) stumped me for a bit (I thought it was at first, not ). I was under the impression that a dash like that is only used in katakana, and in hirigana they use the character of the sound they want to extend. But that's not the case here. So what does it mean when this happens? Is is a special case or exception, or is there some rule? By the way, I ended up with `` all together meaning "I know you..." (thanks, Google Translate, for being more useful than a dictionary for once), which seems to be right in this context (In this case, "I know you're feeling confused"). That's why I think it might be a special case. (Searching on it's own ended up with "trouble brought on by sins of forebears"...)

In Katakana, we use for some long vowels indeed. But words with it, like are spelt this way! However, in your case, there is no such word nor . What this dash means is that the _sound_ is lengthened. The word is just "". So, when the author wrote "" he meant "I reaaaaally understand". That's it!

stackexchange-japanese

Fun with synonyms - "evaluation/investigation/etc." Explain the differences in the following vocabulary. They all essentially mean some form of investigation, inspection, etc. Please don't just write the definitions; I'm lost on how they differ, when to use one over others, what they apply to, and so on. After much study, a lot of them still seem to overlap in my mind (and maybe they do). Here they are. Good luck! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Here are a few I can tell without hesitation. I'd see ALC to get example sentences for the others… 1. -> The nuclear safety agency _inspected_ the people from Fukusima as well as their luggage. 2. -> We _consider_ adding another wheel to our latest unicycle. 3. -> The pre-doctoral _examination_ will be held in December 4. 5. -> There has been a _poll_ to see how many people liked nattô on toasts. 6. -> We _observed_ a color change when adding marmelade to coke.

stackexchange-japanese

なった versus なってきた My friend recently said to me: > Which, I think means "I became sleepy". But it seems to me that it is the same as saying: > How does the addition of `` change this phrase?

phirru's comment is almost correct: Addition of `` in this case means that it happened gradually. It also means that it might not yet be complete. However, the one without `` does not necessarily mean suddenly. It just does not mention the process. It may or may not have happened suddenly. `` can be used with similar meaning, but the perspective will be different. > > 'I am becoming sleepy.' > 'I have (gradually) become sleepy.' > > > 'I became sleepy.'

stackexchange-japanese

What exactly is 「だらし」? WWWJDIC states that can be written with kanji as , which suggests that the phrase is a negative construction that uses , unlike words like and . Furthermore, and are listed as the other two variants of the phrase, which imply that the phrase is using as a noun, instead of being derived from the negative of non-existent verb . However there is no dictionary entry on other than as "dalasi", the currency of the country of Gambia, and "" variants. So, what exactly is ? Or was there a verb which is now extinct?

Interesting question. The says that appears to be an inversion of , quite possibly a self-conscious thing like for (the Edo-period book Ukiyoburo explicitly claims this). The roots of are murkier. has negative connotations on its own, and may come from Buddhist jargon, the mimetic , or somewhere else. But if is negative on its own, then the is probably the adjective suffix , like in etc., not the negative . So: etymologically, there is no such thing as a . became , and this was then reanalyzed as + . So a phrase like is sort of like "Are you _being have_?" in English: a later reanalysis of a word that didn't originally break down that way.

stackexchange-japanese

歩{ある}く vs 歩{あゆ}む I always know that is the verb to use when talking about walking. But I'm aware the kanji has another verb . In WWWJDIC, the example sentence given is: > > Bill climbed the ladder of success until he became the president of the company. There is also this one line from the lyrics of the song by KIRORO: > It seems to me from these usage examples that is better suited to refer to the abstract type of walking, like walking down the path of life, while is used when referring to the actual act of walking on foot. Is this always true?

Let's look at what the dictionaries say. Daijirin: > **** > > (1) ― > > (2) ― This seems to support your hypothesis that has a more abstract meaning. But: > **** > > (1) ― > > (2) ― > > (3) ― > > (4) > > (5)… ―― > > Sense (3) is very similar to sense (2) of above. And the footnote says that _formerly_ , was used to mean walking on foot, while was used to mean movement! But the situation is reversed now, I think. Indeed, the thesaurus supports this view: > [] > > > > There's also a nice table comparing possible usages. Being more speculative now, I think the role reversal is simply due to becoming more rarely used. To me it has a somewhat literary or poetic flavour.

stackexchange-japanese

What does 公け mean? I am wondering what the reading and meaning of is in the following sentence:

It is pronounced (although I've never seen it with as okurigana -- usually just ). It means "publicly/openly", similar to . That sentence would translate as "Not wanting it to be made publicly known to everyone, He/I decided to break up with her in private."

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 言うな！ and 言ってんじゃねぇぞ? 1) What is the difference between and !, in other words can we use them interchangeably at all times? 2) which is ruder?

`` is definitely ruder than ``. The former has contractions, which only happen in casual speech: > iru no → n > de wa → jya The following contraction is casual, mascline, and rough: > ai → ee The sentence final particle `` is emphatic, mascline, and rough. With all these factors, the former will only be used in casual situation mainly by male, usually in an insulting situation. The latter is simply an imperative. It has no connotation about roughness. It can be used as a formal order from a commander to a soldier, an advice from a coach to a sport player, an instruction from a teacher to a student etc. without any nuance of insult (but still showing social rank).

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 様子、状況、状態、and 事情 I'm unsure of the difference between these four words. They all seem to indicate some type of "condition" or "circumstances". (1) Are they interchangeable? (2) What are some example sentences which show their differences.

* `` Situation > > 'Judging from this situation, the ceremony will probably be canceled.' * `` State (mostly of a thing) > > 'room in a messy condition' > > 4 > 'Mass has four states: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.' * `` Condition (mostly of an animate thing) > > 'His condition is not good/suspicious' * `` Circumstance > > 'I was late for such reason.' In some cases, they are interchangable. For example, `` 'room' can predicate ``. A person can predicate ``.

stackexchange-japanese

The nuance of ことなく compared with ないで What nuance does "" have? If we compare the following two sentences: (For example, at a footrace:) **** vs **** Is stronger than simply saying ? Does show will and volition **more** than the version?

I think both conveys the same meaning. is though a bit more formal. For example, you'd be a bit surprised if a 10 year old would say , whereas would be very common. However, can be used in colloquial usage, especially if you are using . Even when you are talking in non , you can still use it. To summarize, is a tiny bit more formal than .

stackexchange-japanese

What does さちゅえい mean? I can't find this in any dictionary, but it seems to mean something like picture. Is that right? I don't have an example sentence, because that word was the whole sentence.

I think it comes from where becomes for some reason (slang?). A bit like . Seems to me that refers to events. There are many types of but the main ones are for amateur photographers to meet, to take a picture with a character or model, to create publicity with an open photoshoot, or to recruit new models. They are discussed in more detail on Wikipedia.

stackexchange-japanese

前 or 後 when placing an event in temporal reference to "now" Consider this phrase: > (event) Deconstruction of the above phrase yields: > Now is twenty minutes before (event). **(Q1)** Can I reconstruct the statement using in this manner?: > (event)(I'm not sure if I used correctly here) > > (There are twenty minutes from now to (event)). **(Q2)** Can `` and (event) be elided once the context is set? That is to say `` and `` are acceptable phrases? I think that (event) cannot be elided to form `` and yet retain the meaning. By itself the phrase would mean "(it was) twenty minutes ago" and would be too vague to be useful to specify (event) in relation to "now".

Notice that ``is a topic marker, and there is often a corresponding form without the use of such particle. In this case, the correct standard form will be using `` > **** 1. When you topicalize a modifier (as opposed to an argument), the postposition cannot be omitted, so it has to be ``, not `` (except when you use `` adverbially). 2. The subject `` is omittable. But note that `` is adverbial, and does not take ``. So the form closer to your example is > You can elide `` > >

stackexchange-japanese

Does it make sense to say [v]ませんでしたら instead of [v]なかったら? I'm wondering whether it makes sense to say [v] instead of [v]. When I googled for that conjugation there were very few results, but since there _were_ results, I wonder if people actually use [v]. For example < > **** < > **** < > ****

First of all, the person probably intended to write > which is still wrong. It should not be in polite form, or `` should be used instead. > >

stackexchange-japanese

What’s an authoritative source for a complete list of official shinjitai kanji? I found quite a few website tables and software conversors, but none that was both complete and authoritative. Is there any place I can find such a list in digital format? would be a nice bonus, but what I’m really interested is the official list.

The official list of jōyō kanji contains simplification information (e.g. means ", which is the shinjitai of "). The list of jinmeiyō kanji (PDF) also contains some info about simplification, in the opposite format, because here the meaning is "you can use , which is the kyūjitai of , in names." These are probably the closest to an _official_ list as you are going to get, if by "official" you mean "formally codified by the government of Japan." There may be websites who have rearranged the information so that it is in the sort of : list you are after, but if they're privately run sites then they're one step away from officialdom.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between 作る、造る、創る？ According to jisho.org they have the same meaning. How to know which to use?

This is one of the many cases where ancient Chinese had finer distinctions for a single concept in ancient Japanese, which lead to the same pronunciation and varied ways of writing in Japanese. As usual, there is a general one, in this case `` 'make'. Then, there are the specific ones: `` 'craft', and `` 'create'. Usually, the specific ones can be replaced by the general one, but not vice versa.

stackexchange-japanese

Verbs + ところ / Verbs + とこ / Verbs + ばかり I learnt: * about to eat. * in the middle of eating. * just ate. * just ate. I would like to know if I can change for in spoken language. and if there is any difference between and . which one is more rude, or more polite; and if I can use both in any situation.

`` and `` both mean "just did X". I was always taught that `` means "I just did X and haven't done anything else", whereas `` means "I just did X (but could've been a little while ago)." The "scope" of the event can determine the recentness. ## > * → I just ate lunch (right now). > > > * ) → (At 3:00pm) I just ate lunch (even though it was several hours ago), so now I'm sleepy. > > * ( → (Show his neighbor) I just bought this new car (as in just came home from the dealership)! > > > * → (At the ticket gate for the train) Moriuchi, you sure do have a lot of commuter (train) tickets. Didn't you just buy a new car? (could have been several days or even a few weeks ago). > >

stackexchange-japanese

「Verb + たら」always have ambiguous meanings? I agree that is one practical tool that could express lots of meanings. but sometimes it became one problem for students of japanese. If I say: * it's : If I go to Japan, I will visit my friend.(?) or: When I get to Japan, I will visit my friend.(?) * it's : If I graduate (it's a possibility), I want to travel. or: After graduating (it's certain), I'm think of traveling. . Does the meaning depend on the context? or Is there a better way to say that sentences?

These examples sound more like "when" to me. If you wanted to emphasize an "if", you could add to the beginning. * * However, "when" may also carry a bit of uncertainty to it, so it's a little ambiguous. "When I go to Japan..." You might be certain that you're going and it's just in the future at this point, or you may be speculating, as in "If I ever go." You could also use a different construct to force this. Refer to this important post for more options and their rules.

stackexchange-japanese

Fun with synonyms - "freeze" I'm a little confused on the difference between []{} and []{}. From what I've researched, it seems like focuses more on the physical process of something freezing, and the result being ice or frozen solid. Like water freezing into ice, or a steak freezing and becoming solid after it's been in the freezer for a while. Whereas seems to be the more abstract concept of freezing, or the physical sensation of freezing. Like freezing toes/fingers when you're walking outside in the winter, or a "frozen wasteland". Is this correct thinking, or am I off???

I would agree with your general description: is physical freezing - usually of water or other liquid - or freezing cold. It is more objective (you can measure a freezing point). Exception: when used metaphorically as in {} which is probably close to the English "blood-curdling". It can also be sometimes used when ice covers something e.g. []{} - a road that has iced over. is freezing in terms of feeling/your body's response as in "it's so cold I can't feel my fingers". It is more subjective. It can also be used to refer to parts of the body, e.g. []{} - fingers stiff with cold. So it makes more sense to talk about "[]{}" than "", and I think it's possible to say []{} when the temperature isn't actually below freezing.

stackexchange-japanese

ことができる versus V~える form Way back in the day when I was first learning Japanese, I learned that you could add `` to a verb to indicate potential. Like so: > {} > > _(I) can eat (something)_ It became my habitual way of expressing possibilities. Then later, I learned that you could just modify the verb and get the same thing: > {} > > _(I) can eat (something)_ I know that this is also the passive voice, but, unless I'm mistaken, it can be used strictly as a way of expressing potential. I still tend to habitually say ``, though. It tends to jump out of my mouth before I realize that I could have probably modified the verb. I think because my brain thinks they are the same thing, so I just go with the usual. So... are they different?

Very simply : * I am technically able to eat. I have a mouth, a stomach, and so on. When you ask "can you do this for me" and your witty friend replies "yes, I can" but doesn't do it, that's this meaning of potentiality that he chose to understand. You'd use this form to say "I cannot time travel" or "I cannot fly". You cannot do anything about it, you're not responsible (which is a very Japanese way to say things). * I can eat, in the other meanings :) For example, "I can't go with you because I have some work to finish". Technically, you can go, but for some reason, you must abstain from going. You can do something about it, you're responsible for not going/doing.

stackexchange-japanese

言ったりしたら versus 言ったら I came across the phrase `` in one of the Tintin books I'm reading. It means something like "if I say [it]". What I can't figure out is how it's different from simply saying ``. Here it is in context: !enter image description here My rough translation: **_Tintin:** So, what is that boss's name?_ **_Doctor:** I... I can't say that! **If I say it** , they'll do something terrible to me!_ What is the difference in nuance or meaning between `` and ``?

I'm not a Japanese native speaker, but it sounds to me like "if I go around saying (his name) ...", or more idiomatically,"if I go throwing his name around, I'll be in big trouble with the gang!", would be passable translations.

stackexchange-japanese

Are wasei-eigo and wasei-kango looked down upon? Is wasei-eigo or wasei-kango looked down upon by Japanese language purists (as opposed to English or Chinese purists!) as informal, inauthentic, incorrect or the like?

I think most people don't even know whether a word is wasei-eigo. Just to give you a sense, there are plenty of people who think ``, ``, and `` come from English. I think most won't care if they find that out (which they do because sometimes the TV discusses this. For most people it's just another trivia). Just think about how popular was ;) I'm sure there are "purists" who somehow look down on wasei-eigo, but you can find extremists for everything. It's certainly no where common. I heard some teachers argue that the use of wasei-eigo is detrimental to learning English, but that's not "looking down" IMO.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it true that only girls use うち to refer to themselves? Is it true that only girls will use to refer to themselves? So when a guy say he is referring to his in-group / company / family, and not referring to himself, right?

is mostly used by girls to refer to themselves, but this usage is only common in Kansai-ben and perhaps other regional dialects as well, and it is generally not considered to be part of standard Japanese. See < So to answer your question, yes if a guy says , he is probably most likely referring to his family. (Assuming he is speaking standard Japanese, usage in regional dialects may vary, but I know in Kansai-ben it is generally used only by females)

stackexchange-japanese

Using な in positive instead of negative imperative (e.g. 行きな) Putting after a plain verb turns it into negative imperative. But I noticed that in spoken Japanese, putting after conjunctive form () turns it into positive imperative. For example: > Is this usage standard or colloquial? Also, it seems that it's usually used by elders towards younger people so does it have special nuances, for example maybe like patronizing?

By popular demand: That's not the negative imperative particle. Rather, it's an abbreviation of , probably via the elided form or . See here. It's colloquial _and_ standard (meaning everyone understands what it means). Your observation that it's a bit patronising is probably correct—notice that has similar connotations—but I'm not a usage expert, so I'll let someone else answer that part of your question.

stackexchange-japanese

Usage of "sensei"/"先生" when the recipient is a peer? **In a professional setting, would two professors/doctors/lawyers—who would normally be addressed as "sensei"—refer to _each other_ (as peers) using "sensei"?** Note: This question used to be asking about Japanese formality in English. Now I'm just interested on how sensei would be used in this context in spoken Japanese.

_(now that the question is finally on-topic, I am happy to contribute my 2 yens ;-)_ The general use of (sensei) when addressing a professor/doctor/etc. is already discussed elsewhere on JLU... As for the particular case of writing to someone who is your peer (in rank _and_ range of age), the answer is: **No you do not have to use it.** My colleagues/bosses (themselves Drs. and/or Profs.) usually do not use 'sensei' (only 'san') when mentioning or talking to another Dr./Prof. Of course, if the professor in question is some famous old professor (or simply an authority figure to the speaker), 'sensei' is used as a form of politeness. The bottom line is that you use 'sensei' just the same as you would 'Prof.' in English: you would probably call your (possibly tenured) lab neighbour "John", but your advisor or some visiting professor will get "Prof. Smith".

stackexchange-japanese

Regarding は数あれど (or possibly just あれど ) The following sentence is from a newspaper article 1. makes sense to me in the context, and this seems to be supported by my searches so far - is it simply a written form? 2. The full phrase "" appears extremely common on google - is here read , and is this a set phrase?

1. Yes, basically. It's a literary construction (and indeed the origin of ); basically you take the conditional stem () of a verb (or other conjugable) and instead of attaching you attach a : so etc. Note for pedants: Technically, it's the perfective stem () we attach a to. 2. is pronounced here. The collocation means ‘many’. The first half of your sentence may be translated as follows: ‘Although there are many meringues, ...’

stackexchange-japanese

Is there any difference between 意外に and 意外と? I hear and used frequently to mean "more so than I thought." They seem to be interchangeable. Example: > = Easier than I thought Are they both grammatically correct? Is there a difference in nuance or usage using ni vs to? I don't recall ever hearing them used with a present or future tense verb. Can you think of an example where they might be used outside of past tense?

Take a look at the blog post on < To summarize: > feels more like written Japanese and is more colloquial. They both grammatically correct and they **both have the same meaning**. Although feels more traditional. The rest of the blog post is about history of dictionaries and some dictionaries actually don't even talk about the difference between these two. According to < > [] Which means > Currently, in the same way as, has been used like So to answer your question, yes they are pretty much interchangeable. Note that and are generally not always interchangeable, but in this special case it is. Also note that the meaning of and has more to do with something not matching one's expectations and expressing one's surprise, so it is more accurate to translate it as "unexpectedly", rather than "more so than I thought", although in some cases it means "more so than I thought". I know I'm being nit-picky here but just want to make sure you understood it right.

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 向け and 向き My boss just corrected one of my documents from to . Apart from the / problem that I always get wrong, is there a problem with ? I got it from my textbook that says Could someone shed some light on when to use one or the other? Am I fine if I decide to just stick to all the time?

is the short-form of the word and 's dictionary form is . / has more to do with suitability. For example, someone who is afraid of blood is not suited to be a doctor, we would say (not suitable to be a doctor) / has more to do with target and objective. `` implies that the development is targeted at (enterprise) for example.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it offensive to say あなた? My teacher says that we should avoid ``, like ``, which could be taken off. Following this, I try to refer to the second person by the name: ``. But there are situations where we forget the name. How can we say "You" without being rude, or using ``? I give some examples, but they could be wrong: > A: > B: (is it better to say: ?) > A: (is it a little rude? should I hide ?) > A: > B: > > A:

This is what says about : > 1. > 2. > In definition (1), it's said that is used for second person who is equivalent or subordinate/inferior/junior while being polite or intimate/familiar. Definition (2) states that it can also be used between spouses to intimately call each other. So, itself is not offensive if used appropriately while taking your relationship with the other person into consideration. You have to be careful if you want to use it with strangers because it would seem that you are assuming the other parties as equivalent or inferior to you, or that you are trying to be familiar with them. Since the Japanese culture encourages being reserved towards outgroups and strangers, you better be sure if you really want to use , otherwise stick to using names (e.g. ), professions (e.g. ) and indirections (e.g. ) to refer to the other person.

stackexchange-japanese

verb た-form + そう, hearsay or observation? `Verb -form + ` indicates hearsay. > > 'I hear he will go home.' > [Negative] `Verb masu stem (i.e. conjunctive form ) + ` shows information obtained through the senses, observation: > > 'It looks like he will go home.' > [Negative] With this, how do you achieve past tense? For " **hearsay** ", do you say: > > ' I heard he went home.' Whilst for " **observation** ", do you say: > > 'It looked like he went home.'

As Lukman pointed out, you got conjugations right. However, I am not sure if you interpreted accurately. In , the observation was made before the person went home. So in English, it is something like “It looked like he was going to go home.”

stackexchange-japanese

もっとも: distinguishing between 尤も and 最も I found a page in Japanese with title "10". Having encountered the phrase for the first time, I looked it up on WWWJDIC and found two entries: > (adj-na,adv,conj,n) quite right; plausible; natural; but then; although; > > (adv) most; extremely; Since the page is about world's dirtiest cities, I assumed that the used in the page title is the second one that means "most, extremely". However, should I have not known what the page is about, I think I would have not known which of the two is the one used in the title since both of them can be used an adverb. Since WWWJDIC example sentence for is using it as a noun, I tried to look for sample sentences that use as an adverb with not much luck. Are there scenarios where is commonly used as an adverb? If it's rare, is it safe to assume that if is used as an adverb in a sentence, it is most probably , otherwise if it's not used as an adverb it is most probably ?

Ignoring the difference in kanji, there are three common meanings of . (1) (adverb) most (2) (na-adjective) reasonable (3) (conjunction) but, however When written in kanji, 1 is (Daijirin and Daijisen) and 2 and 3 are (Daijirin and Daijisen). There was an adverb which meant “undoubtedly” and “at all” and was written as , but this usage is archaic. So, the answer to your question > is it safe to assume that if is used as an adverb in a sentence, it is most probably , otherwise if it's not used as an adverb it is most probably ? is yes, but note that has two different meanings (2 and 3).

stackexchange-japanese

でも (demo) versus けど (kedo) to mean "but" I learned that you can use ( _demo_ ) at the beginning of a sentence to mean "but," and that you can use ( _kedo_ ) at the end of a sentence to mean "though." However, I don't see a difference between these two. For example, suppose someone says this: * . _Ashita kaimono ni ikimashō._ "Let's go shopping tomorrow." Would there be any difference in these two responses? * . _Demo ashita wa yasumi desu._ "But tomorrow is a holiday." * . _Ashita wa yasumi desu kedo._ "Tomorrow is a holiday though." To me, these two responses seem to have the exact same meaning. So my question is this: Are there are any differences between ( _demo_ ) and ( _kedo_ )? It seems like the placement of the "but" ( at the beginning and at the end) could change the emphasis. Is that true? If so, how? Also, are there any situations when you can use one but not the other?

and are both "but". However, links a second clause - which may or may not be actually said out loud. So, when you are saying " ." you are actually saying something more like: "Tomorrow is a holiday (but), so we can't go to the store" but dropping the "obvious" bit of the sentence. \-- Another very important usage of this - at least heavily used here in Kansai - is to "soften" your statement when you make an assertion about something, so as to not appear too strong. It works with the same idea: "I'd like to go " ... "I'd like to go (but I won't if that causes difficulty for someone)" You'll hear this ALL the time! It's a nice little "early step" in your Japanese, to be a bit more Japanese-sounding.

stackexchange-japanese

How can I say "make a big deal [about/out of/of] X"? See title. I'm looking for idiomatic ways to say something like this - over-emphasizing something, worrying about it overly much, etc. Bonus points if a literal (whether read as or ) is involved; I'm hoping to make a particular bit of wordplay work. Alternatively, perhaps a way of talking about "using as a prefix to a word" that could have the former connotations?

Anything wrong with just a good-ole ``? Plus that should nab me some bonus points! * * * **EDIT:** → * → "serious", "important", lit. "made big" * or → "a serious/important matter/thing", "a big deal" * → "make it this way" * or → "(Please) don't do" * → "Don't do" (with omitted) I guess I subconsciously thought the title of the post said "don't make a big deal [about/out of/of] X", but now I see that it clearly does not.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 残念ながら and 残念なことに I hear both and when expressing that something was unfortunate before the actual sentence, much like the English "Unfortunately, ...". However, I'm not sure on where these two phrases differ. Is their usage the same?

I believe the difference is: In `` the focus is on the speaker's feeling while they tell you the information. It's like saying "I'm sorry to have to tell you, but..." The speaker's feeling of disappointment exists _alongside_ the information. In ``, the focus is on the thing the speaker is telling you, and is a cause of the disappointment. It's like saying "What's particularly disappointing is..." The speaker's disappointment _comes from_ the information. > (It's sad, but I'm going to break up with you.) > > (What's sad is, I thought we maybe could have married.) These two examples are subtley different. In the in the first case, you are being told that a breakup will happen, _despite_ the fact the speaker is sad about it. In the second case, you are being given a fact which is _itself_ a cause of disappointment. Hope that helps.

stackexchange-japanese

ご無沙汰いたしました — OK for electronic communications? In a recent comment exchange on ELU.SE, a Japanese man (my senior in years, and a "guest" in the forum whose questions I had answered regularly for some time, but not much lately as I have been scaling back my participation there), said in his comment to my response: > I felt obliged to respond in kind with > and that is how I replied. But it just felt a little strange in a comment-chain discussion. What do you think? Might or something else have been better?

In response to the post's title, I think, yes, it's OK for electronic communications. But `` (it's usually or ) sounds weird for such a casual acquaintance (if he's even that much to you). I think it's reserved for very close and/or very important relationships (extended family members, past teachers/professors/senpai, old friends, etc.). For just an acquaintance, I'd probably just respond with an equal ``. I'm not sure of `` in this situation. It sounds fine to _me_ , but I'll let someone else more knowledgeable comment on that. * * * **EDIT** : I did find some examples where it was **** and had the same meaning. Guess I learned something.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the analysis for たりとも? Quoth Edict, means "(not) even; (not) any", and is probably used as such: > (even one question, cannot answer) Is made up of the individual portions ("such things as") and ("even if")? What's the etymology of ? What are some other ways to analyze its construction?

You are close, but yout problem is that you are trying to interpret `...` as a modifying clause. It is rather a subject with a relative clause: 'I could not answer even something that is a (mere) single question'. But if you are not particularly interested in a deep analysis, you can just understand `` as a fixed expression meaning 'even'.

stackexchange-japanese

Saying "as if to say" - What's happened to 言う in と言わんばかりに? Can you help breakdown ? > > She answered as if it was a matter of fact. Are these incorrect, have different meanings? > **** > **** > **** > Do you know another way of saying "as if to say"?

**Edit** : In light of Tsuyoshi's comments below, I am changing my etymological explanation. To answer your first question: was originally . This can be broken down into two parts: , which is the classical form of , and , which here is being used in the sense of something just about to happen. So might be literally translated as ‘as if [he] wanted to say’. As for your alternatives: > This is somewhat ungrammatical, but would probably be interpreted as the exact opposite: ‘She answered just saying “of course”.’ If we change it to it would mean, ‘She answered just because it was said to be obvious.’ > This would probably be interpreted like the above: ‘She answered just because it was obvious.’ > This means the same thing as the original sentence, but is more emphatic. The can (should?) be omitted.

stackexchange-japanese

ことにする vs. ことに決める My Japanese text book says that a present-tense verb followed by is used to indicate making a decision about the action. But I've also noticed the verb , and that it's usage is very similar. So supposing we have a sentence such as: (After making breakfast, I decided to jog.) My question is, would there be any specific semantic difference if was used? In all the cases that I've seen, the final has always been in the past-tense, but has been in a variety of forms; is this possible difference of the two? Thanks! :)

This is what "A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar" has to say on the matter of vs : > _Koto ni suru_ and _koto ni kimeru_ 'determine to do s.t.' are virtually identical in meaning. The difference is that the former is an idiom and, therefore, frequently used in colloquial speech, while the latter is appropriate when the speaker is talking about a relatively important decision in a rather decisive manner. Also, _koto ni suru_ can be used to mean 'I hereby decide to ~' but _koto ni kimeru_ cannot. Thus, [1] below cannot be rephrased by _koto ni kimeru_. > > [1] **** /??? > _Watashi wa kaisha wo yameru koto ni shimasu /???kimemasu._ > (I've decided to quit my company.)

stackexchange-japanese

What is the pun in 猥シャツ? Could someone explain why is defined as "obscene shirt (pun)"? I don't understand how this is a pun. > (n) (See ) obscene shirt (pun) Source:

The pun is that the kanji , read , means "obscene", whereas means "dress shirt". The portmanteau therefore means "obscene shirt".

stackexchange-japanese

おいてきてしまった vs おいてしまってきた Is there any difference in the sentence when we mix the order of the conjugations in this sentence: 1) 2) Or are both "correct" and mean the same thing with not much difference in nuance?

Example 1) is the natural one. It means that it was a mistake to come with the camera left at home. 2) is strange. It means, assuming it is grammatical, that it was a mistake to put/keep a camera at home, and came. I am not sure if it is even grammatical.

stackexchange-japanese

How do we decide if 中 is ちゅう or じゅう? How do we decide if is or ? For example, in this sentence which pronunciation should we use? What about this:

* **** (or, rarely: ) is used for expressions covering a **length** of time (resp. area) from start to finish, in its entirety. I.e. "through", "all of": > all year > > all day > > all over the world * **** is for pointing a particular time (resp. specific location) out of an interval (resp. general area). I.e. "out of", "during": > [at some point] during morning > > in a meeting [e.g. "he is in a meeting _at the moment_ "] Note that in some cases, both can be used and the only way to tell would be from context (e.g. an expression followed by is more likely to be ) or in speech: > all of next month > > [some time] next month

stackexchange-japanese

Temperature abbreviations? A certain dialog in my book has a man describing the symptoms of his cold to the doctor. It reads thus: > > **** The English translation on the next page read, "Doctor: Do you have a fever? Man: Yes, I do, since yesterday. Last night I came down with the chills and started shivering, and I was afraid I'd get a really high fever. Now it's only about 37.8°C though." My question is, was the original Japanese sentence a typo and should have said **37** instead of just **** , or do Japanese people commonly just refer to body temperatures by the number of degrees over 30? Although if it's the latter, how would you refer to a body temperature of 40 or more (for argument's sake; ignoring the fact that you'd probably be dead)?

Your book is correct. When talking about human body temperature, is often omitted, probably because it is obvious. While there is nothing wrong with saying 378 (37.8 degrees Celsius), it is often abbreviated to 78. Even 37 (37 degrees Celsius) without a fractional part sometimes becomes 7. You cannot abbreviate the temperature when it is 40 degrees or higher. As for unusually low body temperature, I would guess that many people avoid abbreviating, say, 315 (31.5 degrees Celsius) to 15, because it is so unusual that it is not immediately clear what it means if abbreviated.

stackexchange-japanese

ひき or 頭 for horses? Initially I'd thought is for small animals and is for animals that are not small ("big" animals) however EDICT (< seems to claim that horses belong to the group and not the group (yet of course I think we can agree that a horse is not "small" at all!). 1) Basically I was wondering is it true that "horses" is the exception where we ignore the "small" / "big" rule and they are always counted with (regardless of the size of the horse) instead of ? 2) Are there any cases when is used to refer to a _non-small_ animal?

I don't personally know the answer, but exploring my way through EDICT: a) In the definition, sense 3 - counter for horses - is listed only as " only" (so not ); it is also marked as an archaic term. b) Skimming the examples page for , I could only find one example using a counter: > > > Only four horses competed in the race. **Edit:** Actually, I found another one as well: > > > He exchanged his cow for two horses. So both of the examples use for the counter.

stackexchange-japanese

Counter for 熊 (bears): ひき or 頭? While hiking I saw 3 bears, and I have heard a lot of people say to count them. There was a mother and two small ones, if that matters. But when talking about it I also have been told that should be used to count bears. Are both usable? Does it depend on the age of the bear?

`` is a counter for what are usually herd animals. Cows, elk, horses, elephants... The four legged thing might also be a factor. You don't necessarily _have_ to see them on a ranch for foodstock purposes, but it's that _kind_ of animal. `` is the counter for pretty much every other kind of animal that isn't covered by a more specific counter like ``, or `` for birds. * * * A point that arose in the comments below which is important enough to make sure it's seen with this answer: A key factor seems to be the human relationship to the animal, and whether that animal can be reared, hunted, or exploited in some way. As was pointed out in the comments, `` _can_ be used for bears if the context is hunters harvesting them. At least one example of this was found, though I suspect this usage is extremely limited in scope.

stackexchange-japanese

Does うるさい have a "negative" connotation? Is it true that when someone uses the word , it means that there is a feeling of _"discontent"_ ? Like for example, we will take this sentence: "It will be noisy in the factory" "It will be noisy in the factory" is neutral. (no nuance of _annoyance_ ) But is it true that if we translate that sentence into japanese using as a replacement for noisy, immediately we will have the nuance that the speaker is "annoyed" at the noisyness?

`` definitely conveys a negative attribute which you could reasonably call "annoyance". This is why in Japanese, the equivalent of "shut up!" is ``. It's saying the noise you're making is annoying, and _therefor_ you should "shut up". So if you say: > {}{} ... you're definitely saying "the inside of the factory is loud" in an uncomfortable way. "Annoying," if you like. If you wanted to say it with a neutral tone: > {}{}{}{} "There is a great deal of noise inside the factory." * * * On a side note, I actually think the English "noisy" is also negative. If I wanted to describe the sound in the factory without a negative connotation I'd say, "It's _loud_ in the factory."

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between ホワイトシャツ・ワイシャツ and 背広? How do we decide whether to call a shirt a or ? What's the difference in nuance between the two terms? Side question: EDICT claims that a is a white business shirt but even if it's a gray or black (or what-have-you) colored business shirt, we can still call it a or right?

I think you're confused here. is a suit, not a shirt. As to the second question, is the generic name for a dress shirt, button-down shirt, oxford shirt, etc. Color doesn't enter into it. Also, is archaic now.

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 割合 vs 率 and both mean ratio, rate, and percentage. What is the difference?

Neither means percentage. Percentage is one hundred times ratio or rate. The Japanese word for it is ``. Likewise, permillion is one million times ratio or rate. The Japanese word for it is ``. My impression is that `` and `ratio` are the general terms for a quantity divided by another quantity (usually but not always of the same dimension). `` and `rate` are especially for cases where its lowness or highness is connected to its preferred amount in an ideal situation. For example, `` or `rate` is used for `~` or `error ~` because the ideal case would be zero. It can be also used for `~` or `correctness ~` because the ideal situation will be one. It is also used in `~` or `bit ~` because the larger the better.

stackexchange-japanese

Can 首 be used to refer to students who have just graduated and not yet found a job? The example sentences in WWWJDIC all use the word "" in the "fire" sense (e.g. ) hence I was wondering is the term only used to refer to "firing" someone? Or is it also used to refer to students who have just graduated and not yet found a job (they have never had a job before so they can't be fired can they)?

No, you can't use to refer to students who have just graduated and don't have a job yet. Pardon me if I am incorrect here, but I think maybe you think that "" means "turn (someone) into a ", and so is an idiom for "unemployed person" or something. [Edit: My apologies, it looks like you were just taking the word of EDICT, which (wrongly, I think) makes exactly this claim.] This is not the case, though. "" ultimately comes from the metaphor of beheading (!) and although it can be extended to other forms ( etc.), it only refers to the act of firing/being fired, not to the result (being unemployed). So, it is not relevant to recent graduates... or any unemployed person, actually, except insofar as you can talk about their past: "She was fired in May," etc.)

stackexchange-japanese

When to read 一人 and 二人 as いちにん and ににん? WWWJDIC lists and as alternative readings of {} and {}, but I can't recall anywhere I heard those readings except when counting more than 10 people for example {}. Is that the only situation where and are read as and , or are there any other situations?

Other than your example ``, I can think of ``, ``, ``, ``. But by itself, I don't think they are read as '' or ''.

stackexchange-japanese

Why is there 丼 {どんぶり} in 丼勘定 {どんぶりかんじょう}? How does {} (sloppy accounting) related to {} (bowl of rice with toppings)? I mean, why of all foods and things? Was there special history for the origin of this set phrase?

Judging by the following link, in this phrase didn't originally refer to the bowl, but a pocket in the front of an apron, where money was kept: < If someone was throwing all the incoming money into one pocket and fishing out change for customers from same, they probably didn't have a great idea at any one time of how much they had or any way of keeping track. < \- this has an Edo-style "" for a little visual reference (you'll note they use with the hiragana).

stackexchange-japanese