Datasets:

donfu

/

oa-stackexchange

like 7

Reading (and usage) of 他: when is it 【た】, when is it 【ほか】? is one of these common words that still to this day confuses me... My general assumption is that: * used as a prefix, it should always be read , e.g.: * when treated as a "substantive" (that is essentially, followed by ), it is : (?) But then, some expressions crop up, like , which my dictionary indicates as read , and make me doubt whatever little I have deduced so far. Could anybody settle the / rules once and for all (and point out any nuance in meaning, if they exist, between the two usages)?

You are right about when to read it as ``. The cases where it is read as `` is correct, but some (mainly aged) people optionally read it as ``. Similarly, `` is read as `` or ``, but some aged people read it as `` instead of ``.

stackexchange-japanese

Is けど a 接続詞 (conjunction) or 助詞 (particle)? A book I've read states that is a (conjunction). However, another book I had read states that it is a (particle). Who is right?

is a conjunction.It is not a particle. In conjunction with… … …, …. and is also . adverbial particles on, in, out, over, off .

stackexchange-japanese

Is there even 1 na-type adjective that can't be used as a real noun? !enter image description here The passage suggests that **not all na-type adjectives can be used as real nouns** as shown in (b). It doesn't seem to be a case of careless choice of words, since in the 2nd para, the passage uses "some" and in the 3rd para, the passage uses "all", and there is an explicit contrast. I was wondering why is it that not all na-type adjectives can be used as real nouns. As far as I know, all na-type adjectives can be used as if they are real nouns, like for example, this is grammatical right: Is there even 1 na-type adjective that can't be used as a real noun as shown in (b) (to prove that passage right) ?

If we are to follow how Japanese dictionaries classify them, we don't have to worry about the fact **"not all na-type adjectives can be used as real nouns"**. The Japanese dictionary lists `` as both (noun) and (na-adjective) so that's why it can be used as a noun. On the other hand, `` is not listed as noun, therefore it cannot be used as a noun. One more example is ``. * * * Previously I used dic.yahoo.co.jp or dictionary.goo.ne.jp. Now maybe I recommend Weblio. It also has bidirectional English-Japanese dictionary (other screenshot). !The Sanseid entry for in Weblio

stackexchange-japanese

より not used for comparing? The title of a piano arrangement of a Touhou song (Hakurei Reimu's Theme) is: > - Imperishable Night. **(Question)** What does `` do in the title? If it were to mean "from the game "Imperishable Night"", would `` be just as suitable?

`` as well as `` means 'from'. This is the primary meaning. Many languages use the word corresponding to 'from' for introducing the standard for a comparative. It is the comparative usage that is the derived meaning.

stackexchange-japanese

In what situation can I use ~かい (for interrogative question)? One day, I asked my japanese friend how I could invite some friends to eat. He said "" I know that we could also say: but I got interested in why he used "kai". I'd like to know others situations that japanese people use "kai"

As opposed to , which is open-ended and can have any sort of answer, is expected to have an answer in the affirmative or negative only, that is, yes or no, with subsequent explanation optional. Example: > > > > > ×

stackexchange-japanese

Is「ふむふむ」still used nowadays? I learned from a Japanese friend that could be translated like "oh, I got it", "I see", "I know", or "ok". It could be also in this form: But, my sister lived in Japan for 5 years, and she had never heard of it. Is it still used?

Friends and I quite often use "" (just once) in electronic communications in order to show acknowledgement, though with a very slight nuance of reluctance or thoughtful consideration. Here's an example from a native Japanese speaker, after hearing about the context of a quiproquo: > Though it's not "I know", it's definitely "OK", "I see" or something like that.

stackexchange-japanese

Does Japanese have a term equivalent to "Engrish"? It seems common enough for Japanese to attempt to use English, that we get some truly bizarre translations. Especially bad are older games that were non-professionally translated to what we came to call "Engrish", due to what could have been a misspelling of the very name for our language. I don't imagine this happens, or happened, very often in the reverse direction. Is there a word in Japanese for Japanese text that has been poorly translated from English (or any language)? In particular, imagine a game that has perfectly normal Japanese, but you can choose the language, and the language list has "English" spelt "Engrish", giving you an early warning sign that this could be really bad (and possibly also really awesome, but not intentionally). I'm looking for the opposite mistake, where it's the Japanese that's poor, if it exists and can be understood in the same way.

We usually use . Most of our supply comes from products made in non-Japan Asia (Thai, China, Korea etc.) and western tattoos :)

stackexchange-japanese

When women use わ at the end of a sentence, is it different from よ? My understanding of using `` at the end of a sentence is that it's essentially just for emphasis, just like using ``, and that only women can use it. However, as far as I know, women can, and often do, use `` as well. So is there a difference in meaning, nuance, or context which would make a woman choose to use `` instead of ``?

* `` expresses that the speaker assumes that the recipient does not know what is said. * `` does not have such implication, and it just adds feminine flavour to the sentence.

stackexchange-japanese

Is this grammatical: 彼は映画スターであり、政治家もだ。 I was about to ask a question but I can't without first confirming, Is this sentence: grammatically correct, and mean: He is a movie star and also a politician. == Follow-up question here: Why does replacing to changes the meaning of a the sentence?

Recall that `` is the contracted form of ``.`` has to be attached to a noun. You can't leave it behind `` as ``. So the correct way of inserting `` will be: > You might be wondering whether `` before `` can be omitted. Only arguments can have the (case) particle omitted before `` or ``. In this case, the noun `` is a predicate, so you cannot omit `` before ``.

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between じき and すぐ? ``, and especially ``, is my habitual way to express "soon", or "right after this". I know that `` means more or less the same thing, and when I hear it or see it written, I get the general meaning of the sentence. However, I don't feel comfortable saying it myself because I'm unclear on how they differ and what the nuances are. What are the conditions in which to choose one over the other, and do they differ in meaning?

`` means temporally farther than ``. I don't know if the meaning of `` overlaps with the English `soon`. If it does, then `soon` has a broader meaning than ``. `` can instead be translated as 'sooner or later', or 'eventually'.

stackexchange-japanese

Ways to end a phone conversation Despite its being one of the most basic element of daily-life Japanese, I often find myself looking for a proper way to end certain phone conversations. Of course, I know the standard: `[]`, or: `[]`... But somehow, neither of these seems quite right when ending a (somewhat formal) conversation where _I_ am the customer (e.g. making a restaurant reservation). I often opt for a basic ``, but I don't think it is a very idiomatic way to end such phone conversations. What would be a good phrase, beside the ones above, to end a phone conversation with a stranger? **Update:** So from Tsyoshi's comments, it sounds like `` is just the way to end all phone conversations, service people included. But Dave MG's `` provides a nice alternative (and he's the only answer), so I'll accept it.

For my money, `` just can't be beat. What's that? Too informal, you say? Far from it, my good man. `` isn't a replacement for `` or `` when you're winding down the conversation. But there's always that awkwardness that sets in - happens in English, too - when you and the person on the other end are saying conversation-ending-phrases and no one knows who is going to be the person who actually hangs up. I find I get into the goodbye-vortex even more with customer service people because... well, I don't know why for sure but I suspect they think it's rude to hang up on me. That's where `` comes in. You've been polite all conversation, you've thrown in a few `` where appropriate, and now it's time to just get off the phone. You throw out a ``, and then **BAM** , you slam down the receiver (even though it's a smart phone and you already pressed the button on the screen - we're doing this old school, baby!), then you raise your hands in flawless victory. > !!

stackexchange-japanese

What is the usage of 「つー」, what does it mean and what other ways are there to express the same thing ? I've seen this many times in mangas, here's one example: > **** Context: A girl catches a thief that stole today's takings at the shop she's working at. Thank you!

It's a shortening of ! or ! and shows some irritation on the part of the speaker. "What I'm telling you is . . .!" There's some good explanations here: <

stackexchange-japanese

"Never say never" Since there is apparently no literal translation for "never", how would you translate this idiom ? What periphrasis would you use to express the same meaning ?

How about something like ? It has the same self-contradictory nature as the English original, and seems to have some use as well. The meaning is slightly different, however. You could also go with something like or something...

stackexchange-japanese

Reading a number range I have a bottle of (facial soap), and the instructions are: > `` (use about 1 to 2 pumps) If I were to read `1~2` aloud, how would I do it?

If the numbers are consecutive, you would just count and adjust the last number accordingly. In this case, ``. If it were, say, 5-6 times, ``. If it's an actual range, I think you'd just throw in the middle. 1-5 = ``.

stackexchange-japanese

How to read the X in 5X4間? A book about architecture I'm trying to read (it's a bit of a slog what with the technical jargon and such) contained this description of a temple building: X4 X3. So it's two stories, the first being five rooms by four, with lean-to rooms attached, etc. I have a few questions about this. First, how is the "X" in 5X4 read? Additionally, I'm assuming that and are read and , respectively. Is this correct?

The English "by" is read multiply in Japanese. A 3x4 matrix, for example, is 34 in Japanese. I assume your readings are right in the second part of your question, but can't seem to find them anywhere.

stackexchange-japanese

Meaning of: イベントの前ふりをば。 A colleague is organizing an event and sent everyone an email beginning like this: > {}{} > **{} **** ** > > ... (explanation about the event) The first line is a funny intro (the guy is known for joking all the time) **QUESTION** : What does the part mean? Is it another joke? Does it convey any information?

is basically the particles + combined together. It works like but places extra emphasis on the object (in theory; in practice this "extra emphasis" might be diluted so that it basically just signals formal style). So this sort of works like the in "" (as a complete utterance) -- there is an action implied, but the actual verb is left unsaid. In the case of "", if you were to add a verb it would be "" or similar, but in the case of this it's the speaker announcing what they're about to do, so maybe would be closer. (I'm not sure what specific verb would be most usual; in any case, the whole point of this construction is to avoid a specific verb.) So basically means "Here's the setup for/information about(?) the event", except said using a certain pattern which originates in formal discourse but is now used as a sort of self-lampooning mock-formality. You can find lots of examples of this sort of thing by searching for , etc. on Google.

stackexchange-japanese

Does 「彼は映画スター兼政治家だ。」 sound weird? I asked about this in the comments section of another question, but no one responded, so I guess I'll ask it here. The question involved expressing that someone was both a movie star and a politician, and various good alternatives were offered. It occurred to me that might work, so I checked example sentences in a dictionary, and found . That seems similar enough. However, I was wondering, does work with two things as wildly disparate as "movie star", and "politician", or does it sound strange? In other words, would one expect a stronger or more logical connection between the things that connects?

ALC samples suggest that you do not want to mix movie star with politician: * * 2004 * * * Most samples come from newspapers, having a quite formal flavour. It clearly shows that you want to link occupations (rather than favourite pastry), and that they have to be related. My suggestion would be to do some research on Arnold Schwartzenegger and Ronald Reagan, and in doubt, to avoid using as in the title of your question :)

stackexchange-japanese

Why is "kisama" more refined than "temee"? From Wikipedia: > -§- -- formerly an extremely honorific form of address; in modern speech is as insulting as, but **more refined than** , "temee" is often said (by textbooks) to be the most insulting word used refer to someone, even more insulting than . Then, what does the article mean when it says that is more refined than ? Or is that information just plain wrong?

Refinement is a reflection of the speaker, not the listener. While an opposing baron would use , a thug would use .

stackexchange-japanese

Is it true that all nouns must be able to accept a が particle and a を particle? Is it true that all nouns must be able to accept a particle and a particle? I was curious about how we could form a sentence with: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Nouns can always take the particles and . cannot take these particles _unless_ they are also classified as . As far as I know, neither or are independently-functioning nouns in standard grammar. One way you can check is by googling the exact phrase "", for example. If hits are low, or if you get hits with set off from the by quote marks, brackets etc. (for example, , translate _the word_ ""), the odds are good that you can't use it. That said, people will use language as is their wont, and there are some legit hits for . That does not mean it is standard, correct usage, and will not give you license to use it. There are some na-adj. that are also nouns. , a safe place; , observe safety. Additionally, some na-adj. can be converted into nouns by adding the suffix to them. , a quiet street; , the stillness of the street. You can google these to test them as well.

stackexchange-japanese

相手の日本人 or 日本人の相手? If I wanted to describe the person I was speaking about as being Japanese, to me it seems natural to say: > {}{} ... however, one time a Japanese teacher told me it's more correct to say: > {}{} ... but that never sat right with me. To me the first way seems more logical because it goes from more general to more specific. Is `{}{}` more correct? If so, why?

This signifies the two words refer to the same thing, and means someone who is and at the same time. I do not think that using when you mean is _incorrect_. However, is ambiguous: it may mean the same as , but it may also mean an opponent/partner/company of some Japanese person, as in . This is probably why the teacher said that it is more correct to say than to say . If you think that is _more natural_ than , that may be because corresponds better to the English expression, where “Japanese” is an adjective.

stackexchange-japanese

Does [V-stem]に行く works for verbs whose stems are not stand-alone words by themselves? I was taught that there is a grammatical form which goes like this: [V-stem] For example: , which means _"Go. Reason: to "_ I was wondering does this grammatical form work for verbs whose stems are not stand-alone words by themselves? Ok, in case this gets confusing.. I mean is the stem of , and is a standalone word in the dictionary which means "play (n)". is the stem of , but is not a standalone word in the dictionary. by itself means nothing. is the stem of , of , of , of , of . but by themselves are not standalone words in the dictionary. By themselves, they mean nothing. Does these work: 1. _"Go. Reason: to "_ 2. _"Go. Reason: to "_ 3. _"Go. Reason: to "_ 4. _"Go. Reason: to "_ 5. _"Go. Reason: to "_

Yes, the form “[continuative form (-te stem) of a verb]” works even with a verb whose continuative form is not used as a noun in isolation. For example, is perfectly fine even though the action of cheering is , not .

stackexchange-japanese

What is the nuance when は directly follows a verb in plain form? It seems like this is a remnant of (or reference to) older forms of Japanese. Is that all there is to it, or does it have special meaning? Examples from songs: > (DuDiDuWa*lalala - KOTOKO) > [...] > ( - ) And lastly, the same with : (At least I _suspect_ that it's not the "but" kind of . Feels like the subject particle for some reason.) > ( - ALI PROJECT)

This construct was common in classical Japanese, but now it is archaic or poetic. In classical Japanese, the attributive form of conjugating words can be directly followed by particles which attach to nouns (without inserting ). would become in modern Japanese, would become or , and so on.

stackexchange-japanese

Translating "barely", "hardly" etc In English, "barely"/"hardly" can be used both with a connection to time ("just finished"): > I had barely finished eating when he arrived. (...) or to express the idea that a goal was reached at great effort, sometimes against expectations: > We barely made it alive. > > There was so much wind, I could barely move forward. > > I can hardly explain it myself. The former (time-related) can generally be translated well with words like /. There are also a few expressions such as or , that can express both shortness of time and "difficulty", but building them in the above sentences would be slightly unnatural. Beside these, is there a more idiomatic way to unambiguously translate that "can do with difficulty"/"nearly couldn't do it, but still managed" adverbial meaning in sentences like the ones above?

First, for your lunch example, I'd definitely use "" rather than "" Then, for idiomatic ways with adverbswhat about "" or "" > (a barely audible voice) You may try "" or "", but I never used (nor heard) them. > (win by a hair) Or > (we barely met the deadline) According to edict, and , both followed by a negative construction, seem to work too, but ALC doesn't know anything about that.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it possible to tell whether a word is kanji or hiragana without reading it? Is it possible to tell whether a word would be written in kanji or if it would be written in hiragana without actually reading it, like it is reasonably easy to tell if a word is likely to be written in katakana? (An example for katakana would be "this is an English loanword so it's probably written in katakana") Background: The kana version of Japanese for Busy People 1 uses only kana - it doesn't have kanji with furigana, and I'm wondering if not knowing which words are really hiragana, and which are not really hiragana would be a problem.

Not per se. EDICT has "uk" (usually kana) and "uK" (usually kanji) annotations, but for the most part either is acceptable. > > (int,exp, **uk** ,abbr,n-t,adv) Here I am; I'm home!; presently; right away; right now; just now; (P)

stackexchange-japanese

What does つまづい mean? What's the meaning of in this context? > >

You're parsing it incorrectly. The second line should be > So `` is the form of ``, which @rdb pointed out is probably an older spelling of ``, which means "to trip/stumble".

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between 成人 and 大人? What's the difference between and ?

is a very specific term and refers to persons who reached the age of 20 and above. It's derived from the definition of the Japanese law, which says "". You used to get drafted and taxed after this age. In today's context, it's the legal drinking/smoking age. is a more lax term and usually means persons that are older than around 18 - 25 (depends on the context/speaker). is also used to mean "mature". For example, a toddler can be like this: > A: > B: You can't do this with . It's also more formal than so it's much more common to use in everyday speech. Also specifically means "to turn 20". usually means "to become mature". > -> OK > -> Weird > -> Weird > -> OK

stackexchange-japanese

Is there any gairaigo based on Australian English? Has any Australian English become incorporated into Japanese as gairaigo? Or would most Japanese people only be exposed to Australian English from Australian-made shows such as "The Crocodile Hunter"?

I am personally not aware of any Australian gairago. Being Dutch I looked at imported words before due to rangaku in the 17th century, followed by importing some Portuguese and later massive English import of words. And nowadays the eyes and ears are very focused on US English to the point where speaking with an Australian or UK English accent actually makes it more difficult for Japanese to understand you. I guess the only Australian import words will be limited to the standard kangaroo, koala, dingo, and so on. But I am not sure if we can call that real Australian English (due to these words coming from Guugu Yimithirr, Dharuk)?

stackexchange-japanese

Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana rather than Romaji? Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana, or is this dependent on the type or writing, and the target audience? For example, this Japanese Wikipedia entry on Steven Bradbury uses katakana, while this Wikipedia entry on JRuby uses romaji for the contributors.

As you guessed, it depends on the type of writing and the target audience, and also on the style. In text written for general public, such as newspaper articles, foreign personal names are usually written in katakana. In academic books and papers, it is more common to see names in the Latin script (at least in mathematics and computer science). As for Wikipedia, a guideline of the Japanese Wikipedia states that foreign names other than Korean and Chinese names should be usually written in katakana. I do not know how strongly this guideline is enforced.

stackexchange-japanese

Producing なる adjectives I found this adjective from 7!!'s song (Lovers): > Dictionary entries categorises as a noun and -adjective. For reference, I shall extract parts from two different stanzas in the song. They share the same rhythmic structure and melody: > > > **``** > > () > > * * * > > > **``** > > ()() > > **Observations** : The parts in bold both are 5 syllables and both end in **Conjecture** : The songwriter used to be more poetic and lyrical. (Because without "" it just "would not fit") I understand that present day -adj results from -adj which in turn results from classical Japanese's copula, and some -adjectives (like ) survived. **(Question)** Can we produce -adjectives by "regressing" -adjectives? Are there any guidelines that prevents or allows us to produce -adjectives?

The answer to your question is simple. We have this grammar in a lot of Japanese Christian prayers. For example we say: > this means Our God King > our Holy God Now there are some words that can be used with the form and some that can only use the form is incorrect because the adjective can not take the form. There is no real way to tell which words can take the naru and which take na only but most cases the form can only be used with the (Chinese reading) of a single kanji, like the two examples I gave you. The funny thing is that can both be used as or The form is mostly used in songs or prayers or old Japanese more often, never used in conversation.

stackexchange-japanese

Using に twice in the [Verb-連用形]に行く sentence pattern Consider these example sentences given by my grammar dictionary: > (1) > > (2) **Observation** : The location is marked by instead of . Considering that a sentence such as `` is grammatical, if the locations in (1) and (2) are marked by , two s would be present in the same sentence. **(Question)** : Can the location in (1) and (2) be marked by ? Would two s cause the sentence to be ungrammatical?

Yes. They can. The two s are different. The first is location, the other is purpose. The only restriction against using two particles in a single clause in Japanese is for .

stackexchange-japanese

Is こら a lot more rude than ほら? From early on, I've used `` and `` somewhat interchangeably. They both mean "hey!" I picked them up from friends early on without really having a sense of the difference. Now, after some time, I've come to understand that `` is simply "hey!", as in just getting someone's attention, and `` is "hey" with a flavour of "dude, what the hell?" mixed in. The thing is, I still tend to slip and use `` when maybe I should say ``, and vice versa. Old habits die hard. My question is, when I mix up and say `` instead of ``, how bad is it?

is uttered usually when the speaker is scolding or blaming someone. is used to draw someone’s attention to something. They are not interchangeable. I do not know how bad it is to mix them up, especially if other people know that you speak Japanese as a foreign language, but using in an inappropriate situation can be rude and may give the impression that you consider that you are superior to the addressee.

stackexchange-japanese

Amount of time and 間 When expressing "It takes about 1 hour and 15 minutes", would it be best to say or or maybe ?

means "one o'clock". means "one hour". So you have to say If you want to express the "about", you can say or

stackexchange-japanese

When Chinese personal names are written in Japanese in kanji is there always an obvious reading? In their comment to an answer on the question "Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana rather than Romaji?", user sawa says: > ... Chinese names should be written in kanji rather than katakana and read by the Japanese pronunciation. For example, is , not , but is , not . ... This got me wondering, since each Japanese character generally has at least two readings is there always one clear reading for pronouncing such names? I expect of course that the "on" readings would be used, but often there is more than one on reading for the same character. From the comments so far (no answers yet) this is indeed very interesting, and on Zhen Lin's prompting I would like to include Korean names as well despite their being discounted in the older linked question.

According to Wikipedia, > [...] > > > > [...] > > Here is my translation, additions in square brackets: > [...] > > On the other hand, the Asahi Shimbun prints Chinese names with ruby annotation giving the Chinese pronunciation. (Asahi Television, which is in the same group, uses Japanese readings.) > > [...] > > As a general rule, Japanese readings [of these names] use kan-on, but in rare instances go-on and kan'yō-on are also used: for example, Kim Il-sung (), Jemulpo (), and Qian Qichen () are read respectively as _Kin Nissei_ , _Saimoppo_ , and _Sen Kishin_. [Pure kan-on readings for these would be _Kin Jissei_ , _Seibuppo_ , and _Sen Kichin_.] Also, it is customary to call Beijing () _Pekin_ , Hong Kong () _Honkon_ , and there are cases where kun-yomi is used, such as Kaohsiung () in Taiwan, which is called _Takao_. The same article also describes the corresponding phenomenon in Korean and Chinese.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the difference between 「食う」 and 「食べる」? I've often seen used, when should we use ? Are these two interchangeable ? Can you provide examples ?

They both mean "eat", as you no doubt already know. `{}`however, is "eat" in the sense of "sit down and have a meal". Not strictly that, but that's more the image. It also means eat as in "sustenance", the food you eat regularly to stay alive. `{}` is eat in the sense of "consume", as in one animal eating another. `` can be used for people, of course, and it conveys a more raw sense of "I'm going to get this food in me!" So, to get more specific to your question... They are not entirely interchangeable because of the different implications described above. An example of `` is > {}{} > > _(I) work so that I can eat_ Note in this example, there's the dual implication of working so that one can afford meals, and also to maintain oneself by having continued access to sustenance. An example of `` is: > {}{}{}{} > > _In this world, it's eat or be eaten. "It's a dog eat dog world"_

stackexchange-japanese

What is an appropriate response to お疲{つか}れ様{さま}です in non-work situations? Often times at the gym, when I'm on my way out, covered in sweat, one of the staff will say `{}{}` ("you've worked hard"...?). Usually at work situations, I've often found that saying some variant of `{}` back makes sense, because we're usually in the same situation or we're finishing at the same time. However, in this case, they're working and I'm a customer, so I'm never quite sure how to respond. Saying some variant of `` back to them doesn't seem right, as they are still working. I feel a little weird saying `` (thanks) or something like that, because it seems to be acknowledging my own efforts ("why yes, I _have_ worked hard!"), which doesn't seem quite right. What would be the right response?

has many meanings depending on the context and your divided feelings, I think, reflect Japanese people's own different usages. It is _simultaneously_ a greeting and an acknowledgement of having put in hard work and being in a state of tiredness. At **work** , acknowledges each other's hard work and responding usually suggests "it's nothing, you've also worked hard." At your **gym** , is more literally like "You must be tired," but is essentially just a greeting, like "How are you?" in English. The correct response should be would suggest "Thank you for your thoughtfulness," rather than "I _have_ worked hard!"

stackexchange-japanese

For verbs with irregular humble/honorific forms, are the regular forms still used? * There are verbs with _irregular_ humble forms, e.g. the humble form of is . For these verbs, are the "normal humble conjugations" still used, or considered grammatical? Would be acceptable? * Similarly, there are verbs with _irregular_ honorific forms, e.g. the honorific form of is . For these verbs, are the "normal honorific conjugations" still used, or considered grammatical? Would and be acceptable?

“Are they used?” and “Are they acceptable?” are different questions. The regular forms such as and are used, but they are less formal than the irregular forms such as and . Whether the less formal expressions are acceptable or not depends on how formally you want to speak. By the way, you are confusing grammatical terms “respectful form,” “humble form,” “polite form,” and “honorific form.” is the polite form of the humble form of , where the humble form of is . is the polite form of the respectful form of , where the respectful form of is . Whether an expression is in polite form or not is orthogonal to whether it is in respectful or humble form. Honorifics are the broader concept which includes all of respectful form, humble form, and polite form. For details, see Wikipedia.

stackexchange-japanese

Colloquial use of「〜て〔い〕ない」, maybe instead of 「〜なかった」 It's not the first time I hear it, but I've found it in this scene. I understand that, as in or , a started action whose consequence remains is expressed in continuous form. However, I thought that the negative form was constructed in present or past, as or , but not in continuous. I find examples as the linked video using instead the negation of the continuous . In this case I would've used . Am I missing something or is it a slang transformation? In that case, which form should be used? Thanks a lot! Ferran _EDIT: corrected misspelling/bad grammar. Tremendous lapsus :(_

I hear , which seems entirely normal, comparable to the English construction "I still haven't seen it." => "I'm in a still-continuing state of not seeing it." I suppose there's some element of volition here; it's still possible for her to see it if she wants to. For example, if a pterodactyl flew overhead, and you missed seeing it, you would say . You're no longer in a state of being able to see it, even if you wanted to. It wouldn't make sense to express it as a continuing state in such a case. BTW, is a typo?

stackexchange-japanese

How to say "workaround/quick-and-dirty hack" How to say "workaround/quick-and-dirty hack" in Japanese in the context of computer programming? ALC says for "workaround" but of course it does not convey the sense of dirtiness/fragility/speed I am looking for. Context: quick email about a software feature, to my superior, with whom I am on very friendly terms but still use - form for instance.

I use the jargon word () Simple and direct. You could also say something like

stackexchange-japanese

What's the difference between [V-ながら][V2] and [V-ている]間[V2]? What's the difference between [V-][V2] and [V-][V2] ? For example, is there any difference in nuance between these 2 sentences: 1. 2.

> AB means that Mr Tanaka primarily does A. Incidentally, he also does B. > Mr Tanaka learns casual conversation skills while drinking with his friends. The main action is drinking, it's the whole context. Incidentally, it's also the unrelated opportunity to practice conversation. Some grammar books would tell you that "" is similar to "", to show that it's linking two different actions, and does not concern time (even though they are simultaneous): > is almost "even though I'm watching the telly, I'm concentrating on my homework." It's a kind of opposition showing that the two actions are not logically connected.

stackexchange-japanese

Kitten: 子猫 vs 小猫 vs 仔猫 Are there any differences (nuances or usage) when using prefix , or for denoting young animals? Examples: * Kitten: vs vs * Puppy: vs vs * Pony: vs vs * Calf: vs vs * Lamb: vs vs * Piglet: vs vs

The OP's comment just now is on the right track: certainly could be just a small cat. would be more common in science, but for a different reason than you guessed: is actually the correct character for a child animal, but it's not one of the 1945 -- er, 2136 as of last year, is it? -- . Since looks and means almost the same, it took on the added responsibility of being the simplified form of . I think for the anthropomorphism case those characters would need to be switched. =p Google hits [Japanese pages only]: "" - 3,160,000 "" - 10,700,000 "" - 1,310,000

stackexchange-japanese

The role of と particle in 「二度としない」 What is the role of particle in ? Is it quotative, adverbialisation, change of state or supposition? Also, what extra nuances does it contribute to the expression compared to if is used instead ()?

It's best to consider as an adverb on its own, meaning '(not) again'. The here is pronounced , but the meaning aligns with its alternate reading, -- which is, of course, usually written in modern Japanese. The here feels very similar in usage to the in an onomatopoeic expression like [an intuition which seems to be confirmed, since they're adjacent senses in ], but is used very much like English '(not) [small amount]', e.g. 'It won't cost you a penny' (1). The difference with just seems to be that its frequency of use is raised to the level of a more standard adverb. Additionally, there's also , which carries basically the same meaning, and is generally used in the adjectival expression . As for -- this is actually entirely different, being a simple production of +, and meaning 'even twice' (positive or negative). I'll refer you to ALC for examples: <

stackexchange-japanese

Where's the negation in 〇〇も書けなりました? I'm not sure what this example sentence is trying to teach. The translation is really throwing me off. > > I cannot even write easy kanji anymore I see the "even ... easy kanji" and the "anymore" in , but where's the cannot coming from?

This is a typo for **** (have become unable to write). Where did the example sentence come from? * * * The / only operates on "" and not " ": !enter image description here

stackexchange-japanese

Can だ ever be used in a question? I learned in Tae Kim's Grammar Guide that cannot be used when asking a question. But in the book Japanese Sentence Patterns for Effective Communication by Taeko Kamiya, I found several example sentences that used in a question. I also have seen it being used this way in anime. I'm guessing there is some type of exception to all of this? Anyways, I hope someone can shed some light on the subject for me. :) == EDIT == Here is an example from the aforementioned book: > (Why didn't you come last night?) And here is an example from the title of the 249th episode of the show Dragon Ball Z: > !? (Where's Gohan!?)

Yes, it can be used in a question, as long as the sentence also contains a question word: , , , etc. * = Who's there? * = What (the hell) are you doing? - (Note that can be added at the end) Both of your examples fit this pattern: and are the question words. Without a question word, you are much less likely to see this pattern, although there are a few special/edge cases that might technically count as use of . For example: "" = "'Friends'?! Don't give me that crap!" Update: As Axioplase says in comments, this is a ~~very informal~~ non-polite way of asking a question (it is , not , after all), and can also carry a "confrontational" or "accusatory" nuance -- especially when combined with , when it becomes less a question ("what are you doing?") and more of a demand for an explanation ("why are you doing that?").

stackexchange-japanese

Can と and を be interchanged with 思う the way I think they can? Compare the following two sentences: > []{}[]{} > > []{}[]{} If I'm right about this, they both mean that the speaker is thinking of going somewhere. However, the difference is that in the first case, the use of `` indicates the speaker is literally saying those words in their mind. The English translation would be: > I'm thinking, "I'll go over there." In the second case, `` indicates that the speaker is not literally thinking those words, so it's not a quote of their thoughts, it's just a description of their thoughts. So the English translation would be: > I'm thinking of going over there. I think this is right, but somehow the second one looks really awkward to me, so it doesn't feel right in some way. Is my intuition correct that there is something grammatically wrong with it? ... should it be `` instead of ``?

Basically, follows a noun (eg. "") or a nominal group (eg. ""), not a proposition. (This) follows a proposition, not a noun or nominal group. is thus not grammatical. You'd want for a grammatically correct sentence. It would mean that you think of the concept of going. It is different from thinking of _you_ going, which would be , where the form embeds the subject (since it's a form used to express introspection or monologue where the subject is known to be the thinker). In fact, are very common and standard forms to say "I'm getting ready to do go" and "I think I'll go". Another thing, you can say "" (I'm thinking of you) but not "". You'd need "" (I think it is you) or something like that which has a different meaning.

stackexchange-japanese

Can と be used with verbs other than 思う to imply a thought process behind the action? Following hot on the heels on my other question about `` and ``, I know `` can be used with ``, but can it also be applied to verbs that imply some kind of thinking process other than ``? Do these make grammatical sense? (I decided, "I'll go over there") (I considered, "I'll go over there") (I felt, "I'll go over there") If so, are there other verbs that might take to imply a thought process behind the action?

> but can it also be applied to verbs that imply some kind of thinking process other than ? Yes, all of them, I think. > Do these make grammatical sense? Yes. But I wonder how to say the third one. The translation is weird… With I think that a better example is I felt that he was already dead (say, by touching him) > If so, are there other verbs that might take to imply a thought process behind the action? Yes, as I said earlier. (yes, double ) and many others I guess.

stackexchange-japanese

おしまい {oshimai} vs おわり {owari} Are there any differences between using {oshimai} and {owari} to mean "the end" (both with neutral and negative connotations)? Are they always interchangeable? E.g: > > >

I don't think there's really much difference in meaning or connotation, although sounds more formal to me, probably because it has the honorific attached. OTOH, I've never seen at the end of a movie, so maybe there are differences in customary usage. {EDIT: The following is inaccurate: is also used transitively} One difference is that you can "" something, whereas you can't "" things, because of the transitive/intransitive pairing /.(END EDIT, see comments) In your example sentences (incidentally, you need to stick a "" in them), I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between the two. They both mean "I'm done for, it's all over, the jig is up, put a fork in me, Goodnight Irene."

stackexchange-japanese

Can counter words also be nouns? According to people I've asked, and this page, if I pay 20 Australian dollars for my meal, it seems I say ni ju doru (20-), and that ni ju-en doru (20--) would be ungrammatical - "dollar" acts as the counter. Is it possible to refer to the Australian dollar as a noun in other circumstances (eg while talking about how the dollar fared on the exchange market)? If so, is this only because it's a loanword, or can the same apply with native Japanese words?

A quick Google search brought me to this Amazon page for a book with title , which is an example where the counter for Japanese Yen is used as a noun to refer to the currency unit, thus I believe counter words for currencies can be used as nouns. !enter image description here EDIT: StackExchange engine breaks the Amazon Japan link again so here are the raw URL (you need to copy-paste): <

stackexchange-japanese

Separate kanji for おそい when referring to being late and being slow The i-adjective can refer to being fast or being early, but each of the meanings has affinity towards separate kanji: (fast) and (early). Yet, while it's not surprising that the antonyms of both and have the same pronunciation , both that means "slow" and "late" seems to share the same kanji: . Although WWWJDIC and dictionary@goo both include as an alternative kanji for , it does not seem to have affinity towards any of the two meanings either. Is this really the case that the same kanji form can refer to both meanings, or were there separate kanji for each (maybe abolished during the reform or something)?

shows `` as well, but I think this is more often ``. However, the same dictionary shows that (this) `` can also mean "slow of speed"; but I've heard it mostly used as "slow-witted". As an aside, `` can be any of ``, ``, or ``. They all carry different primary meanings though, so be careful of their usage. > Is this really the case that the same kanji form can refer to both meanings, or were there separate kanji for each (maybe abolished during the reform or something)? Yes, I don't see why not. `` is the same type, meaning "high" or "expensive". And its opposites are very different (`` and ``, resp.)

stackexchange-japanese

Are the usage of 上 and 下 as labels only limited to items that come in pairs of two? I have some untranslated mangas that come in pairs of two, and each of them is labeled with or to denote which is the first volume and which is the second. I'm wondering if these labels are only used for pairs of two or can also be used for trilogies, maybe in the order of - - perhaps, but I don't have access to library or bookstore for Japanese books to verify. So, are the usage and as labels only limited to books/movies/etc that come in pairs of two? p/s: On related note, in , the eldest dango is , the second is and the youngest is . If they were actually instead, would they be labelled with and instead? I think I've heard "" or "" being said but I'm not sure if they are referring to the order of siblings or something else.

As Axioplase and rdb said, it is common to label a three-volume book as , , and , or simply , , and . As for your second question, (; the older child) and (; the younger child) can be used to distinguish two children (usually siblings) in informal context. If there are many children to talk about, you can even say 2 (; the second oldest child) and so on.

stackexchange-japanese

Fun with synonyms - "perhaps/maybe/probably" What are the differences when using the following words/phrases to mean "perhaps", "maybe" or "probably"? * * * {} * * * (negative -> probably not) * / / * Please add any other words/phrases that provide similar meanings. _N.B I hope istrasci doesn't mind me using his favorite question title pattern here :P_

Well, the first problem is that they often mix together, and are thus rather hard to tell apart… Should I give exclusive nuances, I'd go like this: * : Maybe. I don't know. (very often, ) * : has a negative nuance by the kanji. * {}: (never heard, I won't conjecture) * : By any chance, would it be possible that… * : Small, unimportant thing that may help you: * : way to round the corners, not to affirm too much. / / / deserve their own question if it hasn't been done yet, for it can mean many things. Basically, it can be a conjecture in which you want people to know that you think like this (the cake you give to your friend: The description of a party on facebook that happens it the middle of a thursday afternoon: )

stackexchange-japanese

The first: 第一 vs 一番 vs 第一番 What are differences among , and , all of which seem to mean "the first" in English? Are any of them more suitable for some specific scenarios than the others (e.g. but )?

* , , : noun 'number one'. still retains its meaning as a number, so it can be replaced by the number character: 1, 1, 1. > ///1/1/1 > 'symphony no. 1' * , 1 can be used as a prefix. > /1 > 'symphony no. 1' * : noun 'has priority'. does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'. > > 'safety is the priority' * , preferrably written in hiragana as : adverb 'most'. does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'. > () > 'the {b-/tall-}est (building) in the world' * , preferrably written in hiragana as : adverb 'in the first place'. does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'. > > 'the teacher has not come yet in the first place'

stackexchange-japanese

Is 花見 only for "cherry blossom" viewing? Textbooks usually teach that / means "cherry blossom viewing". Tatoeba has a couple of examples supporting that: > * > It looks like cherry blossom-viewing season is at an end. You can see the petals fluttering down. > > * > _The city of Mito was crowded with blossom viewers._ > > * > _I have been to see the cherry blossoms._ > > * > _I can't wait for spring to come so we can sit under the cherry trees._ > > * > _Why don't we go and see the cherry blossoms?_ > > > > [[source]]( Must / refer only to "cherry blossom" viewing? Can they be used for "flower viewing" in general?

usually refers to cherry-blossom viewing. However, it can refer to other kind of blossom trees. For example, refers to plum-blossom viewing, and when it is clear from the context, it can be also referred to simply as . does not refer to viewing flowers in general. For example, going to view orchids or tulips is not usually considered as .

stackexchange-japanese

Another example where I don't know if 欲しい or 欲しがる is right > > > I want the meaning to be "my grandmother gave me more then I wanted." Is the second sentence right and the first sentence wrong? I learned for the third person, but I found the second example as a first person example. Which is correct?

The generalization that is used only for third person is wrong. Both of your examples are grammatical, but only the first one means what you want. > > 'My grandmother gave me more than what I wanted.' > > > 'My grandmother gave me more than what I expressed that I wanted.'

stackexchange-japanese

What is proper letter ending greeting for a letter to a teacher? In Chinese letter writing there is a phrase "" that can be roughly translated as "good luck in teaching" and is used exclusively in the letter ending greeting. Is there a counterpart in Japanese letter writing? Or is wishing the teacher's health good enough? Edit: found a rather long list of letter greetings and cannot find anything specific to teachers.

The standard formal opening, equivalent to English "Dear Sir/Madam", is . The closing, equivalent to "Sincerely Yours", is . I don't see why you couldn't put in the Chinese greeting as well, along with a little explanation. The teacher might find it interesting/charming, and there's nothing wrong with a little cross-cultural exchange.

stackexchange-japanese

How does -ki form of i-adjectives work? (e.g. 愛しき) In one of the Bleach anime ending songs, "Hanabi" has the following line: > "itoshiki" seems to come from "itoshii", but how does this -ki form of i-adjective work? I found a few other adjectives that have -ki forms, e.g. {}, {}, {}, {} etc but that's about it. Is this form productive? Is it selective, i.e. only some i-adjectives can have this form? Or has it become archaic, and thus only limited to those that survived into present Japanese?

The `-ki` ending is the archaic rentaikee (adnominal form). It used to be standardly used in relative clauses/attributive uses of an adjective. The change from `-ki` to the present `-i` is called i-ombin. Today, this is used only when the writer wants to use the archaic form for some literary effect such as in literature, lyrics, poems, etc.

stackexchange-japanese

「ありがとうございや」 - Dialect? Train Station 言葉？ Today as I was transferring trains in Nagoya the station attendant was shouting repeatedly. Doing a search on the internet revealed that this seems to be a shorted form of but I have never heard of this before. Is this from a specific dialect/age group/group Is it's usage just a simple replacement of in Can this be done to any verb, or is it limited to ending verbs that conjugate to in (polite speech)?

It might be with devoiced . , whose meaning is the same as , was used in the Edo dialect in the 16th–19th centuries, and seems to be still in use in the Ibaraki dialect. I do not think that either or is used in the Nagoya dialect.

stackexchange-japanese

Is it grammatical to have more than one "WH question" words in a sentence? In English it would be strange to have more than one "WH question" word in a sentence, For example: > Tomorrow, where are we meeting, at what time and to do what ? It sounds like it's grammatical English, but nevertheless it sure sounds odd (or an intentional joke) at best. In Japanese, what is the stand on sentences that has more than one "WH" word? e.g: >

It's fine, although, as in English, if you stack up too many you end up with something faintly ridiculous, of course. (This can even be emphasised for humorous purposes: try Googling ""). Still, I would say that Japanese is more tolerant of multiple WH- words in a sentence than English is, maybe because in Japanese the WH- words can be left in place rather than fronted, and so the result is less structurally remarkable. (Come to think of it, in English, too, multiple WH- words don't seem particularly objectionable when they're in a non-fronted structure: "You went WHERE with WHO?" "Wait, who said what to who now?" etc.)

stackexchange-japanese

When to use 頂戴します instead of いただきます? In rather formal situations, when would you use ? I use all the time to express the fact of receiving something, but I just heard a colleague using over the phone. If I understand well, this page suggests is when receiving material merchandise.

Without much basis, I feel that is used more when the opponent actively gives away or at least permits the thing to be taken away, whereas is used more when the intention on the agent is stronger than that of the opponent. > > 'take away the life of animals at a slaughter house' > > > 'TV programs that make you cry' > > > 'In case you broke our merchandise, we would be asking for compensation.'

stackexchange-japanese

Usage and nuance of あまりに vs あまりにも WWWJDIC lists both and to mean "too much; excessively; too" but are they exactly the same in term of usage and nuance? > (adv) (uk) too much; excessively; too > Ex: Cooking takes up too much time. > > (adv) (uk) too much; excessive; too > Ex: It is too easy a task for him. Can they be used interchangeably?

I read that the adds greater emphasis. With that in mind, I can see it in the following translations: > > Don't you think that we have tended to entrust (the care of) our bodies too much to doctors? > > **** > He is **_so_** introverted, I don't think I'll ever grow to like him. > > > Their divorce was caused by the fact that their value systems were very different. > > **** > Because she was acting **_so_** selfishly, I couldn't resist saying something to her.

stackexchange-japanese

Why does replacing だ to である changes the meaning of a the sentence? 1. means "He is a movie star, and a politician is a movie star, too" (from Tsuyoshi's comment below this other post) 2. means "He is a movie star and also a politician." (Source) If we were to replace with in (1), we have: . Sawa suggests that has to be attached to a noun for a sentence to be grammatical, so after swapping the positions of and , we have: . What I cannot understand is why does replacing to (and applying the necessary and swap) changes the meaning of the sentence?

You are misunderstanding where the difference is. > There are two in this sentence: and , but the latter is hidden behind . You thus have the following: and > There is only one in this sentence: , but there are two "", the latter being augmented with a . You thus have the following: and (). To sum up: is different from . It's not the / that makes the difference.

stackexchange-japanese

Using　あまりに（も）　in a sentence with <verb stem>過ぎる, is it redundant? Using in a sentence with , is it redundant because they both mean too much/excessive? In the following example stolen from Lukman (thank you), does the sentence change if you drop the Ex: Cooking takes up too much time.

() strengthens the degree of exceeding, but probably it does not make much difference. One important property of this kind of adverbs is to compensate the head-finalness of Japanese. In Japanese, the head of a phrase comes at the end of it. Therefore, as is often pointed out, you cannot tell whether a clause is going to be negated or not, interrogative or not, etc. until you reach the end of the clause. You cannot position the head in the front, but adverbs can be positioned in the front, and if a particular adverb shows concord with a particular head, then that will give you a clue before you reach the end of a clause. In case of , it often matches (but not necessary require the existence of it) > so the moment is pronounced, you can tell that the clause will have the meaning of exceeding. Similarly concords with negation, and with interrogative. > > > They function as giving clues to what type of sentence it is going to be before the end is reached.

stackexchange-japanese

Does the だ get dropped after an い-adjective I was told how an older non-native lady would say "it's okay!" and that it was perceived to be just like that person and cute many because it was grammatically incorrect. She would say, Now I didn't know that rule but I was sure I had heard before. It is such a simple statement but even these things trip me up. So I'm guessing the rule is like after -adjectives, nouns No after -adjectives Can I get something definitive on this please? What about adverbs?

Are you sure it's wasn't and you just couldn't hear the clearly?

stackexchange-japanese

Is this a valid use of どころか? In the following, I feel it should be **** . > > Jim is not only unable to converse in Japanese; he cannot even make simple greetings. I was expecting the sentence to end talking about how well Jim can speak Japanese. If this is a valid usage, can you please give a more literal translation?

It is not unseen, but it is incorrect, or at least different from the traditional usage of . As you said, the correct expression is > **** Another correct way is > ****

stackexchange-japanese

Mnemonic phrases for memorizing a word or number sequence What generally accepted mnemonic phrases are there in Japanese that are used for memorizing a sequence of numbers or words?

The ones that I am most familiar with are for tying historical events to years. They can be found in vast numbers on websites like these ones and in exam study guides. I'm not sure about "generally accepted"; some are probably more widely known than others. I would not be surprised to observe patterns corresponding to the (schools) of traditional Japanese arts, where the _goroawase_ students learn can be linked to geographical location/study guide used/target school/etc. I am personally fond of the variants on "naku yo uguisu" in your example (e.g. "haku yo uguisu", "the warbler vomits" for 894, etc.), and of course "Iroiro sankyū, Porutogaru" for 1639 when Japan's ports were officially closed to Portuguese ships.

stackexchange-japanese

Particle-が in restaurant's name. Genitive particle? I was at a Japanese restaurant called ` ()`. And I was trying to figure out what the `` does in it. I instinctively translated it to "Starry hill" (Not sure of my translation though). **(Question)** What does `` do in this case? Or is it simply and I shouldn't think too much into it.

Your speculation seen in the title is correct. `` is the archaic genitive case particle. You can still observe this form in fixed expressions such as `` () 'my'.

stackexchange-japanese

When is disjunctive-が appropriate in connecting sentences? Consider the following: > [1] , (I'm not Japanese, I'm Singaporean) > > [2] , (I'm not Japanese but Singaporean) Comparing my sentences to the worked examples in my grammar practice workbook, [1] would be correct while [2] would be wrong. **(Question)** Is [2] a valid sentence? **(Side Question)** Can I read `` as ``?

Your textbook is wrong in saying that [2] is wrong. Whenever `P` and `Q` work in the opposite direction towards expectation of `R`, `P Q` is okay. For example, it is fine in the following context: > A: > 'Is there any Asian?' > B: > 'I am a Japanese.' > C: , > 'I am not a Japanese, but am a Singaporean.' In this context, `` closes up one possibility of C being an Asian, but then, `` opens up another possibility, working towards the expectation of, and in fact affirming, C being an Asian. Usually, you read as it is written. If you want ``, you will usually write so. But it is not that wrong to read `` as ``. It is wrong/correct to the extent that reading English `cannot` as `can't` is. Actually, even when `P` and `Q` do not work in the opposite direction, you can use `PQ` as long as `P` is providing a new topic into the discourse. > > 'He passed the examination, and that is due to his consistent effort.'

stackexchange-japanese

Is と necessary after a quoted phrase? Hi all I was wondering if we want to treat a quoted phrase as a "noun", is it necessary to put a particle behind the quoted phrase? For example: A) The "received" in "received from Tom" 1. , or 2. ? B) The "tadaki" in "itadakimasu" 1. , or 2. ? Basically I was trying also just to figure out how should we know whether or not to put a particle after a quote?

`` is used to introduce a subordinate clause, and is close to the English `that`. When to omit them with quotations seems to differ between the two languages. I cannot give you an explanation, but let me just illustrate. * Complement of quotation verbs > He said that he likes apples. > He said he likes apples. > × He said that "I like apples". > He said "I like apples". > > > × [In Tokyo dialect] > > × [In Tokyo dialect] * Complement of nouns > the fact that he likes apples > the fact he likes apples > × the fact that "he likes apples" > × the fact "he likes apples" > > > × > **** > × > × > × * As a noun > × the word "he" in that "he likes apples" > the word "he" in "he likes apples" > > × >

stackexchange-japanese

Colloquial contraction of だろう into ろ after past tense verb (e.g. 言ったろ) I noticed in many anime I watched that is often contracted into in conversations between friends and families. I'm guessing this contraction is both colloquial and standard (as in, everyone understands it). But I'm wondering if this contraction of is limited to the phrase only. Is there any instance where gets contracted before other past tense verbs than , e.g. ?

I'm not sure that this is a contraction of , actually, I would interpret it as a contraction of -- which has the same meaning as , but is now archaic or at least very old-fashioned, I think (alas). * "" = "Said I not that my senses were acute?" (from Sasaki Naojiro's translation of "The Fall of the House of Usher") (Note: It is possible that the evolution was not direct, and / were indeed intermediate steps. I don't have any evidence either way, just Occam's Razor.) Anyway, the ending can be applied to any verb in theory. , , etc. But be careful not to confuse it with the "-" or "-" that actually mean "-" -- totally different ending!

stackexchange-japanese

それは彼の身に応えだした。 Can anyone explain this? [ex #4531] It is beginning to tell on him. can anyone explain this sentence? is it useful or archaic? is it related to this?

That wore him out. = to get tired.

stackexchange-japanese

Are けもの and けだもの different types of beasts, or simply two variants of the same word? Both and are written in kanji as , but is the beast with '' inside more brutal than the one without ''? Or are they simply two variants of the same noun, thus they refer to exactly the same type of beasts? If they are the same word, why is only read as but not ?

Apparently the reading comes from "", (as = ), so both mean "beast" as in "furry mammal" (although I'm sure it will stretch to cover those hairless cats). has an additional meaning that doesn't, when applied to people (strongly negative, like "he's a monster"). That might also be the reason that uses the more neutral reading (and also is ).

stackexchange-japanese

Is this the denial of a statement, or a statement of denial? This sentence originally came from a newspaper article. Unfortunately, I copied it onto a flashcard for later study and then lost the original context. > > > What I'm confused about is the end part that says ``. Does it mean that he denied the statement, or that he was denying the possibility? Which of these following translations is more correct? * Speaking of the possibilities, he denied saying "it's totally not on my mind." * Speaking of the possibilities, he denied them, saying "it's totally not on my mind."

(Possibly this was the original context, and you cut it down for the flashcard? < ) He is denying "", and is quoting the phrasing he used to deny it. You can think of it as close to: > > > "Regarding the possibility, he denied it, saying..." As opposed to: > > > "Regarding the possiblity, he denied saying that..." Indirect quoting is also fine: > Alternative arrangement with similar meaning: > Another example utilising a quote + associated verb, and then since I just saw it pop up on Yomiuri: >

stackexchange-japanese

How to translate "from scratch" I am having discussions with my Japanese friend about developing a new computer application. I want to suggest to him to not write the code from scratch but to use other libraries as our base. How can I say that? There are a lot of words about starting. Which is the best suit for my context? For example: > , > , > , > .

All of , , , refer to "the beginning", which all imply it is a beginning of something that is already there. For example, when you talk about a botched marriage using "", you are talking about a marriage that has already happened; it has a beginning. On the other hand, when you are just about to suggest to your friend about how to start writing the computer application, the application code is not yet there. There is no beginning to refer to. Even in English, we would use "writing from scratch", not "writing from beginning". It would be a different case if you need to rewrite code that already exists. In that case, the code already has "a beginning", thus you can use "rewriting the code from the beginning". So, how do we say "writing from scratch" in Japanese? One expression you can use is **""** or even "". > Photoshop

stackexchange-japanese

幼いときに老けて、老いて子供に戻る。Can anyone explain the nuances of this sentence? I can make a few guesses as to the specific meaning but I'm not sure which one is right.. does anyone know what would be the most correct translation of this sentence?

You hear a lot, but I haven't heard . Google seems to agree with me, so I'm assuming it's not a proverb or something. The phrase is rather peculiar because means "become an old man / behave like a old man" and has a negative nuance. So it's not the same as "grow old"; if you are and do , then that's very unusual. It's like an oxymoron, but I don't "get" what is meant here. Perhaps with more context it would make sense, but frankly my guess is that whoever wrote this phrase didn't fully understand the nuance of .

stackexchange-japanese

How is the あげたい working here? On a TV show, an idol was given this task to think of: > > 'A word (or phrase) to lift someone's mood' (My loose translation) The idol responded: > []{} > 'Let me try and get rid of that cloud hanging over you'. (Very loose translation, I know) So, more literally translated, I guess it would be: > 'Let me stop the rain in your heart'. I would like to know how `` works here. Is it working like: > I'd like to give you my action of stopping the rain in your heart Or is it working differently?

`` is the form of "doing X for someone". The quote is just the combination of that and the `` form (want to do). So it is "I want to do X for you". Of course, remember that `` should not be used for , and even when used properly might sound patronizing in the wrong context.

stackexchange-japanese

How different is 冷やかす from 冷やす? And 散らかす from 散らす? I've long known as the transitive counterpart of . But thanks to one question here, I've realized that there is another version with an extra syllable in it: . Although seems to have secondary meaning of making fun of someone, the first meaning "to refrigerate" seems to overlap with . Is there any difference between them? Being curious, I looked up in the dictionary for other verbs that have "Xsu" and "Xkasu" variants and found another pair: and . Same question, how are they different? Lastly, are there any other verb pairs that are different in look from each other by one additional syllable while still maintaining transitivity, and would there be any pattern on how the verbs in each pair different from each other?

In case of and , is purposefully done while is kind of a by-product that happened while you were trying to do something else. > -> Decorate by sprinkling it with gold flakes. > -> While decorating, litter the gold flakes (and not clean up afterwards) is a bit archaic (don't ask me why!) so I'll use instead to illustrate the point. Here, means "to force something to do something". For example, means "Make the child sleep". In case of , it means to "Make something chill" (literal meaning: "let something chill itself"). I guess this makes some sense in regard to / distinction, because the literal meaning of is "Let something litter itself". Basically the person is allowing (negligently) the gold flakes to scatter around, while in case of , the person is actively scattering the gold flakes (by himself). Another example is which is a slang for "screw up". I'm not sure what the etymology for this is though.

stackexchange-japanese

What is the とも in this sentence? 日本人は英語を学ばずとも暮らせる環境に居ます。 > **** > > Japanese people are in an environment where they can live without having to learn English. Is the in this sentence one word or is it two words: and ? I guess it is one word as I see it in this sentence as well: > **** On the other hand, written Japanese is one of the easiest in the world if you do not have to learn kanji. Would anyone care to explain the and how it is used in these sentences?

It is this , specifically the first definition. Originally two particles, now arguably one word. "X " basically means "Even if X" in cases like this. * **[]** Japanese people are in an environment where **[they can live even if they don't learn English]**. * **[]** On the other hand, Japanese characters are said to be the easiest in the world if **[you don't have to learn kanji]**. On the other hand, Japanese characters are said to be the easiest in the world if **[it's OK even if you don't learn kanji]**. (The second translation in that last one is intentionally overliteral to show the "even if".)

stackexchange-japanese

Is this は or はいる: ～わかってはいるものの > If it's , does omitting change the meaning in verb-te~? And also, could you talk about what is doing? If it's , in what sense would you describe 's usage? Also, as I googled for more examples, I noticed there was a general pattern of []... Is there something to this?

It's the "". I'll leave it to the linguists for a technical description, but the practical effect is to emphasize the verb. "Although I _do_ know cigarettes are bad for my body, I pretty much can't quit."

stackexchange-japanese

Help with tense/aspect (past vs. non-past in Verb and Verbている） I'm having difficulty with this sentence: Tense appears inconsistent to me. I need help understanding the correct use of verb forms. > [Fill in the blank] **** (past) > > 1. > > 2. > > 3. (Correct)(non-past) > > 4. > > Based on the bold portion above, I would choose option 2 or 4 for tense consistency. But I'm wrong and I don't know why.

Verbs used as adjectives don't need to match the tense of the rest of the sentence, they merely need to be true (As for, say, the grandmother that currently lives in Kyushu).

stackexchange-japanese

How do you indicate a literal translation I know that when I read sites like Wikipedia and there are foreign words they will often give the name with the original alphabet and spelling as well as a phonetic and a literal translation. So for instance the entry for Tokyo has ( Tōkyō, "Eastern Capital") next to the first use of Tokyo. I had this thought because I was debating on how to translate the name of a place near where I live. It's called Little Italy (think China town but Italian). I was going to translate it phonetically as `` but I think that loses some of the meaning so I was going to add `` with the specification that it was a literal translation. So my question is how do I indicate that something is a literal translation not a phonetic translation?

First of all, I think you'd be better off with "". Second, I think most Japanese are familiar with "", so it might be better to forgo the literal translation and include something descriptive instead. "" or "", depending on what kind of Little Italy you mean. If you must, "" would indicate that it's a literal translation.

stackexchange-japanese

How to invoke God/spirits in Japanese No, this is not about any Buddhist chant or mantra that can be used to call forth Japanese gods or heavenly spirits, but rather about any specialized words or interjections that attract attention of the God/spirits that we want to communicate with. Similar to the following equivalent interjections in some languages I know: > English: 'O' > e.g: O The Great God > > Arabic: 'يا' (pronunciation: Ya) > e.g: ياربي > > Malay/Indonesian: 'Wahai' > e.g: Wahai Tuhanku Does Japanese have such words/interjections? Even though might be serving the purpose, lacks the glorification that 'O' has. Note that 'O', 'يا' and 'Wahai' are not restricted to God/spirits/heavenly beings only since they can also be used towards people, for example in a sermon, so the Japanese equivalent(s) must also have to have similar scope in order to qualify.

It sounds like you are looking for the vocative case particle in Japanese. Taken from wikipedia's article on vocative case: > In archaic Japanese, or when written as verse, a particle `` and `` may be affixed. > >> `` (Boys, be ambitious, quote by William S. Clark) >> >> `` (O God, Thy praise is according to Thine name, from Bach's cantata) >> >> `` (Old man, was it raining on the mountain?) The article however notes that this is archaic, and usually vocative case in Japanese is formed with null morpheme, i.e. without any specific particle.

stackexchange-japanese

Can I use 行っている間（に） in the sense of a habitual action? Knowing that is punctual, stative, and a motion verb, I also know that, `` means "I/he/she have gone to Japan (and am still there)" rather than "I am currently going to Japan." I also feel that can be used in the sense of habitual action, so that `` can mean either "I'm at the college" or "I go to college" depending on the context. That being said, can I also use in the sense of a habitual action in conjunction with )? > - I wish I had studied more when I was going to college. > - While I was in college, I broke up with my girlfriend from high school. > > > - It was raining while I was at school. > - I did my homework while I was at school. >

> That being said, can I also use in the sense of a habitual action in conjunction with )? The answer is yes. can mean both “have gone” and “go habitually,” with or without . > I go to Osaka for business every Monday. This sentence states that the speaker is currently following the pattern of “going to Osaka every Monday,” and does not imply that the speaker is currently in Osaka.

stackexchange-japanese

Does 「鳴く」 give any nuances about the sound being made? When we say "birds singing", there is a positive connotation. When we say "birds crowing", there is a negative connotation. "The birds are making some sound" seems to be objective, and thus neutral. I was wondering is it true that is absolutely neutral? In other words, would the sentence have a positive connotation, negative connotation, or is it an absolutely neutral sentence?

I think it is neutral; it just implies the subject is a bird, an insect, or some other kind of animal. For positive connotation, there is a verb `` 'chirp'. For bad connotation, there is a verb (not limited to bird but can be used more generally) `` 'make noise'.

stackexchange-japanese

Difference between 可決 and 許可？ I want to know the difference between and . I searched the dictionary and the meaning is quite the same: approval or permission. So, what is the difference and how to use them differently?

They are entirely different * ``: approval of a matter by vote (←→ ``: disapproval) * ``: permission (←→ ``: 'no permission')

stackexchange-japanese

What are the various ways to express 'or' and when are they appropriate? I'd like to get an idea of when it is appropriate to use different expressions for expressing disjunction (of the inclusive AND exclusive variety). ABC...and come to mind, but I think they have situational usage (that I'm not entirely aware of). seems somewhat awkward, is limited to a decision between two things, and so forth. How would an inclusive or be expressed ('A or B' as opposed to 'either A or B')?

Natural languages usually have exclusive disjunction. In order to express inclusive disjunction, you usually have to add some materials to exclusive disjunction. * Exclusive disjunction between two things > A B (({/})(/)) > 'between A or B' * Exclusive disjunction among more than two things > A B, () C (({//})()) > 'among A, B, or C' * Inclusive disjunction between two things > A B ({/}){/} > 'A and/or B' * Inclusive disjunction among more than two things > A B, () C ({//}) > 'A, B, and/or C' * * * Since the OP seems to be having trouble with the notation, I will expand the first one so that there is no parentheses and braces: * Exclusive disjunction between two things > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B > A B >

stackexchange-japanese

しゅっぱつしんこ〜, what is Yotsuba-chan saying? Which is the one Yotsuba-chan meant when she said in the manga excerpt below? WWWJDIC lists so many two-kanji words that read as , and even after eliminating totally irrelevant ones there are still a few plausible choices: > (n,adj-no) rising; developing; emergent; > (n,vs) advance; progress; > (n,vs) attack; drive; advance; invasion; > (n,vs) sailing on !enter image description here (From manga , 4th volume, page 30)

Was this the one where they went fishing? That was a fun story. I'm starting to wish I hadn't eBay'd my Yotsuba books last year. Anyway, I'm pretty sure **** is what you want. There's even a Wikipedia page for which says that this phrase is in the lingo book for train operators as part of the safety procedure of pointing and calling (). (The phrase basically means permission to advance has been granted.)

stackexchange-japanese

"一生懸命な”のニュアンスを説明してもらえませんか。Nuances of 一生懸命な > > 'I felt I had to do something so I decided to meet him face to face and tell him I wasn't interested.' `` 'eagerly, with utmost effort, very hard' If `` is used as a -adjective to describe someone, is it usually negative? In this example, the suitor was overly persistent, so the girl wanted to actively reject him. Please pardon any mistakes made in my faulty Japanese.

I don't think "" by itself has any particular connotations either way. Definitions given in Kenkyuusha's range from "desperate, frantic", to "earnest,eager". It really seems to depend on context. It just means that whatever you're doing, good or bad or in-between, you're doing it full-out. In the example, I really don't get any sense at all of a negative judgment; in fact, quite the opposite. "I felt so sorry for him, trying so hard." After all, if she wanted to express annoyance, she could have said he was "", or even "". Incidentally, "" means that she considered rejecting him, not that she decided to do it.

stackexchange-japanese

「悪気があっての答え」 vs 「悪気がある答え」 Hi all I was wondering what is the difference between these two sentences: > 1. > > 2. > > I can't really make out the gist of the meaning of . WWWJDIC's explanation of is _"which can exist solely due to the presence of"_ (rather confusing..) and the example sentences do not really give much clue to the meaning/usage of the word.

I think that the in your example is different from the one in the dictionary. means “a reply given out of malice.” means “a malicious reply.” The former describes the state of the person who made the reply, whereas the latter describes an attribute of the reply itself. So I would translate the two examples as > 1. I did not reply (do the reply) out of malicious intent by any means. > 2. The reply is not malicious by any means. >

stackexchange-japanese

雨を降っています - grammatically correct sentence or just typo? It seems that there are around 14-17K Google results on each of "" and "" keywords. Is yet another intransitive verb that are used with ? Does it mean something like "rain on me" and "snow on me", or is it simply typo? Some sample usages taken from Google results: * * * N.B. I don't think either "through" or "leaving something behind" interpretations can work with "".

I would say it's a typo, but 17K Google results is hard to compete against. It may be incorrect grammar that gets "accepted" as correct and becomes incorporated into the language. Correct grammar would be: * `` → "It's raining" or * `` → "Make it rain" (if someone/thing could cause rain -- like God, a spirit, character in a story, etc.)

stackexchange-japanese

Different transcriptions for words with related origin Sometimes, a single foreign word or etymologically related words from different dialects/related languages is/are incorporated into Japanese with different transcriptions/pronouncations and often different meanings. The most obvious and systematic ones are the different on-yomi's assigned to a single kanji, which came from different ancient dialects of Chinese. > (, , ) Besides kanji, there are some with gairaigo: > < glas (Dutch) 'glass, glass window' > < glass (English) 'glass cup' > > < kop (Dutch) 'cup' > < cup (English) 'trophy cup' Are there any other examples of gairaigo groups like this? I would like to exclude those that are due to (deaccentation) such as the following: > (KUrabu) < club (English) 'club activities before/after school' > (kuRABU) < id. 'host(ess) club' > > (GEemu) < game (English) 'game' > (geEMU) < id. 'video game'

Here are a few: * truck → (on rails), (lorry) * English → (via Portuguese "Inglez"), * letter → ("label", via Dutch), (letter, e.g. love letter) * gear → (gear, mechanical), (gear = equipment [and less often, mechanical gear]) * chocolat(e) → (via French), (via English) * curry → ,

stackexchange-japanese

動作 as opposed to 作用 The linguistics text I’m reading has a sentence with this fragment: […] Consulting dictionaries just made me more confused; what’s the contrast between the two in this context? “Action” vs. “effect”?

in Japanese can represent 3 different things, and . An example will be easier to understand. is categorized as , because when you walk, you move your legs, in other words "movement" or "action". is categorized as , here is having an "effect" on the wall. is categorized as , here indicates "existence". So back to your question, "" doesn't directly place any influence on other "things" whereas "" directly "effects" other things.

stackexchange-japanese

のちほどスタッフは彼女の元を去りました。 Could someone explain how 元を去りました。works here? This was written on screen at the end of a video skit about a girl at a at a restaurant. means the staff left her alone? If anyone could translate this sentence, I would appreciate it.

What should be analysed is not `` but ``. * : her side * : to leave Combining them yields: ``: "(the staff) left her side" (no longer with her)

stackexchange-japanese

"きのう、何をしていた。" vs. "きのう、何をした。" What is the difference in nuance between `` vs ``? To be fair, I can't really tell the difference between these two english sentences: 1. What were you doing yesterday ? 2. What did you do yesterday ? Is it true that like their english counterparts, `` and `` has no difference, Or is it true that there is some kind of hidden difference somewhere?

> To be fair, I can't really tell the difference between these 2 english sentences: They are quite different in both English and Japanese, as I'll try to explain with sample situations. **** is a very direct and casual question to ask "what did you do yesterday." You ask it on Monday morning to your colleagues at work. There is no other message than that, you're just asking because you want to know, to be polite, whatever. **** is rather used in scolding situations. I ask you that because I waited for you the whole evening and you never came. Can be used to say "What (the heck) were you doing?" It might not be the best explanation, but I think it's important to see that the difference lies in the usage.

stackexchange-japanese

人生に生き甲斐を求めてギターを習い始めた。 Can　求める mean give? I started learning guitar to give myself something to do with my life. Is this translation a little too loose? Can mean give? Or would another way of translating this sentence would be: I wanted more out of my life, so I began to learn the guitar. or I wanted something to do with my life, so I began to learn the guitar.

The kanji character {.} is always used for when requesting or wishing for something as an input and not for giving something as an output, although when loosely translated into English some phrases can look as if they are about giving something. For example, which is translated as "job vacancy" seems like it's giving job opportunity to job seekers, but actually which is derived from refers to job seeker thus the kanji contributes the nuance of "wishing for job" in that word (while which means "mouth" is giving the nuance of "opening"). So is not about giving out jobs, but it's about openings for those people looking for jobs. I would translate as follows: > Seeking/Wishing for a purpose in life, I started learning guitar.

stackexchange-japanese

Are there any risks in self-learning the kana? I've found learning to speak Japanese in a classroom, rather than being self-taught, is useful because you get feedback on whether what you're saying sounds correct. Is the same true about learning to read and write the kana? Are there risks in merely self-learning, or is it ok to do so? If the former, is it ok to do it in your own time and briefly show your "homework" to your teacher? I've got some books for learning the kana including "Kana can be easy", which includes the correct stroke order and warning about which kana are similar to which other kana. And the ubiquitous pictures used as mnemonics!

Simple pictorial information is sufficient for describing the strokes used in kana, for most uses. If you were to want to use them in calligraphy however, then there would be merit in training under someone else.

stackexchange-japanese

Shouldn't there be a のは in this sentence? This is a an example sentence from a JLPT textbook to explain the use of ``: > {}{}{}{} I understand the meaning, which is something like, "The key element in making a work of art out of ability is imagination." I have this sentence in my flashcards, and even though I've looked at it dozens of times, it still seems awkward to me. To make a long story short, it feels like it should be something like: > {}{}{} **** {} Is my `` version any more or less grammatical? Is it merely wrong? Does it change the meaning? If the original sentence is fine, can someone break down for me how the first part of the sentence (up to the end of ``) connects and relates to the end part (`{}`)?

With respect to the meaning of , you can just follow what Matt writes, but let me add a few things. * `` is used to add emphasis to that noun. A literal translation will be `It is ... that is ...`. * Your addition of `` simply makes it ungrammatical. `` is a relative clause that modifies the noun ``. And your parsing is wrong; `` does not come together as one. So a literal translation will be: > It is imagination that is the element that enables a piece of work to be an art. In the following, the outer brackets represent the noun phrase, and the inner brackets the relative clause. > [[]] > It is imagination that is [the element [that enables a piece of work to be an art]].

stackexchange-japanese

"トムと話した" vs. "トムと話し合った" This book _(Chap. 29)_ says that for some verbs which can be unilateral or bilateral (like ``, ``, ``), The particle `` implies that the verb is shared 50/50 between the two participants (bilateral), whereas the particle `` implies that the main (or only) person doing the action is the subject (unilateral): !enter image description here For example: > (John talked to Tom) > > (John talked with Tom) > > (John consulted Tom) > > (John consulted with Tom) I was wondering since `` already implies that it is a bilateral action, what is the difference in nuance between `` and ``?

`A B ...` means A did something **to** B (asymmetrically). The verb must be something that one does to another: > > 'John asked Tom for suggestion.' > × > 'John fought (to) Tom.' > > 'John talked to Tom.' > × > 'John conversed (to) Tom.' `A B ...` or `A B ...` means A and B did something **with** each other (symmetrically). The verb must be something that a group of people do with one another. > × > 'John asked with Tom for suggestion.' > > 'John fought with Tom.' > × > 'John talked to with Tom.' > > 'John conversed with Tom.' `` as well as `talk` has two meanings. One includes the meaning of 'start', and the other does not. The former is asymmetric and the latter is not. That is why both forms can be used. > > 'John talked to Tom.' > > 'John talked with Tom.'

stackexchange-japanese

How do I ask about two different possible options? Is this the correct way to ask which of two options is true? > CD ("Is that CD in Turkish or English?")

Basically, > CD in fact means CD(CD)(CD) that is, "This CD, is it a CD of/about Turkish, or a CD of/about English?" If you say > CD then you mean "This CD, is it in Turkish, or is it in English?"

stackexchange-japanese

日本のテレビを見ると、サブタイトルがいつも出てきます。でもサブタイトルじゃなくて。。。何と言いますか？ what does one call Japanese "subtitles" that constantly appear in Japanese television and to a lesser extent movies? I'm referring to a sentence that someone on TV says, which is then immediately written onscreen to emphasize the expression (often for humor). OK so I asked my friend, and she said it's called is this right? On a cultural level, any guesses as to why this phenomena is so frequent in Japanese media, yet the equivalent is pretty rare in Western countries?

I think `` is right. It is also called ``. As for its extensive use, it seems to have started in TV programs in the late 1980s and 1990s such as !, !, and !!, and became widespread under the influence of these TV programs. The most typical Japanese comedy style consists of 1. Someone saying/doing a silly thing () and 2. Someone pointing that out (). It looks like has taken over part of under certain occasions. Or, a more general answer to why such thing developed in Japan would be that Japanese develop technologies over subtle things that other people do not care. Reference: wikipedia 1, wikipedia 2 !From one of the links 201033

stackexchange-japanese

How long of a time period does 最近 cover? Can it cover an entire month? Two?

Completely context-dependent. Try googling "" -- in this phrase, goes back a century or more.

stackexchange-japanese

Is 「喧嘩」 a verbal fight or a physical fight? Taking 2 sentences from WWWJDIC as examples: > 1. > > 2. > > I was wondering is it true that the in the sentences above may be interpreted both ways (i.e. it may be a physical fight, but it could as well have been a quarrel (verbal fight) instead)?

There’s actually a wikipedia article on ! < It does mention both verbal and physical fights. It seems the original meaning was something like “a noisy ruckus”, from which the present uses developed. (Kangorin says the same.)

stackexchange-japanese