languagestudymaterials - Tumblr blog

languagestudymaterials · 10 days

Text

Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs

A semi-complete guide

Table of contents:

Before we dive in (the major differences between the Japanese and English concepts of (in)transitive verbs.

Overview of English (in)transitive verbs

Japanese (in)transitive verbs – basics

Characteristic features of transitive verbs

Characteristic features of intransitive verbs

Intransitive verbs vs passive voice

Translation problems

This #japanese grammar post is going to be full of proper linguistic discourse. Don't shy away from it, though. I'm sure it will shed new light on the topic. Transitive and intransitive verbs seem to be easy to grasp at the beginning. The explanations are rather straightforward, and the examples are understandable.

However, as you advance with your studies, you realize that this basic knowledge you learned at the beginning isn't enough anymore. You start encountering new transitive-intransitive verb pairs, and it turns out that the potential form is also regarded as 'intransitive verbs', the English translations use completely different grammar points because there are no equivalents, there are nuances that only Japanese intransitive verbs can convey, etc.

This post will cover the basics we all know (English and Japanese), but also concepts that helped me understand how these verbs really work and why they should be discussed in more detail.

Before we dive in

Japanese grammar books (not textbooks, proper grammar books) tend to discuss this notion from a different perspective than English grammar books. English grammar books usually explain this concept in relation to the syntax of a sentence. Japanese grammar books focus more on the semantics (meaning) of a verb; the syntax doesn't matter that much. Stefan Kaiser in his books writes:

Japanese uses a large number of transitive and intransitive verb pairs. When a transitive verb is used, the implication is that the subject is responsible for the action of the verb, but the corresponding intransitive verb implies that something happens for which nobody is overly responsible or to be blamed (p.674).

Simple, right? Besides, this is what we learn from our textbooks and other online sources. Stefan Kaiser also points out that

[...] differences in point of view are seen in the way things are expressed, for instance, when English uses expressions such as 'they catch the offender' [active voice] or 'the offender gets caught' [passive voice], Japanese uses neither the active/transitive, nor the passive, but the intransitive (p.674).

This observation is further proved by the following example:

犯人は早く捕まってくれないと不安です。 (捕まる = intransitive verb) If the culprit doesn't get caught soon, I'll be worried. (get caught = passive voice)

I'm pretty sure, many learners would use 捕まえる (transitive) in its passive form to translate the English sentence into Japanese. I know I would do it. Or, I wouldn't even consider the verb's transitivity. I'd choose the first verb from the list and make it passive.

From my understanding, the Japanese language 'decided' that there are also cases where things aren't exactly actively or passively done by someone (active vs. passive voice). There's this state between those two grammars that is captured by the Japanese intransitive verbs.

Note: Intransitive verbs are often referred to as mediopassive verbs.

In English, transitive verbs require an object. In Japanese, though, you can use verbs as stand-alone words; no need for an object.

Consider these sentences:

Do you have a dog? (Transitive verb = have; Object = a dog)

This is a perfectly correct sentence in English. There's a subject, a verb, and an object (SVO). Now, imagine saying this sentence in a context. Someone randomly asks you:

Do you have a dog?

And you want to confirm that you are a dog owner. You want to use a full sentence (not just Yes, I do). You say:

Yes, I have a dog. (Transitive verb = have; Object = a dog [it])

Can't you just say: Yes, I have? Why include the object, while from the context it's clear that you have a dog (and not a parrot)? Because the syntax of an English sentence requires you to use verb + object combination. That's how it is. The syntax of an English sentence is rigid, you can't just randomly omit words.

Many Polish and Japanese speakers make that mistake. They omit objects in their English sentences because their native languages allow them to do so. When I ask my Polish students: Do you have your homework? They usually answer: Yes, I have. It's an understandable answer, but grammatically incorrect.

Conclusion: English transitive verbs must have an object. What about Japanese, then? Let's consider the same question and answer: Do you have a dog? I have it.

犬を飼っていますか？(Transitive verb = 飼う; object = 犬) はい、飼っています。

As you can see, the answer doesn't include 犬 (いぬ) Why? Because the syntax of a Japanese sentence is more flexible (unlike in English), and using verbs without their objects is totally acceptable. It's clear from the context that we're talking about a dog, no need to include that information in every sentence. Conclusion? As long as the object is clear from the context, you don't need to attach it to your verbs.

Okay, now that we know that both languages consider this grammar from two different perspectives, we can move on to more details.

Overview of English (in)transitive verbs

These features helped me realize why I struggle with learning Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs.

(1) Verbs in English can be transitive and intransitive at the same time, and there is no change in the spelling. These verbs are called ambitransitive.

I stopped the car. (transitive) The car stopped. (intransitive)

(2) Students know how to use them intuitively (in most cases). Since the verb form doesn't change, there is no problem.

(3) The sentence structure will tell you if there is an active doer. Who stopped the car? I did; I'm the active doer. If there's an active doer, the verb is transitive.

(4) Transitive verbs can be used in the passive voice.

(5) Intransitive verbs cannot be used in the passive voice.

(6) Some types of verbs are never transitive (be, seem, snow, thunder, sleep, dream, etc.)

(6) Changing the verb tense (Present Simple ⇒ Present Continuous) won't change the meaning of the (in)transitive verb or its role in the sentence.

(7) Transitive verbs can take direct and indirect objects.

(8) Intransitive verbs include information such as when, where, and how I performed the action.

Now, on the "good" stuff!

Japanese (in)transitive verbs – basics

Let's start with the information will all are familiar with.

Verbs in Japanese come in pairs, that is transitive and intransitive pairs. Transitive verbs take the particle を and intransitive verbs the particle が.

Transitive verbs are used when there must be an active doer; a person performing the action.

Intransitive verbs, though, when action can happen without anyone's involvement.

Verbs of movement are intransitive, but they take the particle を (and other particles too).

Since there are actions that can happen on their own and at the same time someone can cause them to happen, we ended up having multiple verb pairs to show this distinction.

Consider these classic examples:

ドアを開けるドアが開く

The first sentence tells us that a person is performing the action, and the second one that the door just opens by itself; we don't know if someone caused this action.

Notice that the verb ending changes from ける to く, unlike in English (in English, it is just 'open' for both sentences).

This example shows us that the concept is pretty simple to grasp. The only obstacle is that you need to memorize twice as many verbs as in English (unless you have some ultra language instincts and intuition that will help you come up with a (in)transitive verb pair without looking it up in a dictionary).

Another obstacle (totally subjective, though) might be that while translating from English to Japanese, you will be forever confused as to which verb you should use in Japanese. After all, in English, the verb forms don't change, and you don't need to actively consider if someone is performing the action, or if the action happens by itself; you just say what you want to say, and most of the time you'll be correct. In other words, you learn the word 'open' and you can start using it without thinking much about its transitivity.

Characteristic features of transitive verbs

(1) There are transitive verbs which have an intransitive pair:

始める(t) / 始まる (in) 残す (t) / 残る (in) 切る (t) / 切れる (in)

(2) Some verbs are transitive and intransitive at the same time (噴く)

(3) Some verbs are transitive, and they don't have their intransitive pairs (食べる).

(4) Transitive verbs tell us that we are performing an action on a given object. We do sth to it/with it.

(5) Transitive verbs can be changed to passive voice.

(6) Transitive verbs, which have an intransitive verb pair, can be used to talk about cause and effect. Cause – transitive; effect – intransitive. I opened the window = cause; The window is open = effect.

Characteristic features of intransitive verbs

(1) Verbs of movement in Japanese (go, walk, run, leave, etc.) are intransitive, but they take the particle を (and others). The particle will be translated to across, through, toward, around, etc. We do not affect the thing itself (transitive verbs show this nuance). When I walk through the park, my walk doesn't change the structure of the park. It's more about performing movement against the place (leaving the place, or arriving at the place).

(2) Intransitive verbs describe states (the door is open = state).

(3) Intransitive verbs cannot be changed to passive voice unless we want to use passive voice to express the "I'm the victim here" nuance or when we speak using keigo.

(4) Intransitive verbs tell us that an action is happening/happens, but it doesn't affect anything directly (things don't get destroyed, change their color, etc).

(5) Some verbs are only intransitive (for example, those that express natural phenomena, to freeze 凍る).

(6) Some intransitive verbs have their transitive pairs, but the transitive pairs are used in literary works, in some dialects, or considered archaic ( 凍る [in] / 凍らす[t archaic(?)]).

(7) Intransitive verbs can be used in their causative form to show that someone was involved in the action (The lake froze vs I froze the lake); 凍る ⇒ 凍らせる.

Intransitive verbs vs passive voice

Okay, we already established that intransitive verbs cannot be changed into passive voice. In this section then, we will look at the differences in meaning between transitive verbs in their passive voice and intransitive verbs. After all, transitive verbs in their passive form and intransitive verbs focus on the action (not the doer).

Let's use the classic example of an open door.

ドアを開ける (active voice; transitive verb) ドアが開けられる (passive voice; transitive verb) ドアが開く(intransitive verb)

To make it more clear, let's add some context to it. There is this job called a door attendant. Their main duty is to greet guests and open the door for them. If we asked them, what their duties are, they could simply say: I open the door. (active voice) ドアを開ける.

However, they could say the same sentence from a different perspective. The door is opened by me. (passive voice)ドアが私に開けられる. Well, I do agree that to say such a sentence, our door attendant would need a special context, but it is possible.

So, when do we use the third option that the Japanese language has blessed us with? (ドアが開く)

As we already said, intransitive verbs describe states or actions that happen without anyone's involvement. The third sentence in Japanese means that either:

someone has already performed the action of opening and now the door is open (a state) or

the door opens automatically and our door attendant is redundant.

This sentence can be translated as:

The door opens. (intransitive verb in English).

The door is open. (adjective; this might not be the most obvious translation; however, to make things sound natural in English, we could use an adjective to translate it.)

It is important to remember that when we use transitive verbs in passive voice, we want to convey the nuance of "someone is involved but we don't need to know who." Intransitive verbs, on the other hand, completely ignore this nuance and focus solely on the action.

Translation problems

Causative forms

There are cases when Japanese intransitive verbs have their English equivalents (see examples above). However, some Japanese intransitive verbs don't have their equivalents in English, but they need to be somehow translated. Let's consider these examples and their dictionary translations:

[in] 逃 (に) げる to escape vs [t] 逃がす to let escape [in] 枯 (か) れる to wither vs [t] 枯らす to let wither [in] 落 (お)ちる to fall vs [t] 落とす to let fall

English translations have one thing in common, namely the causative verb let. These are not the only ways to translate these transitive verbs into English, but they are fairly common.

To escape in English is both transitive and intransitive at the same time:

The boat sank but the crew escaped. (intransitive as there is no object after the verb) We need to escape the jungle. (transitive because there is an object after the verb).

In the previous section, we have (in)transitive verbs that overlap in both languages. They are match pairs, and there shouldn't be many translation problems. The only difference is that Japanese has two words, while English only has one.

In this case, though, both English sentences will be translated using the intransitive verb in Japanese. Why? Because, as I mentioned at the beginning, it's not about the syntax, it's about the meaning these verbs carry.

Intransitive verbs in Japanese show us that the action is not directly affecting anything - the crew escaped, but they didn't do anything to the ship; escaping the jungle won't affect the jungle; the jungle will remain as it is after our escape. ボートは沈没したが、乗組員は逃げた。ジャングルから逃げる必要がある。 Well, the second sentence isn't the most natural-sounding one, but it's a literal translation. The second は in the first sentence is to show the contrast. If you are like me, you would look at the English sentences, identify which verb is transitive and which is intransitive, look for the respective pairs in Japanese, and then proceed with the translation. Well, we would be horribly wrong because the transitive verb in Japanese shows that there is someone actively involved in the action, and the object is directly affected by the action.

To let escape is a causative form. We cause something to happen; we allow something to happen; we give our permission for something to happen.

It's my fault. I let the culprit escape. 私は犯人を逃がした。

In this sentence, there is a doer of the action (I) and an object (culprit) that got affected by the action. The culprit was imprisoned, and now they are free. The same logic applies to the other two examples (to let wither; to let fall).

When it comes to translating Japanese verbs into causative forms in English or vice versa, things can get even trickier. Again, if you're like me, you'd see let in English, think it's a causative verb, and conclude you need to change your Japanese verb to the causative form. You would then look up how to make causative verb forms and proceed with the whole endeavor.

As it turns out, some verbs in Japanese are inherently causative (examples above), and unlike in English, they already have their own separate verb forms.

So, there are verb forms that can be changed to causative forms by adding an appropriate ending, but there are verbs that are already causative in their meaning, and adding a causative ending to them would make them double causative, which makes no sense.

Note: This post will be either updated or I will add a link to my blogger platform where I will discuss this topic in detail.

#grammar rants #transitive #intransitive #japanese grammar #passive voice #causative forms

1 note · View note

languagestudymaterials · 12 days

Text

～ている vs ～る in reported speech

そういや今夜学校であれのお札剥がすって言ってた

For more details, go here

言ってた is the past tense of 言っている.

Why did Itadori use 言ってた instead of 言った？

Even though he is reporting his friends' words, in this case, he's focusing on the implication of those words. The content/message/meaning of those words is more important.

言った would suggest that Itadori is just quoting his friends' words to Megumi because Megumi wanted to know what EXACTLY they said.

#shorts #japanese with anime #～ている #～る #reported speech

3 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 12 days

Text

～んだから grammar

どうせ何も起こりゃしないんだから

Context: Sasaki to Iguchi when they were at school, and he wanted to turn on the lights. She said that turning on the lights would ruin the atmosphere, which is important - they are in the occult club, after all.

Enjoying the thrill is the spirit of the occult club, isn’t it? It’s not like anything is going to happen, anyway.

起こりゃしない:

りゃ is a spoken form of りは.

起こり is pre-masu form of 起こる (おこる) = to happen

～はしない is a stressed form of a negative form of a verb. It just makes the sentence stronger.

pre-masu form + はしない = a very strong statement.

どうせ = anyhow; in any case; at any rate; after all; at all; no matter what

～の / んだから

Another example is here

Hedgehog-Japanese.com explains this grammar in the following way:

The "A nodakara B" is used to state a reason. It is the same as ”A kara B" in terms of being used to state a reason, but there are restrictions on what can be placed in "A" and "B." The "A" contains a reaffirmation of something that the listener already knows, and the ”B” contains advice, commands, requests, etc., or the speaker's opinion to persuade the listener, or the speaker's opinion with which he or she wants the listener to agree or concur. "A ndakara B" has the same meaning, but "nondakara" is used more often in spoken language.

Following this definition, we can say that:

With “It’s not like anything is going to happen, anyway” Sasaki is reaffirming both of them. They both assumed that unwrapping Sukuna’s finger wouldn’t cause any danger, sometime before they went to school at night. Now she’s just articulating a fact they both ALREADY know.

Whether “Enjoying the thrill is the spirit of the occult club, isn’t it?” is closely related to the sentence from the picture, I can’t tell. However, it does sound like Sasaki is stating her opinion, and she wants Iguchi to agree.

#shorts #modality #んだから #japanese with anime

17 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 13 days

Text

Opinion essay - przykładowe tematy

MR (matura rozszerzona) = czyli tematy, które mogłyby pojawić się na maturze rozszerzonej MP (matura podstawowa)

Czy media społecznościowe przynoszą więcej szkody niż pożytku? (MP/MR)

Możesz przeanalizować wpływ mediów społecznościowych na zdrowie psychiczne, relacje interpersonalne i postrzeganie świata. Te trzy pomysły mogą również być topic sentences w Twoim wypracowaniu, o czym więcej piszę tutaj.

Czy rząd powinien wprowadzić podatek od jedzenia mięsa? (MR)

Tutaj można omówić kwestie związane z ochroną środowiska, zdrowiem publicznym i etyką. Dość nieciekawy temat, przyznaję, ale takie też się pojawiają na maturze.

Edukacja domowa lub edukacja szkolna — czy dzieci i młodzież powinny same zadecydować, który tryb nauki wybrać. (MP/ MR)

Możesz rozważyć zalety i wady edukacji domowej i szkolnej, jej wpływ na rozwój społeczny i edukacyjny oraz kwestie organizacyjne. Temat dość szeroki, dlatego mógłby się pojawić i na maturze podstawowej, i rozszerzonej.

Czy szkoły powinny uczyć bardziej praktycznych umiejętności, takich jak gotowanie i obsługa finansów osobistych? (MP/MR)

Możesz rozważyć, jak takie umiejętności mogą przygotować młodych ludzi do życia poza szkołą, wartości płynące z posiadania takiej wiedzy już w młodym wieku oraz fakt, że takie przedmioty mogłyby być odskocznią od nudnych przedmiotów teoretycznych.

Czy rozwój technologii sztucznej inteligencji powinien budzić obawy? (MR)

Możesz omówić potencjalne zagrożenia dla miejsc pracy, prywatności i ludzkiej autonomii.

Czy państwo powinno zapewnić całkowicie darmową opiekę zdrowotną dla wszystkich obywateli? (MR)

Tutaj możesz analizować zalety i wady systemów opieki zdrowotnej oraz ich wpływ na społeczeństwo.

Czy legalizacja marihuany przyniosłaby więcej korzyści, czy szkód społeczeństwu? (MR)

Możesz omówić aspekty zdrowotne, społeczne i ekonomiczne legalizacji marihuany.

Czy obywatele powinni mieć prawo do noszenia broni? (MR)

Rozważ, jakie są argumenty za i przeciw posiadaniu broni przez obywateli.

Czy prawa zwierząt powinny być tak samo chronione jak prawa człowieka? (MR)

Tutaj możesz dyskutować o etycznych kwestiach związanych z traktowaniem zwierząt i ich prawami.

Tematy na maturze podstawowej zazwyczaj odnoszą się do kwestii, które nas otaczają na co dzień lub spraw, z którymi mamy do czynienia codziennie. Nie są to jakieś abstrakcyjne problemy, jak na przykład prawo do posiadania broni. Zakaz handlu w niedzielę jest właśnie taką kwestią codzienną, która dotyczy każdego.

#matura #po polsku

0 notes

languagestudymaterials · 17 days

Text

When to use は and が

A different take on the matter.

Disclaimer* I’m learning Japanese. Don’t take this as the ultimate guide to the Japanese particles! Feel free to correct me!

[known information] は [unknown information]

To determine whether something is known or unknown, you need to closely analyze the context. Japanese is a highly contextual language, and I often catch myself analyzing something without considering the context first. I hope that grammar rules will somehow explain everything to me.

Consider this example:

私はポーランド人です.

私は = known information

ポーランド人 = unknown information

Context: I’m standing in front of you, and I’m introducing myself.

私は is considered "known information" because you can see me. You know exactly who is speaking.

However, you know nothing about me. I’m giving the unknown information: ポーランド人です。

あなたは誰ですか？

Context: You’re standing in front of me, so you’re known information to me. There is something about you that I don’t know, though. You will provide me with the unknown information.

このアニメはどう？

Context: We both watched the same anime. We both know what anime we’re referring to. But I don’t know what you think about it. You’re supplying me with the missing bit of information.

Examples from Jujutsu Kaisen manga

Context: Yuuji and Megumi just arrived in front of the school. Yuuji can feel the pressure given off by the curse.

"The pressure" is known information to both the reader and Yuuji. We can see the dark shadows around the school. “(Damn) … the pressure…”

So, I truly believe that in this case, は matches the use of the English definite article ‘the’ which is also used when both you and the reader / your listener know (see, hear, etc.) the noun in question.

Context: Yuuji is asking about Megumi’s divine dogs.

因みにあっちで呪いパクパク食ってんのは？

They both can see the divine dogs, so it’s known information to both.

Megumi is supplying Yuuji with the unknown information = they are my shikigami.

呪いってのは = Speaking of curses… (curses have already been mentioned. They are “known information”)

の in this case changes 呪いって to gerund.

The rest of the sentence is the unknown information = it’s not common to see them.

The third は also shows us known and unknown information.

死に際とかこういう特殊な場では別だがな

(it’s not common to see them) On deathbeds and special occasions like this, it’s a different case.

Both of them (including us) know what a ‘deathbed’ means and what the current situation is.

Megumi gives us the missing information = it’s a different case (別だがな).

However, in this case we could also apply the contrastive rule of は which always hinges on the context. Contrastive は always introduces some implicit (or it could be even explicit) information – you normally don’t see curses HOWEVER [contrast] when you’re about to die, it’s a different case.

More about とか and で

[known information] は [known information]

It’s a rare case where both pieces of information are known to us. When might something like that happen? Mostly when we state some obvious facts, for example, an idiot will always be an idiot.

バカはバカです

バカ we know what/who バカ is. We repeat the information to our listeners; no surprise here. Both バカ here are the same バカ; it doesn’t mean that a new バカ just showed up.

(Which could be highly possible, considering how many of them are out there ;))

Unfortunately, I don’t have too many examples for this one. Since it’s a rare case, there aren’t too many of those (I guess).

When to use particle が

[unknown information] が [known information]

For starters, a simple sentence:

私が田中先生です。

Context: We are in a conference room full of people, and the speaker is looking for a teacher named Tanaka. We KNOW that there is a teacher named Tanaka. The speaker just told us. That’s our known information.

The unknown information = who identifies as Tanaka sensei. We don’t know what this teacher looks like, so we can’t point to anyone specific. Suddenly, someone stands up and says: "I’m Tanaka sensei!"

In English, we would emphasize this structure with the tone of our voice. You would say “I’m” a little louder and stronger = It’s me! I AM Tanaka sensei.

To use this combination, we need a broader context. You wouldn’t use it to introduce yourself (which doesn’t require any context) because, as we already mentioned, everyone can see you but know nothing about you.

が represents the exact opposite situation. We know something about someone, but we don’t know who that person is.

Another example:

電話が便利です。でんわ　が　べんり　です。

As you can see, the known information is that something is convenient, but we don’t know what.

To determine the context, we can ask a question.

What is useful/convenient?

A telephone is convenient. Now we know.

何が便利ですか？

Note that when we ask questions, we also use が because we have some identifying information. We don’t know, though, what possesses such qualities/features.

Questions words, by their nature, represent unknown things.

One thing that usually pops up in anime is when guys say: 俺がやる！

Oftentimes, all the characters know that something must be done about something. The question is: who’s going to do it?

が for marking wishes/desires

Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar: Kaiser, Stefan (p. 40).

他の仕事がやりたい！

I want to do a different job.

が for showing what is more important

Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar: Kaiser, Stefan (p. 42).

Sources:

Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar: Kaiser, Stefan (p. 40 & 42).

My Japanese teacher and his Japanese teacher

#japanese with manga #particles #が #は

2 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 19 days

Text

～ている vs ～る

What’s the difference?

先生は「あいうえお」と言った

先生は「あいうえお」と言っていた

What’s the difference between the two? In this case, it is more about your reaction to what you have heard. Are you going to be more like “WTF, man?” or no reaction at all because what you have just heard is a regular/good old quotation (just like you quote someone in your university paper or sth).

ている focuses on your reaction. If I said this exact sentence to you, you’d be surprised and probably asked for some explanation, for example, He said that? Why? WTF?

る focuses on the words in the brackets. This is what he said. He used these exact words, I haven’t changed anything. But you wouldn’t be surprised because you just wanted to know the words the teacher used.

~ている is an ending of imperfective verbs - verbs that have no end point. However, that ending implies a myriad of other meanings. In Polish (my native language), we also distinguish between perfective and imperfective verbs only, just like in Japanese. We use, in Polish, imperfective verbs when we talk about

occurring states, the course of which the speaker considers important. (Hence your surprise at the teacher’s words.)

I believe the same rule applies to Japanese ている verbs as well.

る verbs are perfective verbs and these denote something completely opposite - we don’t really care, the course of action is somewhat unimportant for the speaker.

Correct me if I’m wrong!

#shorts #verbs #perfective #imperfective #～ている vs ～る #reported speech

8 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 1 month

Text

About this blog

About me 👋

Welcome to the byproduct of the revolution called COVID. You will find here a variety of posts related to Japanese, English, Polish, teaching, and translation. I hold a master's degree in linguistics but don't treat my content as a final word of wisdom.

How to navigate

Use the search bar to find topics of your interest.

In the 'Navigation' tab, you'll find links to some useful websites.

Some posts can be accessed by clicking "Keep reading" and others by clicking on the title of the post or the date.

Display

For better display, I recommend changing the scale of the page by zooming in or out in the settings section of your browser.

100% scale works for reading the posts.

67% scale works for browsing the blog.

Blogger

I run a Blogspot blog as well because it's far better suited for writers. It helps me create better (mostly looking) content and format it in a clear and comprehensible way. However, Blogger posts are usually longer, and there are more examples and vocabulary lists.

If you ever wondered, why these posts are "ugly", it's just because Tumblr is not suited for writers :(

Tumblr posts marked as #shorts are only for Tumblr.

Współpraca (available for hire)

I teach English as a second language and edit/proofread Polish texts. I proofread English texts too, but only those written by Poles.

Business offer to come.

And yes, I'm a Jujustu Kaisen fan, hence the Gojo picture.

#about this blog

0 notes

languagestudymaterials · 7 months

Text

わけ - definition (2)

What does ～わけ mean?

The same post in much higher quality is here

In this #Japanese with anime post, we will take a closer look at a mind-bending structure belonging to the realm of modality and, unfortunately, is usually omitted in translation. It's not that it has to be omitted; it happens that English just sounds better or makes sense without it (in most cases).

Examples in this post are from Jujutsu Kaisen Season 1 and Season 2.

Extra grammar:

というわけ vs. わけ

わけ vs. から/ので

Before we dive in

わけ is truly a mind-bending structure, and knowing just the dictionary definition is not usually enough. The examples provided in textbooks seem to be okay at first glance, but when you start analyzing and comparing わけ to other structures and grammar points, you quickly realize that you haven't fully grasped the concept it actually represents.

Long story short, though. In a lot of cases, わけ can be translated to 'so' or 'then' (: as a necessary consequence; Merriam-Webster).

However, in many cases, English translations don't need to include 'so' or 'then' because things can be simply understood from the context. As readers, we don't need extra lexical help to understand that something is a consequence of something else. The brain fills in that information naturally on its own. Japanese, though, decided that having extra lexical help could be useful.

Note: This article doesn't explain the meaning of structures like わけにはいかない or わけではない. They do have their English equivalents.

I also managed to compile a short list of things that literally enlightened me while struggling to understand what わけ really means and why we need it to sound natural.

In many contexts, わけ indicates that the partners in the conversation share some knowledge.

You really need context to be able to use it. If you were to just enter a room and say a sentence containing わけ, it wouldn't make much sense.

It is used as a reaction/to react to someone else's statement (dialog) or to your surroundings. It shows that you have realized/understood something. Could be paired with だから, それで、なるほど, which are placed at the beginning and わけ at the end, for example:

だから、五条先生強いわけだ。 Ah, so that's why Gojo-sensei is so strong.

Context: We were wondering why Gojo is so strong, and we just found out (someone told us) that Gojo is a six-eye user, and that made us realize why he is so strong.

It is used when the speaker performs a monologue. In this case, we can distinguish two possible situations:

emphasizing inevitable consequences of some actions, i.e. You eat a lot of sugar, so naturally you will gain weight. If you don't add わけ to such a statement, it will be fine as well, but it will sound like a dry fact. However, during a lecture or a conversation about eating habits and their consequences adding わけ will give your sentence the nuance of "And as you know...".

the speaker wants to restate/sum up their own words because their first explanation was unclear. It's like saying "I mean..."; "In other words..."

It is used to restate/paraphrase someone else's words (or your own words). Could be paired with つまり. For example, someone described something to you, but it was complicated. You want to make sure you understand the statement correctly, so you paraphrase it using easier words. You will end that 'easier' sentence with わけ or というわけ.

Used to give the reason for what the conversation partner has said or to state the logical conclusion. Remember that both parties in the conversation need to have the same knowledge. For example:

「田中さんが亡くなったそうだ。」" I have heard that Tanaka-san has died recently." 「本当？心臓発作だったというわけだな。」 "Really? That must have been a heart attack." (source) Context: Both of the speakers knew that Tanaka-san had some heart problems, and one of them drew a logical conclusion.

わけではない is used for correcting false impressions

In English, the tone of your voice and intonation will change the meaning of your sentence. In Japanese, though, such changes can be expressed through particle/verb ending choice. A good example can also be ～てしまう.

Consider this sentence:

I didn't invite him to the party because I didn't like him.

It could mean either: 1. I don't want to party with people I don't like. (から) 2. I had other reasons not to invite him, and not liking him wasn't one of them (わけではない)

Even though there are ways to translate わけ into English, it's often omitted in translations.

'Because ' in English is used to provide reasons, but it doesn't really matter if your conversation partner shares knowledge with you. 'Because' can convey completely new information or information already known to everyone for clarity's sake. わけ, on the other hand, speakers must have some prior, common knowledge.

In the following parts of the article, you will find more information related to the above points.

Definition of ～わけ

According to Jisho, it is a noun, and because it is a noun you negate it as a noun, and it conveys the meaning of:

conclusion from reasoning,

judgment or calculation based on something read or heard;

or it just translates to (as a standalone word)

reason; cause; meaning; circumstances; situation.

Stefan Kaiser in his book Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar defines わけ as

a structural noun [...] used when the speaker realizes that there is an explanation or reason for some occurrence or phenomenon. Or [...] used when the speaker realizes that some fact or occurrence is the result of some other fact or occurrence.

The author mentions that it can be translated to 'so' or 'then'. Following this definition, let's analyze our first example from Jujutsu Kaisen.

JJK; S01 episode 02 or 03; Yuuji just moved into the school dorms

君の中の宿儺が力を取り戻すために指の在り処を教えてくれる. 君は器である同時に探知機、レーダーでもあるわけだ.

To regain its power, the Sukuna you consumed will direct you to the whereabouts of the fingers. You are a vessel as well as a radar.

To better understand this sentence, let's look at more context.

Yuuji has already eaten two of Sukuna's fingers. Since the fingers resonate with each other, he can kind of guess where they are or at least sense their presence (to some degree). Given those facts, we can surmise that Yuuji works like a radar, and that is what Gojo implies by using わけ.

In essence, わけ marks a logical conclusion or result based on some known facts.

Some known facts: Yuuji ate the fingers, they resonate with each other, and he's a vessel...

The conclusion from reasoning/realization: ...you’re a radar.

Notice that the English translation did not include any phrase that would introduce 'conclusion'. It is implied. You could include, for example, 'And that's why...' or something along those lines, but the whole line sounds better without it.

Let's elaborate on it, though. For those of you who don't overthink life or grammar rules, such short dictionary entries might be enough, but I'm a professional overthinker and I just need to know.

～わけ as a modal structure

This section is full of proper linguistic discourse, but don't shy away from it. It might actually help you deepen your understanding of this structure. Japanese grammar books for teachers, and grammar books written in Japanese, list わけ as a modal structure.

For a complete guide to modality, go here ⇒ Link Click

Modality is about a speaker’s or a writer’s attitude towards the world. A speaker or writer can express certainty, possibility, willingness, obligation, necessity and ability by using modal words and expressions. Speakers often have different opinions about the same thing. (Cambridge online dictionary)

Simply put, modal structures help you convey a variety of subjective nuances, for example, instead of saying, I'm wrong, you can say, I might be wrong (might is a modal verb). Let's see what subjective feelings わけ helps us convey:

Certainty or Conviction: わけ is often used when the speaker is confident or certain about the reason they are presenting. It signals that the speaker believes something is true based on their understanding or recognition of a situation.

Explanatory or Justificatory: It is commonly used to explain or justify a statement or action. It adds a sense of "it makes sense that..." or "therefore..." to the statement, showing that the speaker is not just stating a reason but also expressing their conviction or perspective on that reason.

Subjective Interpretation: わけ reflects the speaker's subjective interpretation or understanding of a situation, making it a modal structure because it conveys the speaker's attitude and belief.

An interesting observation has been made in an article titled 「わけだ」文と「からだ」文の意味の違いについて by 牟世鍾 and 宋洙珍 (I'm sorry, I can't decipher their names).

「わけだ」文が表す理由は、対象から納得し、それを理由として位置づけたもの、つまり、話し手が何か認識の過程を経て位置づけたまさにモダリティの形式であり、そのような認識․納得の過程のない直接的な理由を表す「からだ」文とは異なっている。

Which roughly translates to:

The reason expressed by the sentence わけだ is that the speaker is convinced by the object and positions it as the reason, that is, it is the very form of modality that the speaker positions through some recognition process, which is different from the sentence からだ, which expresses direct reasons without such a recognition/convincing process. (translation: mine)

In summary, the passage explains that わけだ places emphasis on the speaker's mental activity by which they become aware of, identify, and understand something (recognition). It involves perceiving, acknowledging, and comprehending information or stimuli in a way that leads to an understanding or recognition of a particular fact, concept, or situation. からだ, on the other hand, is more direct and simply states the reason without highlighting the speaker's internal thought process.

The article also states that

納得の形で提示した理由の文、つまり「わけだ」文は「からだ」文に置き換えられるが、その「からだ」文は「わけだ」文が持っているモダリティ的な意味はなく、単なる理由を表す文になってしまう。

Which translates to:

The statement of reason presented as a form of belief, i.e., the わけだ statement, can be replaced by the からだ statement, but this からだ statement does not have the modality meaning of the わけだ statement and becomes a mere statement of reason.

"A mere statement of reason" refers to a straightforward and explicit connection between the cause and reason; there's no room for confusion or subjective interpretations. Modality, though, is all about subjective interpretations. For example, in the sentence "I'm late because of traffic," "because of traffic" directly links the cause (traffic) to the effect (being late), making it clear that traffic is the reason for being late. There is a straightforward connection between the two elements.

Okay, let's leave modality and that linguistic talk and move on to something lighter. However, continue reading this article to find out what is the best possible interpretation of Gojo's わけ.

A learner-friendly definition of わけ

After many talks with my Japanese teacher, we managed to pinpoint some reasons for using this structure and what speakers want to convey by using it. Our main goal was to determine why in some cases わけ is a much better option than から.

Let's go back to our Jujutsu Kaisen example:

君の中の宿儺が力を取り戻すために指の在り処を教えてくれる. 君は器である同時に探知機、レーダーでもあるわけだ.

To regain its power, the Sukuna you consumed will direct you to the whereabouts of the fingers. You are a vessel as well as a radar. (official translation)

In this case, and as you will see in other examples, わけ most likely conveys:

general/obvious statement. It means that all parties involved in the conversation share the same knowledge and the speaker just confirms everyone's understanding.

the speaker indirectly (through わけ ) asks "You understand, right?" / "You know what that means, right?"

Gojo realizes that Yuuji has enough information to understand his situation, but may or may not know the implications. Yuuji may not know/be sure what all of this means.

Gojo first provided Yuuji with a result and then he stated the reason why achieving this result will be possible. This can also give わけ the meaning of "So no wonder why you work like a radar."

In essence, わけ is used when there is shared knowledge about the situation and the speaker reinforces/confirms everyone's understanding, even when not prompted to do so. If we replace わけ with から, we will end up with a sentence conveying completely new information to Yuuji. The context of this sentence would have to be different as well.

The original context involves Gojo walking Yuuji around the school and talking to him about the jujutsu world and Yuuji's position in all of this. Yuuji did not ask any questions during their walk, as some things had been explained to him before.

However, if Yuuji was oblivious to his situation and what having eaten the fingers meant for him and the jujutsu world, Gojo would have to provide him with some dry explanations/facts. The important factor here is 'being oblivious/not knowing enough'.

Let's replace わけ with から then.

[...] 君は器である同時に探知機、レーダーでもあるから。

To regain its power the Sukuna you consumed will direct you to the whereabouts of the fingers. Because you are a vessel, a locator as well as a radar.

In English, it still might make sense, but as I mentioned at the very beginning, わけ is often omitted in translation. In translation, we call such cases 'problems with equivalence', which means that one language has something that the other doesn't have or doesn't use it as often as the first one. If Gojo used から, it would imply that Yuuji didn't know that he was a vessel, that the fingers resonate with each other, and therefore he could be of help to everyone. The exchange between them could look like this: Gojo: In order to regain its power the Sukuna you consumed will direct you to the whereabouts of the fingers. Yuuji:Why? / How come? Gojo: Because you are a vessel, a locator as well as a radar. Let's analyze another example from Jujutsu Kaisen. Nobara just joined the team; S01; Ep03

でかい霊園があってさ、廃ビルとのダブルパンチで呪いが発生したってわけ There is a big cemetery, and the double whammy with the abandoned building caused the curse.

(again, no English equivalent of わけ)

というわけだ / ってわけだ are just more elaborate ways to express logical conclusions. It's often used with な-adj and nouns. There's a separate section on that, too.

In this case, Gojo gave our main trio two reasons why the curse might have shown up in the abandoned building. The building and the nearby graveyard are those reasons.

If we were to explain the use of わけ here in linguistic terms, we could say that わけ is used to emphasize that the occurrence of the curse is the logical result of the combination of two factors: the large cemetery and the abandoned building. It suggests that there's a logical connection between these two elements that led to the curse. It also adds a sense of logical inevitability.

However, explaining it through our 'learner-friendly definition' we could say that Gojo used it because:

all of them share the same knowledge, namely they all know why curses are born and what the combo of an abandoned building and a graveyard means (general/obvious statement).

It's not like they pulled up to the building oblivious to the world around them, and Gojo had to teach them the basics. Even though they did not ask any questions, he was confirming their understanding of the situation through わけ.

Gojo through わけ also implies something along the lines of "And as you can see..." or "As you probably already realized..."

It could also be the case that they immediately realized that the curse was there, but they didn't know why/weren't sure why. Gojo did not waste time, and instead of waiting for their questions, he supplied the missing information himself.

If we modified the sentence with から, it would still indicate that the curse occurred because of the combination of the large cemetery and the abandoned building. However, it would imply that the main trio didn't know that the connection between the curse being there and the vicinity of the graveyard and abandoned building mattered.

The conversation could go like this: Gojo: There's a curse in this building. Them: Why? Gojo: There is a big cemetery, and the double whammy with the abandoned building caused the curse. One more example from Season 1, Episode 2.

さすがに特級呪物が行方不明となると―上がうるさくてねえ観光がてらはせ参じたってわけ

As one would expect when a special-grade cursed object goes missing, the higher-ups won't shut up, so I stopped by while I was out for some sightseeing.

In this case, 'so' perfectly captures the meaning of わけ, as Stefan Kaiser pointed out in his book.

A missing special grade cursed object is a big deal and sorcerers shouldn't take such cases lightly, which Gojo points out to Fushiguro, namely "[...] the higher-ups won't shut up."

Both Gojo and Fushiguro know about it as they belong to this community, which means they share knowledge.

While Gojo is telling Fushiguro why he came, he isn't providing him with new information. In this case, わけ has the nuance of "So you probably realize why I am here."

Because they belong to the same community, Fishuguro understands that ignoring special-grade cursed objects isn't the best of actions, and Gojo just reinforces/confirms his understanding.

One example from Season 2, Episode 8

準備ばっちりってわけだ。

The presence of わけ in this example might not be so clear at first glance. However, the English translations official and unofficial alike somehow manage to capture the meaning of わけ through "I see," which by many learners is instinctively translated to なるほど, though.

As always, we need more context.

Gojo since entering the Shibuya station began to collect information about the situation. He noticed some things that helped him understand/realize what was going on, namely his opponents (Jogo, Hanami, and Choso) prepared for the fight with him.

Through わけ, Gojo shows his realization. At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that わけ can be used as a reaction to someone else's statement. In this case, Gojo is not reacting to someone else's words, but to his surroundings.

In an alternate situation, Jogo or Hanami could also tell him: "Hey! We did this and that!" And Gojo could reply with: "Is that so? It means that you prepared yourself then" (drawing a logical conclusion/natural consequence).

So let's summarize what we have learned about わけ so far.

わけ is a modal structure, which means that the statements marked by it aren't facts but opinions/beliefs/thoughts.

It can be used interchangeably with から, but the nuance changes, and in some cases the meaning.

It marks logical conclusions, which by nature aren't hard facts.

It can also be used to give advice or make general statements based on a logical conclusion.

というわけだ is a more formal and elaborate way to provide a conclusion because there are more reasons stated and this helps us summarize everything.

わけ is used to explain the reason or cause behind something. It helps clarify why a certain situation occurred or why someone did something.

It is often used to provide an explanation or justification.

All parties involved in the conversation share some knowledge / have the same information.

You can't really use it without context, as opposed to から, which can be used without any context.

It conveys the nuance of "As you probably already realized..." or indirectly asks, "You understand, don't you?"

というわけだ / ってわけだ for restating some facts

Apart from というわけだ / ってわけだ being a "more elaborate way to mark logical conclusions", it can also be defined as a structure that paraphrases someone else's or your own words.

わけだ and というわけだ don't really change the meaning of the sentence, but というわけだ is used when the speaker provides more than one reason for something. It is often used with な-adjectives and nouns as opposed to わけだ, which is often seen after verbs. It's not a hard rule, though.

What does paraphrasing mean and why do we do that?

Paraphrasing means that you're trying to use your own words to show how you understand someone's statement. You have analyzed someone's statement and you drew a conclusion.

We do it because we are not sure of our understanding; in a way, we're asking our speaker to confirm our understanding. Modal meaning applies here as well.

In the previous examples, Gojo wasn't restating someone else's words. He was the one to introduce the information.

However, in the example below, Principal Yaga is restating Yuuji's reasons for joining the jujutsu world.

The interview with Yaga; S01; Ep02

それが呪いの被害となると看過できないというわけか

Yaga just asked Yuuji why he wanted to join the jujutsu high school. Yuuji told him that leaving Sukuna's fingers as they are (unprotected/unsupervised) is dangerous. Yaga drew a conclusion from that, namely:

JJK; Chapter 3; Viz Media

In this case, we actually have something that is considered the equivalent of というわけだ namely, "So you're telling me that [...]". However, remember that not every "so you're telling me that..." needs to be translated to というわけだ.

In the very first chapter, the very first thing Fushiguro says to Gojo is, "You're telling me that someone is keeping a special-grade cursed object in a place like this?!" Fushiguro wasn't restating/paraphrasing Gojo's words.

We can assume that before this panel Gojo told Fushiguro: "There's a special-grade cursed object in the outdoor thermometer box." Fushiguro saw it and just repeated Gojo's words in disbelief, it was sort of a quotation.

Translation problems

In the above examples, わけ could be translated to 'so' or 'then,' but the aim of translation is to make sentences in the target language sound as natural as possible. We could rephrase all of them and include 'so' or 'then' or even any other synonyms, but if the context is clear enough, then including extra lexical help is simply redundant.

Here, we're also dealing with audiovisual translation, where the number of characters in a single line of subtitles matters a lot. Too many words in a single line may hinder the understanding or slow it down and lower the overall experience. And yes, even such short words as 'so' can do it.

Sources

https://briefjapanese.fun/how-to-use-wake/

my Japanese teacher and his native Japanese teacher

Stefan Kaiser, Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar (p.285)

#わけ #modality #japanese with anime

7 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 8 months

Text

Different particles + 思う

に、と、を＋思う

～と思う = expressing your opinion, wishes, desires.

彼女は美しいと思う。I think (opinion) she is nice.

来年、日本に行きたいと思う。I would like to (desire) go to Japan next year.

～を思う = showing the object of our thoughts.

You're not expressing an opinion. It’s pointing to a thing (abstract or concrete) or a person we have in mind.

恋人を思う。I think about my significant other. (I'm actively thinking about him - what they are doing, etc.)

～に思う = expressing your emotions.

Since it is expressing emotions, it is paired with words denoting emotions like 残念 (ざんねん).

疑問に思う。 I have doubts. I feel doubtful about something.

疑問 (ぎもん) - doubts

彼が言ったことを疑問に思う。I have doubts about what he has said.

#shorts #思う #particles in japanese

10 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 8 months

Text

～はず vs. should

How to express assumptions in Japanese

For more phrases related to assumptions, go here. For べき, go here. For the same post in much better quality, go to my blogger website

Textbook knowledge

はず in English is usually defined as, be supposed to, ought to, should, must, be expected to (I believe). Great, lots of possibilities. However, the more options you have, the warier you need to be of the context.

You can indeed translate はず to should or be supposed to, but you can also translate should to べき or even ないと. And these are not as interchangeable in Japanese as they are in English. At least, that’s my impression. Correct me if I’m wrong.

For example:

I should go home

can be translated to:

そろそろ帰らないと。

You can also say:

そろそろ帰るはずだ

but the meaning changes to:

They should be on their way home by now.

The first sentence suggests (in an appropriate context) that you have to go home because if you don’t go, you might get into trouble.

The second one, though, suggests an assumption. You don’t know the truth, and you might get surprised by the final result.

But let’s focus on はず only.

Japanese definition of はず

Let’s take a look at the Japanese definition of that phrase first.

「はずです」は基本的に、「理屈上こうなる」という推論の結果としてのことがらを表わします。

The phrase “はずです” basically expresses something that is the result of an inference that “this is the way it should be in theory.”

“In theory” guys! Theory means an idea that you believe is true, although you have no proof, or it is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something.

For example:

木村さんは英語教師ですから、英語が話せるはずです。

Mr. Kimura is an English teacher, so he should be able to speak English.

In theory, all English teachers should be able to speak English, but the reality might be different. Mr. Kimura’s ability to speak English is explained by the fact that he is an English teacher (if that makes any sense to you)

この問題はＮ２の問題ですから、難しいはずです。

This problem is an N2 problem, so it should be difficult. However, not all N2 problems are difficult.

Note #1: はず often implies the element of surprise. While べき or other phrases, not really.

彼女は今、海外出張なので、今日は来ないはずです.

She is on a business trip abroad now, so she shouldn’t be coming today.

To express a negative assumption about the future in English, you can also use will, for example, I doubt she will be coming; It’s unlikely she will come; She won’t come today.

Note #2: Will for future assumptions can also be used in affirmative sentences. She isn’t on a business trip, so she will come. Will sounds like you’re more sure of what you’re saying. Should - you’re less sure.

Note #3: In English, when we talk about assumptions that displease the speaker, we are more likely to use will instead of should. Let’s not go shopping now. The shops will be overcrowded.

In English, things might get a little bit tricky with assumptions about present situations. For instance,

Tom shouldn’t know the address - I don’t think he knows it unless the context suggests ‘no one should tell him.’

トムは住所を知ってはいけない - no one should tell him, he is not allowed to know it

トムはアドレスを知らないはずだ - an assumption

Some examples from the manga Attack on Titan

。。。先にあるはずだけど。。。

Context: They’re heading to the place where they’re keeping Zeke. She heard an explosion that sounded much like the one caused by the Thunder Spear. They haven’t reached the forest yet. So why the heck can she hear it now? _

Hange is theorizing in this case - she’s developing an idea to explain the situation.

The first theory is that the forest is somewhere further in the distance. The place where they’re keeping Zeke should be further ahead. (implicitly - if the Thunder Spear should be heard/used, it should be used there in the forest, not where Hange is).

The second theory is that “Something must have happened there” (in the place where the explosion was heard) or more literally “In the direction of that sound there must/should be something.”

You wouldn’t really use べき here because that would suggest an obligation, a rule, as in “I ordered the forest to be further ahead.”

If you tried to translate must to ないと or なければならない or any other “must form,” you would end up expressing a duty of some sort.

[...] １５ｍのはず・・・！

In this example, I believe baby boy Armin said it, they’re recalling a theory related to the height of the titans. At most, they should be 15 meters tall. Their knowledge about the titans assumed that the tallest of them are 15 meters. That’s the theory they formed, but who would have thought that there is a titan taller than the wall?

I hope this helps! And again, I’m learning just like you guys. If you have any comments, feel free to comment or repost it with your explanations! :)

#はず #modality #should in japanese

6 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 1 year

Text

How to say should in Japanese

～べき vs. ～たほうがいい

Part I don’t even know which one because Japanese is so nuanced, I can’t honestly…

We should tell him the truth.

This sentence can be translated to:

彼に真実を言うべきだ。

彼に真実を言った方がいい。

べき is very strong, broadly speaking. It sounds bossy and commanding.

た方がいい, on the other hand, sounds softer like a suggestion.

Which translation to chose also depends on the action itself. In some cases, it’s better to give people suggestions because no one knows what the right thing to do is. But there are situations when we all instinctively know what to do, be it societal unspoken agreements or just pure morality.

If you truly believe that revealing the truth to your friend is the right thing to do because keeping him in the dark will do more harm than good, then go for べき. After all, everyone deserves to know the truth.

In some other cases, べき can make you sound like you’re the ‘wise one.’ You know what to do, and your words should be obeyed. You’re strongly convinced that whatever you’re saying is the right thing to do. It could also sound like it is your obligation to perform the action. As always, everything depends on the context.

However, if you have an idea, a suggestion, but you’re not really sure what to do in the end, and you don’t want to sound extra bossy, then た方がいい would be your choice. In this example, た方がいい can suggest “we better do it because if he doesn’t learn the truth, shit will go down real fast” - depending on the context of course.

べき is usually explained as たほうがいい in some dictionaries, but then in some cases you can’t use them interchangeably.

Your friend is in doubt about her work. Her work is mentally draining. She needs some advice. She asks:

どうしたらいい? - what should I do? (or more literally, what’s the best thing to do? Btw, yet another phrase that can be translated to should in English… ugh. Also, you don’t ask yourself with たほうがいい)

You say: You should quit your work.

You could also say: It’d be best, if you just quit your work. Well, quitting your work, doesn’t sound like the worst idea. Why don’t you quit your work?

Should is used to give advice, or at least that’s what ESL textbooks teach us. However, there are other phrases to advise people. Which one you’ll use in English depends on your conviction, relation with that person, and some other factors.

Should, according to Macmillan dictionary, is used to say:

used for talking about what is right, sensible, or correct

used for saying or asking about the right or sensible thing to do or the right way to behave

If your friend’s work is mentally draining, then the sensible thing to do is to quit it. Seems just fine in English. Does it make you sound bossy in English? I’m not the one to decide because I’m not a native speaker, but I’ve heard such pieces of advice from my friends, and it didn’t sound bossy at all, just the voice of reason.

In Japanese, though, well… since it is a nuanced language, some people will definitely see you as a bossy person if you use べき on them. (confirmed with some native speakers)

べき in some grammar books is primarily listed with other phrases conveying ‘obligation’ ぎむ

So translating ‘you should quit your work’ to 仕事は辞めるべきだ isn’t the best idea.

仕事は辞めた方がいい, though, sounds like you’re giving a piece of (friendly) advice without trying to command your friend.

My Japanese teacher’s Japanese teacher, who is a native, says that べき may sound like “don’t tell me how to live my life!” But if you see someone struggling with some situation, and they don’t know what to do, and you want to give them a little push, using べき wouldn’t be so bad. It could be interpreted as a genuine try to help someone, but the context must be just right.

I’m discussing affirmative sentences, but the same logic applies to negatives as well.

Side note: In my business writing classes, our teacher told us to limit the use of should to an absolute minimum because it’s too vague in a lot of situations. If I told my little brother, “you should clean your room”, he would understand it as a very weak suggestion that he doesn’t even have to consider. But if told him, “Well, I think I should buy this new game for you”, he would understand it as “I’m getting a new game!”

He told us to be precise as much as possible. If by should we mean ‘do it now’, use a phrase that conveys an order.

So I think the best way to accurately translate should into Japanese is knowing what we really want to say.

#modality #べき #たほうがいい #should in Japanese

14 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 1 year

Text

How to connect parts of speech in Japanese

Complete guide is here -> Link Click

An update to these posts (rules I learned in class):

post 1 - How to connect nouns (and other parts of speech) in Japanese

post 2 - とか vs. たり

や works similarly to たり～たりする which means you don’t limit the list to the items on your list - they are just examples “things like [examples]” Implicitly you’re stating there are other things as well; you just don’t want to list them. Used with nouns only.

と limits your list to the items you mention. I bought an apple and a banana - バナナとリンゴを買った - you bought just these two items and nothing else. Used with nouns only.

とか is used with nouns and verbs. とか is considered 話し言葉 (はなしことば) which means spoken language. When you use it with nouns, you loosely list items, but implicitly you say there are more items. It works just like や (や is 書き言葉 (かきことば) written language, but it’s used in speech too.)

とか with verbs is used when you want to give advice - what about cooking; what about doing things like cooking or singing? You need some context to use it in a sentence. If you want to list your hobbies, then たり～たりする is a better option.

If you say: During the holidays, I go to such places as markets, churches, parks … (stupid examples, I know) you don’t limit the list of places to just these three examples; you implicitly say there are other places as well. You’d use や or とか here.

If you say: During the holidays, I go to markets, churches, and parks. - you limit the list to these three places only. You’d use と here.

し can be used with all parts of speech. You also need some context to be able to use it. It works similarly to から. It is also considered 話し言葉. It kind of answers the question ‘why?’ We’re doing this because… or it is like that because … (that’s not the literal translation)

We have to do it. (why? because) he’s our client - それをしなければならない。お客様さまだし。

You could also make a nice sentence with ですから彼は私たちのクライアントだから、やらなければならない。

#とか #や #し #から #たり～たりする #と #connecting parts of speech in japanese #japanese conectors

8 notes · View notes

languagestudymaterials · 1 year

Text

Opinion essay - matura 2023

Ten sam post w dużo lepszej jakości znajdziesz tutaj.

Przykłady tematów znajdziesz tutaj.

Co to jest opinion essay? Matura 2023

Opinion essay to wypracowanie, w którym należy przekonać czytelnika do swojej opinii.

Aby to zrobić efektywnie, swoją opinię należy przedstawić już na początku wypracowania — w akapicie wprowadzającym.

W rozwinięciu wypracowania najczęściej podaje się trzy powody, które wspierają Twój pogląd. Warto zadać sobie pytanie, Dlaczego tak sądzę? Co mnie przekonało do tego, aby tak sądzić na ten temat?

Zakończenie to nic innego jak podsumowanie swoich argumentów i powtórzenie swojej opinii.

Różnice między opinion essay a argumentative essay

Opinion essay pokazuje Twoje osobiste przemyślenia lub doświadczenia. W takim wypracowaniu można pokazać swoje emocje i nie trzeba podpierać się twardymi danymi.

Argumentative essay też w pewien sposób wyraża Twoją opinię, ale argumenty to fakty, dane i dowody. Nie powinieneś uwzględniać swoich osobistych uwag.

W opinion essay możesz napisać, że nie podoba Ci się pomysł testowania kosmetyków na zwierzętach, bo jest to okrutne i zwyczajnie niemoralne.

W argumentative essay napiszesz za to, co badania przeprowadzone przez naukowców mówią na ten temat, lub, co sądzi opinia publiczna.

Z czego składa się opinion essay?

Jak każde wypracowanie, opinion essay składa się z trzech części:

wprowadzenie

rozwinięcie (3 argumenty; każdy z nich powinien zacząć się od osobnego akapitu)

zakończenie

Od czego zacząć pisanie?

Profesjonalni pisarze i dziennikarze nigdy nie zaczynają pisać od razu. Proces pisania zaczyna się od czegoś, co nazywa się outline. Jeśli masz czas na egzaminie, to spróbuj w brudnopisie stworzyć podstawową wersję takiego outlinu.

Podziel kartkę na trzy sekcje: introduction, body, conclusion. Następnie w każdej sekcji zanotuj kilka pomysłów. W kolejnych częściach tego artykułu dowiesz się, jakie pomysły można wrzucić do każdej sekcji.

Jeśli zostało Ci sporo czasu, możesz spróbować zrobić bardziej rozbudowaną wersję. A wygląda ona tak:

*Przykład wypracowania nie jest najlepszy na świecie, ale na potrzeby tego artykułu jest wystarczający.

Co powinno znaleźć się w introduction?

Introduction składa się ze zdania przedstawiającego temat, czegoś, co nazywa się hook i zdania, które jasno wyraża Twoją opinię.

Hook ma za zadanie przyciągnąć uwagę czytelnika do Twojego wypracowania. Możesz to zrobić za pomocą pytania lub kontrowersyjnego stwierdzenia, które wiąże się z tematem.

Temat: Social media influencers earn too much.

Przykład: Nowadays social media influencers earn a lot of money (przedstawienie tematu). Many people think it is unfair as they “do nothing special” (hook). Some even say they make idiots out of themselves online (hook). I strongly agree with this opinion (twoja opinia). I believe they should not be making money at all.

Częste błędy!

Najczęstszy błąd to nie napisanie zdania wyrażającego Twoją opinię. W opinion essay jest ono konieczne już na początku wypracowania.

W rozprawce za i przeciw nie piszemy swojej opinii w akapicie wprowadzającym.

W arggumentative essay napiszesz swoją tezę, czyli założenie, które zamierzasz udowodnić. Na przykład: Testowanie na zwierzętach jest niezgodne z prawem.

Nie napiszesz za to: Uważam, że testowanie na zwierzętach jest niezgodne z prawem, ponieważ wtedy oznaczałby to, że piszesz opinion essay.

Co powinno znaleźć się w body?

W body należy napisać argumenty, które motywują Cię do utrzymania swojej opinii. Na maturze piszę się dwa lub trzy takie argumenty, a każdy argument trzeba podeprzeć dwoma przykładami.

Warto również pamiętać, aby każdy akapit zaczynał się od topic sentence. To takie zdanie, które informuje czytelnika, o czym jest akapit, który właśnie zaczyna czytać.

Następnie wyjaśnić, co ma się na myśli i podać przykład.

Na przykład:

Social media influencers create low-quality content (topic sentence). This can refer to technical aspects and the value of the message (co mam na myśli). Social media platforms are full of poorly recorded videos (przykład). Furthermore, many of the influencers follow the same trends and advertise the same products lowering the value of the message (przykład).

Częste błędy!

Często uczniowie nie zaczynają akapitów od topic sentence. Akapity, które zaczynają się od tego, co masz na myśli lub od przykładów, są niespójne i ciężko je zrozumieć.

Co powinno znaleźć się w conclusion?

Conclusion to podsumowanie całego wypracowania. Czytelnik mógł już zapomnieć, o czym czytał, więc powinieneś krótko streścić dla niego swoje wypracowanie.

Przytocz argumenty, czyli podsumuj topic sentences w jednym lub dwóch zdaniach, a na koniec powtórz swoją opinię, używając innych słów.

Topic sentence: Social media influencers create low-quality content

Topic sentence 2: Most of them create content for rich people.

Topic sentence 3: Social media influencers often manipulate their followers to buy certain brands.

Z powyższych zdań wynika, że social media influencers wyrządzają więcej szkody niż dobra swoim zachowaniem.

Przykładowa konkluzja:

Social media platforms are full of influencers who do more harm than good. Manipulation, ostracising users who do not have much money, or even spreading meaningless information shouldn’t be allowed. I believe social media influencers shouldn’t be able to monetize their content.

#matura 2023 #matura #po polsku #text

6 notes · View notes