This is a discussion topic for the N5 Lesson 7 reading passages.
On the first one, regarding the sentence 京都に行ってもいいです、the translation has it say “Even going to Kyoto would be nice,” but I am confused by how the nuance of “Even” comes from that sentence. Is it just the context of the sentence beforehand?
You’re on the right train of though, I would imagine it’s based on context of what the previous person was saying/implying. A little hard without more explanation or hearing it actually spoken! I’d take a look at these example sentences to get a better idea of when (even) can be implied through text
Thank you very much.
For this one, it is (most likely) based on Bさん’s initial statement. Bさん first said 沖縄がいい (Okinawa is good). Then after the question about whether or not Kyoto is ok, he thinks back to his initial statement about Okinawa and then thinks ‘Even going to Kyoto would be good!’ (compared to going to Okinawa).
Note - This is only ‘probably’ where the も comes from. Even if he didn’t say も, it would still be a natural sentence. も only changes the nuance slightly, and can even sometimes be used about things that people are thinking, rather than what they actually said. Or the も can sometimes be linked to things that come later. For example 京都に行ってもいい…んだけど、それよりオーストラリ
アに行きたい！‘Even Kyoto is good… but even more than that I want to go to Australia!’
There’s an issue with the English translation of コーヒー.
I’m coffee, egg, and salad.
Is the に optional? If not, why not?
What is the purpose of ぐらい when 近い is already there?
It’s possible to drop the particle here. idk if you would consider that as being optional though
ぐらい is describing the destination (around Kyoto) where 近い is describing the distance to the destination (it doesn’t take long to travel to the destination).
I see, thanks!
What role is に playing here though? Is it its time-related role (２時に) or some other role? I ask because I’ve not seen it used with まで before.
Why is ぐらい specified though? The conversation is about Kyoto, not “around” Kyoto. Even the translation seems to acknowledge this.
Why does this say that the person “tried on” the kimono as opposed to “having put on” it? As far as I know 着る is “to put on” and not “to try on”.
Bunpro actually has a grammar point dedicated to using まで with に. までに
Yes, it is used being used to describe the time.
Ah, I was mistaken. It’s using the other use of くらい which is why the translation says “Even Kyoto”. くらい is setting a lower bound. While C-san would prefer to go to Hokkaido, even Kyoto as a location to go would be okay.
My guess is the translator just took some liberty with the translation.
This is the second N4 point in the N5 reading section . I know it can’t be easy avoiding N4 grammar, but if it’s specifically for N5 readers, these usages are bound to confuse.
I see! This usage will take some getting used to!
For this one, because it is a dialogue (spoken English), this is reflecting the use of は in the Japanese.
Since the speaker is answering a question about what they have for breakfast, they wouldn’t need to repeat ‘For breakfast I have ____’, they could/would just say ‘I’m ____’
My gripes aren’t with repeating something, but with using I’m. I don’t think you mean to literally say that you are coffee. Something like “I have coffee, eggs, and salad” seems better to me.
I understand what you mean completely, but in a sense this sentence is supposed to be a little bit confusing in English. It is something that people really would say in conversation in both Japanese and English (even if it sounds a little bit strange).
The main reason that translation is there is to highlight the similarities between the languages when it comes to casual speech. In Japanese, this type of sentence actually has a special name, it’s called an うなぎ文, and is important for understaning the weird things that language does. I will add a note about it to the reading.
Here is a small bit of info about うなぎ文 from the web.
Quick translation - For example, when in a restaurant getting your order taken, It is to answer back that ‘I am eel’. As far as the words will literally be taken, this surreal expression unfortuantely means (Me = Eel), but in actuality the content is really expressing that ‘As for me, I will eat eel’, which would surely be understood.
Maybe this is some sort of regional variation of English that I am not familiar with. To me it just sounds wrong.
I don’t think うなぎ文 really has an English equivalent. Maybe I just can’t think of one.
Depending on where you are from, and how casual the conversation is will determine how natural it sounds for sure.
A good example of this is verb omission. If the verb is obvious, then it becomes very natural in both languages. For example if someone says ‘Oh I heard you play basketball, what position do you play?’. Your answer could easily be ‘I’m center’, when really you mean ‘I play centre position’.
That would be verb substitution play → am which seems like a more complicated thing than omission. Perhaps it’s actually omission of an article. “I’m [a/the] center.”
Regarding the first text:
Why is 「ので」used in the first sentence and 「から」in the second? I’m still having trouble understanding the different nuances between the two