5

I always thought ちゃんと meant "properly" or "exactly", but I begin to think that its meaning is broader, more like "as it is supposed to be" or "as you're supposed to do" because in some sentence it seems to me that "properly" don't fit at all.

The context is A gives a bag of food to B, and B says :

だけどいいのか？お前の分もちゃんとあるのか？

Assuming I get the meaning of ちゃんと right, I don't know whether the question is about ちゃんと :

But, will it be okay? Is your portion supposed to be in there too?

-> Implicit meaning : Are you sure you don't want to keep your portion?

or about ある :

But, will it be okay? Is your portion in there too as it is supposed to be?

Implicit meaning : Are you sure you didn't forget to put your portion in there?

The context seems to lean strongly towards the first interpretation. Thank you for your time.

Improve this question
2
  • ちゃんとあるか surely existed ?, certainly there ? // ちゃんとする, ちゃんとしろ being properly // ちゃんとそろっている exactly all there, perfectly/wholly ready
    – user4688
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:17
  • Where do you get "in there" from? It is surely not in the original sentence.
    – user4032
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:27

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

The more "properly" you try to translate 「ちゃんと」, the funnier the result might sound. Why? Because it is not such a big word to begin with as the look and sound of the word may suggest. It is an informal, everyday kind of a word for us native speakers.

So, instead of the bookish translations "properly", "in an appropriate manner", "to be supposed to be", etc., the best I could think of would be "alright", believe it or not, in the sentence in question.

You are actually reading the sentence incorrectly even without the 「ちゃんと」 part. It does not mean "Is your portion supposed to be in there too?" 「お前の分」, if it exists, is not in the bag in the first place.

My own TL:

"You sure, tho? You keep some to yourself (somewhere) alright?"

That is how "light" this convo is, to speak on a native level; Hence, my word choice of "alright".

Improve this answer
1
  • Thanks, I thought, as he was recieving a bag, that something like 「袋の中（に）は」 was ommited and that ある was used to show the place of existence. So, is it okay to say that 「お前は」 is ommited in the sentence and that ある is used with the sense of "to possess" (like if it had to be written in kanjis, 有る instead of 在る)?
    – Alox
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 8:43
4

It's the second one -- "as it is supposed to".

But it doesn't say "in there". The proper interpretation is:

But, will it be okay? Does your portion exist as well, as it is supposed to?
(Since you're giving this all to me) Do you have a portion (elsewhere) as well, as you should?

(implying: You shouldn't go without food)

I can't think of a direct way of expressing "is...supposed to...?" for the first interpretation. You might have to say something like:

この中にお前の分も入ってるんだけど、もらっていいのか？

Improve this answer
4
  • I do not see where you (or OP) get the 「入っている」 part. You both seem to be "seeing" words that are NOT in the original sentence in question.
    – user4032
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:31
  • @TokyoNagoya : To be clear, my Japanese sentence does not correspond to the OP's Japanese sentence. It is an attempt to represent what the Japanese would have had to say for him to interpret it the way he did. (or conversely, since you cannot use ちゃんと that way, to show one method for how you can express "is ... supposed to...?" in Japanese).
    – Hyperworm
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:33
  • @TokyoNagoya : (Incidentally, I realize my JP sentence is quite different to "supposed", so if you can think of something that's a bit more direct, let me know so I can edit it in :))
    – Hyperworm
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:42
  • 1
    Ah, sorry about that; I knew it was not like you. The use of 「だぞ」 is still highly questionable as it does not go well with 「いいのか」 but that would be off-topic.
    – user4032
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 0:46
1

To join the party and incorporate what I'm seeing in both answers (neither of which completely please me).

だけどいいのか？

--> [But are] you sure it's okay?

I'm putting the [but are] as optional depending on just how casual this is supposed to be.

お前の分もちゃんとあるのか？

Literally "You have also appropriately a portion for yourself" but colloquially:

--> You kept some for yourself too right?

I'm depending on TokyoNagoya for part of it but I think some of the colloquialisms in that answer are pretty unnatural English as a whole.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .