The quoting particle と (or って) is tenseless, just as the quotation marks " for direct speech (she said "I want to sing"), or that for indirect speech (she said that she wanted to sing) are tenseless.
The tense is reflected in the verb that is used with the quoting particle, e.g.
In your example sentence, the correct tense for ...
When there is no additional constraints imposed by kinsoku or full-justification, this is how 「『捨てる』技術」 is typically typeset (produced by Adobe InDesign 2020, font: 小塚明朝 Pr6N, all characters are zenkaku):
That is, brackets are rendered like zenkaku or hankaku depending on the surrounding characters/symbols. In other words, the built-in space is usually 50% ...
(A) is a typical 直接話法 (direct speech) sentence, and (B) is a typical 間接話法 (indirect speech) sentence. These are common both in English and Japanese, so they should be easy.
(C) is the same as (A) except that it lacks the ...
It's not redundant to use ただ (or たった etc.) and だけ (or ばかり, のみ etc.) together. It's perfectly natural to say, for example:
(Examples taken from 明鏡国語辞典)
Wouldn't either ただ or だけ have been sufficient alone?
Yes, you could rephrase your sentence like this, without ...
Japanese language doesn't have italics or all-uppercase. Emphasis using square brackets (「」) is natural in Japanese, especially when other means of emphasis (like 傍点 or bolder fonts) is not applicable.
For example, when you have to write in plain-text format, something like this is totally natural:
Such usage of square brackets is ...
The second interpretation is not very likely in this particular example because 先生から授業がない makes little sense. That idea would probably be expressed as 先生の授業がない.
先生から授業がある works better.
This could be translated in two ways.
I heard from the teacher that there will be a class today.
I heard that the teacher will give (us) a class ...
I think this is a bit tricky. In short: you are getting it right, but in this particular example he doesn't necessarily think it is no longer interesting: his comment was probably made on something that had finished earlier.
There's no tense agreement in Japanese, so we can think of these two pairs
Robert さんはおもしろいといっています。 -> Robert さんはおもしろいといっていました。
The omitted verb is a bit different from what you have in mind:
In the society, it is thought that both the police and L are incompetent.
Note that I used the passive form here. The sentence is not saying "society thinks ～" with the society as the subject. で here is a simple location marker, "in the society" (or "in the public ...
Do you know the と particle (aka the quotative particle)? When you quote someone's statement, you need to use と instead of を or こと. This sentence should at least be:
This still sounds unnatural because 皆さん is a fairly polite and formal word, whereas 話した is not polite and the content of the talk itself is not polite. This is a problem ...
You can replace と with と思いながら or と思っていて etc if that helps structure them for you. Though I like the elegant ambiguity of not knowing for certain if he's thinking silently or thinking aloud.
I think there is some similarity in English though, when books use italics to represent thoughts without explicitly saying "he thought" or "she thought&...
This とする is a way of saying "to state/say/consider (one's opinion/standpoint)". This construction is used to report someone's opinion about a certain issue, and is particularly common in newspapers.
At first, the company had stated that this was not a bug.
those who believe it's a problem and those who don't
"Is it ok if I only say [まだ], can you understand?", in a context where I'm speaking with a Japanese person and I want to ask if saying something without extra information is understood in that context.
I would say
「まだ」と言うだけでわかりますか？ - lit. By only saying "まだ", is it understandable? /
「まだ」と言うだけでいいですか？ - lit. By only saying "まだ", ...
I think 電撃 is not so strange as a translated material, but anyway...
I'm afraid I don't know the standard way to assert your translation of a certain expression is correct without disclosing the original English phrase. Something like （この部分は原文を直訳したもの） might work, but that's annoying and uncommon.
In general, it's a common practice to specify the original ...
This の is the same thing with のだ, as in your second option. The third one is partially correct too, since the expression would be literally translated "it is that".
The usage of のだ (non-question form of のか) has been a hot topic of debate, despite, or because of its generality among Japanese utterance. The currently widely agreed formulation is that using のだ ...
There is no typo. You need to notice there is one big sentence with two embedded (or in-lined) example sentences. An English equivalent is something like this.
As for ささやく, there are both intransitive and transitive usages.
You can use it as a transitive verb like:
...and you can also use it as an intransitive verb that is ...
This という means "saying that" and is describing the contents of the メール.
The main part of the sentence is this:
Xというメール is "an e-mail which says X".
Punctuation is deceptive.
The overall structure is that 「桐原さんが言うには、～てくれ、とのこと。」 surrounds the inner clause 「施設での生活に不慣れな俺のため、彼を専属のサポート役として使う」.
It's similar to false word separation as in "eighth grader" and "New Yorkers", which don't mean "the eighth person who grade" and "new people from York".
So a more or less literal translation can be given as:
There is no omitted particle. 少女と言っていい ("where it's good to say girl"; "safely called a girl") is a relative clause that modifies 歳 ("age").
a person who you can call an adult
an age which you can call a shōjo('s age)
As for the difference between 少女 and 女の子, 少女 is a relatively literary word for a girl roughly between 8 and 17. 女の子 also ...
なきゃ＝なければ(ならない) : must
と makes a clause like と言う
もがいている : is struggling
A simple way of understanding this would be to add '思って' after 'と'. Thus
生きなきゃともがいている = 生きなければならないと思ってもがいている
struggling because he thinks he must live
struggling because he thinks he must go forward.
Another way is to take this construction as a mix of
That sentence seems to be a mixture of two "discourses".
Direct discourse: 桐原さんが言うには、「施設での生活に不慣れなお前のため、彼を専属のサポート役として使ってくれ」とのこと。
Indirect discourse: 桐原さんが言うには、施設での生活に不慣れな俺のため、彼を専属のサポート役として使ってほしいとのこと。
And there is also another problem, which is that, お前のため/俺のため doesn't match 使ってくれ/使ってほしい for its consequence.
These two problems are making the ...
It's, word by word,
色落ち: color loss,
しない: (negation of する),
か: (questioning particle),
なぁ: (sentence ending particle that stands for your inner thought),
って: (quotation particle)
As a whole, " I'm thinking "isn't it going to lose color?" ", in short, "I'm wondering if it loses color". Actually, it implies that you hope it loses color early in this ...
They could tell the same situation, but since こと is a nominalizer, using it makes an effect similar to that of English gerund.
先生に１０分遅れることを伝えてください。 Please tell the teacher [my] 10 minutes delaying.
先生に１０分遅れると伝えてください。 Please tell the teacher [I]'ll be 10 minutes late.
We usually say the latter instead of the former, don't we?