Consign / Entrust / Be Entrusted With

When are these vocabulary items important to know? And what are the differences between them?


Here are thesaurus entries that cover 委託 and 託す (託する) separately.

They’re all fairly stiff or business-related terms.


Thanks. I’m just going to add synonyms and let everything “be entrust” and wait until a much later date to determine if this is something I need for anything other than vague receptive understanding (and use context clues to figure out who is expected to do what).


I mean, the first one is obviously from the opposite POV compared to the other ones. That’s kind of clear IMHO due to the use of the “accept” Kanji.

That’s the only difference I try to remember, I agree with you that otherwise that seems like too much detail for now.


Only the first one means “be entrusted”. As noted above, 委託 and 託す are about entrusting things to other people.


I "am (be) “entrusting” to others in those cases.

託す is one people actually use, but I can count the amount of times I’ve seen the other three on one hand. Unless you’re reading more official stuff, you prolly won’t need them or a deep understanding of their nuance.


As in adjectives? and Verbs? Or Passive verbs and Active verbs.

Not really sure what you’re asking. There aren’t any adjectives among these words.

There isn’t really any passive or active distinction either. All the nouns listed can be する verbs that would be active in their plain usage (though they might transitive or intransitive in that form, haven’t really thought about it).



In English, if you say I am entrusted with carrying out such and such enterprise, you are either using entrusted with as an adjective (like responsible for) or a passive verb (was given responsibility).

Anyways, that’s the sort of thing I’m wondering and it’s an odd conversation to have in English (and my Japanese is obviously far away from actively using these)… but I now know (with some errors) the kanji reading for them and just feel fuzzy about how I’d ever use them. But the feedback in this thread has helped.

1 Like

There is a passive verb in the definition of 受託 if you look at it


But in the base form of 受託する, that’s not a passive form. I think this is more a limitation of the English than something to do with the Japanese verb.

Try not to get hung up on what we translate stuff as, and look more to example sentences and monolingual definitions.


The passive is sometimes used in English translations of Japanese verbs because it’s one way of expressing that the subject is not the agent, but it is by no means the only way. There’s plenty of active English verbs where the subject is the undergoer (or target) of some action, like “to die”, “to receive” etc.

Japanese has even more such verbs with a non-agentive subject, but this is unrelated to passive constructions.


I’ve seen one of 受託 or 信託 in either Death Note or a NHK news article. In both cases in a very formal setting related to politics.


This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.