Hey, help me, please!

Hey, what’s up!
I don’t understad…
Please tell me why “で” is used in this sentence?
I know that it means “The number of babies born in this year is 860000, which very small”.
But why de? Why not ga, for example?


This sentence is from japanese (not)easy news…

1 Like

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the で simply means “at” in this sentence.

Translation Attempt: The amount of babies born this year is few at 860000.


Section #2 on this Imabi page discusses this usage:


で shows an extent which may create juncture. Juncture deals with a point in time or place. However, it is not definite in nature as the particle に. This does not mean phrases like 一秒で are impossible. The purpose of に is to show exact time. Think of the difference as “The ice fully melted in 3 hours, 4 minutes, and 32 seconds” vs “The ice fully melted in three hours”. Juncture could also be used to show at what point something happens. The vagueness of this comment is on purpose. For instance, you’d use で to show at what temperature something boils or melts.

Translation isn’t really important to focus on, but it usually translates to “at” or “for”. As for other specific instances this で can be used in, it can show summation, which helps with stating prices like in Ex. 15 (this sentence would be said by say a person who knows you rather than a clerk).


Thank you all!
I will learn in this direction!!

Isn’t this で the て-form of だ? If you replace it with だ and remove the remaining part of the sentence, you get


which is a complete and logical sentence. I think で here is basically like any other て-form and can be loosely translated as “and”, though it doesn’t necessarily have to be “and” in the translation.


It could technically be both, but I’ve seen で being used like this next to numbers when presenting statistics and such sentences typically end with となっています which emphasizes a factual statement. I think “at” is pretty close.


According to ichi.moe it’s a conjunctive particle tying the two sentence clauses together. Each clause already has a zero-ga particle.


I think you’re reading too much into that. That’s just it listing all the possible usages of the particle.

It lists conjunctive even if you were to give it the sentence: 図書館で勉強します which is clearly not the case in that sentence.

1 Like

Yeah thats what it is in this case.

1 Like

On the other hand, on the subreddit NHK Easy News articles it’s translated by one of the regulars there as:

Number of babies born this year very low at 860,000


No one cares what you translate it as, it is what it is


Except one doesn’t normally translate sentences using conjunctives that way. It would seem that that would be a wholly incorrect interpretation if it was meant to be a conjunctive.


Theres no such thing as a perfect translation and people can make small adjustments as they see fit. Just because some dude on reddit said “at” doesn’t change the function of で which seanblue already explained.


Excellent icon taste

I wonder about the etymology of the particle で. Could it have originated from the copula at some point in the distant past? It seems to me that there is a sense of “being” across its uses anyway, in which case this debate wouldn’t matter too much.
At 8600000, the number of babies born this year is very small.
Being 8600000, the number of babies born this year is very small.

Exactly, the debate of what translation is best is irrelevant. Like I said, translations don’t matter.

The point is, the number of babies born is 8600000. The number of babies born is very small.

Thats it. And its that because of what sean said that it can mean that

1 Like

Translations are not a good benchmark to understand grammar but the conjunctive interpretation is too convoluted, I’d go with this one:

From Japanese Grammar Lesson 10: The Particle で (de) | PuniPuniJapan
Using the particle (de) to indicate total:

★ When the particle is placed after a quantity, time, or amount of money, it indicates a total or an extent.

Italics are mine.


Thank you for this. I am such a dumb ass I thought there could only be one translation.

This puts my mind at ease. :laughing:

Yep, that is the correct answer. Thanks for the lesson link.