1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Japanese
  4. >
  5. "Can I go home?"

"Can I go home?"


June 8, 2017



Shouldn't this be かえってもいいですか


I agree. The mo is important. To remove it is to speak less formally and that's not what they're teaching here.


Please tell me if my interpretation makes sense or if my brain has spent too much time in the toaster:

帰っていいですか literally means "is leaving good?"
も only makes sense if there is another option , that has already been established as good.
The only alternative to "leaving" that makes sense is "staying". So by using も you're sort of completing the host, which makes the sentence more polite.


It's accepted either with or without the も.


What is the purpose of も here?


It's like "even" so "Is it fine if I go home" vs "Is it fine even if I go home"


Are there any instances where the も would be necessary, even without formality? Like is there a nuance that could only be achieved with も?


I can think of one case where も is preferred. When we need to inevitably do or offer something which is worse-off for the listener, there is a tendency to use も. For example there is a limited number of gift when a customer buys a product but the gift is no longer available. The shopkeeper will ask the customer if it is ok to buy the product without the gift. サービス品なしでもいいですか


Ah, I see, thank you very much for the explanation and example.


That's what a native would probably say, but I think the original translation is best for learning purposes, for now.


I don't like the English on this sentence. It would be better translated as "Is it ok for me to go home?"


I think it's important to know that this is how you would say "can i go home", though.


I don't get what the " いい" is doing here.


The も that others have mentioned has kind of an "even if" meaning. So what you're more literally saying is "Is it good (okay) even if I go home."


This is literally something like "It is good for me to go home?"


It means good, ok, alright etc. You're basically asking permission which is more polite than just stating that you're going home. Ok (ii), if I go home?


They need to know more than how much penicillin it takes two

[deactivated user]

    Am i good to go home?


    There is an incredibly formal way of saying this: 帰らせてもらってください, which literally translates to "Please do me the favor of making me go home." (I may not be 100% accurate there; it's been 20+ years since I learned that construction.)


    This is essentially correct. But it is used in very limited situations that require extreme formality (as part of 敬語- honorific language). In daily language, 帰ってもいい works just fine.


    お先に失礼させてください will be a more polite phrase in this situation.


    Can I actually say かえるのがいいですか? To be honest i don't really get why I have to use the て form for this


    Is there anything wrong with using うち/内 Instead of いえ/ 家?I thought 内 was for home while 家 Is for house?


    家 can be read both うち or いえ. When it's うち it is more about "my own house" or "my home". When it's いえ it can be a "house" (the building) or also expresses the idea of a family-its residence. 内 often referes to the concept of "inside/within a group”. On the contrary of 外(そと).


    Is this "can I...?" Or is this "may I...?" It seems like this is supposed to be "May I...?", but the lesson authors forgot about the difference. In English, there is a big difference. "Can I...?" is a question to determine if you are physically able to do something. It would be used like this: "Can I draw??? ....No, I cannot because i have no pencils", whereas "May I...?" Is asking for permission like in, "May I use go use the restroom, Sensei?" "Yes, you may.".... To ask "Can I use the restroom?" Is a sentence that i would only expect to hear from the MC of some genderbend manga where the MC wakes up as the other gender.


    "Can I" is the same as "may I" in American English when asking for something.


    Actually, can I/may I have exactly the difference ekp2h described in American English. It's just that most Americans use them interchangeably because of practiced incorrect English that no one bothered correcting. In school, you're still taught the difference. It's just that most people don't care if they're speaking with exactness or not, very sadly.


    Yes, when most people practise a language incorrectly long enough, it becomes correct.

    I was taught British English and I could not accept this too until I worked long enough in an American company.


    Sort of. It has to generally be accepted as correct rather than something that is incorrect and waved off by the general populace. I may be one of the few Americans who still cares, but there are certainly still a fair percent of us who do, in fact, care. There has been nothing, to my knowledge, which has officially changed "can I" to mean "may I." As such, it is still incorrect -- just a common form of being incorrect. This is what is refer to as a "common error," just like using "your" as "you're" and vise-versa. It's still incorrect, just commonly so.

    (Quite clearly, I do not advocate the lazy way out when it comes to what is fundamentally correct/incorrect.)


    English classes beyond primary school are mostly concerned with literature and how to compose one's thoughts via writing, but even if English classes taught what was "official", then every single English class in the world would need to have the same curriculum. Furthermore, just because you were taught rules at that age doesn't mean those rules are set in stone forever.

    But here's the thing: in this matter of "may" vs "can" in asking for permission, you are completely wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-can-and-may explains that "by [the year] 1500, both can and may were used to refer to ability and possibility."

    Thus, you are arguing in favor of a rule that never really existed until the late 19th century when grammarians arbitrarily decided that it was supposed to be a certain way, just like the non-existent "rules" of never ending a sentence with a preposition or never splitting infinitives.


    As you probably know, unlike other languages like French, nobody decides what is "official" in English, although perhaps you may consider dictionary definitions:

    So you can stand in the middle of the river protesting the water flowing around you, or you can accept that language changes over time, which is why we no longer use "thou" and "thine" anymore either.



    "No one decides what is official in English," huh? :/ So, English classes have no legitimacy? English textbooks are without any kind of authority? English teachers may as well find other jobs? People can just say whatever gibberish they want to and it'll be considered correct? There are certain standards for what is correct or incorrect in language. That's how people communicate. Quite frankly, I can't understand why anyone wouldn't respond to legitimate literary correction with anything other than "Oh, okay. Thanks!" yet here we are. People will accuse others of being too stingy or whatever else just because they "want the freedom" to be incorrect/can't be told that they're wrong.

    Now, the evolution of language is entirely different from a large number of people speaking incorrectly and having sensitive egos. Just because a term is commonly used does not make it correct ("your" is not "you're" despite how many people do not understand the difference between these words.) I do not deny that language evolution occurs -- and it is a beautiful thing, etymology -- but it certainly has not yet reached that point in this case (and I would argue that this specific case would be devolution, not evolution.)


    Can someone explain what も would would add to this sentence? I understand that it should have been added to make the sentence more formal/polite, but I am having trouble understanding what も actually means in this context since I only know it to mean "also"


    The closest i can translate it is to say "is it still good if I..." The 'mo' can be considered to connect the 'ii' to the suggestion. Literally "home-to still-good is-it go?"

    The phrase "mo-ii" can be used in many situations, both positive snd negative.

    "O-sake mo-ii" can be "drinking sake continues to be good" or "yeah i'd have more".

    I mentally interpret it as "still good with me".

    Hope that helps!


    Oh and this would relate formality because it sorta implies that we talked about this earlier and i'm diligently checking to see if its still okay.

    It isnt formal grammatically, but culturally, where i show that im thinking of you.


    See my previous comment on this, I explained it earlier.


    How would this be asked in plain/casual form. Neither 家に帰ってはいい? or the same with の at the end are accepted.


    Is "iidesu" something like "is it cool if I...."


    Essentially. The best literal translation is "Is it good/okay if I…"


    Why is there いい ? Why 2


    -te form +_ ii desu ka OR te form + mo + ii desu ka is a Japanese grammatical construction used to politely ask for permission to do something. Literally it means - is it good/ok (if) I go home?


    Can someone explain ですか here? I thought that was used when addressing someone(thing) else. I am under the impression that this sentence means can YOU go home


    That's incorrect. The speaker is asking for themself - may/can I go home?


    It is by context and we employ judgement in Duolingo with common sense to determine the subject of the sentence with the highest possibility. There are cases that the subject can be you, but most probably it is me as the subject.

    お子さんを ほったらかして 帰って いいですか Is it fine to neglect your child and go home?

    For this example sentence it is still not 100% clear who is fine to go home, but this time by guessing the highest possibility is for you to go home.


    Just clarifying for others. I'm guessing you mean 'you' as in the speaker?


    "Is it fine for you to neglect your child and go home?"

    For example, a police office talking to an unresponsible mother leaving the child in the street.


    Police officer. Irresponsible mother.


    Some Kanji pronouncing voice is not working.


    Do you mean there is no audio at all or that the pronunciation is wrong? Before the update I noticed that the audio in later lessons on the tree was not working. I wonder if this is still an issue they are working on fixing.


    Yes, the audio of the Kanji some times is not working whatsoever. In this case, 家has audio, while 帰っ has not.. Many examples that include sorting Japanese words in the right order has some Kanji that lack audio. Started to think it's part of the difficulty.


    I think it's just a fault. Try reporting it if you can.


    Why かえて instead of いきて for go?


    It's "go home" in English since that's the phrasing we typically use, but the Japanese "kaeru" is more like "return home." And this is specifically to return to a place you came from (most often "home") which is why it's translated this way.


    Would somebody be able to break this one down? I'm having a hard time translating it.


    I believe かえていますか。 is more acceptable in this case


    This means Am I (returning) going home? It's not especially polite and it's not asking permission which is what the Japanese construction of kaete (mo) ii desu ka is conveying.

    Learn Japanese in just 5 minutes a day. For free.