In 「S1 どころか S2」, S1 indicates that someone or something is very far from an expected state. In S2 appears a situation quite different from the situation expressed in S1.
*Please look at the following table: ==S1===S2===EXAMPLE===MEANING --Aff.---Aff.---#6266 ----'not just; even' --Aff.---Neg. --#6263 ----'far from' --Neg. --Aff.---#6265 ----'far from' --Neg. --Neg. --#6264 ----'not just; even'
Could anyone give some more examples? I'm still not clear about どころか.
Vbk
I am quite good at Japanese but I am not sure about my English. Please correct.
Miki
checked. thats the way this system should work, each checking native speakers...
dc
also どころではなく
Amatuka
Konnichiwa:) Example 4320 uses the word 'arigachi'. Is that the verb 'arimasu' used with the ending 'gachi' that means 'tend to~'?
Jenn
I think "arigachi" is: 有り勝ち (な形 名 frequent, usual, common)
laki-laura
The English in #5942 sounds funny. Please fix.
petra
ex #5942 The Engish sentence should be corrected to read: He is good not only at cooking but also music and sports
bamboo4
What often throw people off is that どころか can be used both in positive and negative sense. Compare: 彼は寿司どころか納豆も食べる (He can east not only sushi but even natto). 彼は納豆どころか寿司も食べられない (He cannot eat not only natto but even sushi).
bamboo4
what about 忙しくて、旅行するどころか、テレビを見る暇さえない。would be more like 'はもちろん' more than 'even'?
karekora
#5942 corrected
dc
Ex 4303’s Translation should be....01 Dollar!I do not have just even 01 Cent. I do not know but this Sounds Better!
gahoangdai
According to Dictionary of Japanese Grammar, どころか and ばかりか are quite similar in their meanings, however, in the case where the first clause is a negative and the second clause is positive (and vice versa), then どころか should be used preferentially over ばかりか。
However, can どころか really be used in cases where the clauses are either both negative or both positive??
Tetsuzan
Well I added a comment on this with a lot of examples, but I guess it was too long. So it was automatically wiped. There was no warning. Not going to go to the trouble of writing it again.
Short form: "far from" has two problems:
1. it doesn't address the suppositional nature of dokoroga 2. it doesn't address sentences where the B part is in agreement with the A part. It only addresses the contrastive B points.
Even Unicom breaks this point into two. This is not necessary and just gives you more work to do.
I think of dokoroka as "There is a presumption that..." or "You might think that..." as the A part, and the B part is either an agreement or a contrast to the presumption/supposition.
You can use "Far from" as a translation for some contrasting B sentences, however it is not how you should be *thinking* about parsing this grammar point.