Please help me to read this English sentence:

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

"Deserted" implies, again, that he left his children for some unspecified length of time meaning to return to them in the future.

"Neglected" in this context means he did *not* leave his children, but his efforts to be a good father to them (providing food, clothing, shelter, and parental guidance) are not as good as they should be if the children are to grow and mature properly.

Hope that helps, YuriT!

Thanks!
“Neglected” means he did not leave his children.
I see.
How about this?
A few months ago, there was a crime that one mother leave her children in her apartment and she went to her lover’s house for many days, and one of her children died by starving. The other one survived.
She said she returned her apartment after she thought they had died.
In this case, did she desert them? Abandoned?
Japanese would say “neglected”.
Thank you.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Thanks!
“Neglected” means he did not leave his children.
I see.
How about this?
A few months ago, there was a crime that one mother leave her children in her apartment and she went to her lover’s house for many days, and one of her children died by starving. The other one survived.
She said she returned her apartment after she thought they had died.
In this case, did she desert them? Abandoned?
Japanese would say “neglected”.
Thank you.

I would call that "child abandonment", its legal term under the law.

If she had only returned to the apartment after she was *sure* the children had passed away due to her neglect, she is not only a bad mother but a remarkably horrible person. I certainly hope the punishment she receives under the law is severe.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

I would call that "child abandonment", its legal term under the law.

Thank you! This is very good to know.


　

If she had only returned to the apartment after she was *sure* the children had passed away due to her neglect, she is not only a bad mother but a remarkably horrible person. I certainly hope the punishment she receives under the law is severe.　

Yes, she was horrible, but I'm afraid, generally, Japanese punishments are not severe.

By the way, you use “neglect” here. When a mother leaves her children till their passing away, and return after everything, is it “neglect”?

[kirakira]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

By the way, you use “neglect” here. When a mother leaves her children till their passing away, and return after everything, is it “neglect”?

皮肉にもこの場合のNeglectは日本語でいうと、
「ネグレクト」です。児童虐待の一種で、育児放棄、もしくは監護放棄ともいいます。
It's the same word in both Japanese and English under the circumstances.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by kirakira

皮肉にもこの場合のNeglectは日本語でいうと、
「ネグレクト」です。児童虐待の一種で、育児放棄、もしくは監護放棄ともいいます。
It's the same word in both Japanese and English under the circumstances.

Thank you, kirakira!
However, I’m afraid I know the Japanese term “negurekuto”.
Japanese terms from English sometimes have different meanings from English, and English “neglect” can be a verb while Japanese “negurekuto” is a noun.
I wanted to know if native English speakers use “neglect” in that situation because the mother seemed to have abandoned their children.
Thanks anyway. これからもどうぞよろしく

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

By the way, you use “neglect” here. When a mother leaves her children till their passing away, and return after everything, is it “neglect”?

In this case, it fits in with the earlier definition of "neglect" as being a bad provider of her children's needs, specifically food. She did return after she was sure her children had passed away, so that fits with the definition of "returning after some length of time".

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

In this case, it fits in with the earlier definition of "neglect" as being a bad provider of her children's needs, specifically food. She did return after she was sure her children had passed away, so that fits with the definition of "returning after some length of time".

Hi. Koir. Thank you!
You are always very helpful.
May I ask another question?

What’s the difference between them?
1. I had to wait.
2. I was obliged to wait.

Do they mean the same?
Thanks!

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

What’s the difference between them?
1. I had to wait.
2. I was obliged to wait.

Do they mean the same?
Thanks!

Essentially yes, they do. How they differ depends on the reason why the person had to wait, and how they felt about it.

In the first sentence, the person is simply stating they "had to wait", which has no implications of feeling either good or bad about waiting.

The second sentence can be understood as the person having to wait but not being happy about it (for example, they may have a need to be somewhere else soon, and having to wait is making them late).

However, the use of the verb "obliged" can be understood as speaking in a more formal way, which does not have the underlying concept of impatience, or wanting to be somewhere else doing something rather than waiting.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

The second sentence can be understood as the person having to wait but not being happy about it (for example, they may have a need to be somewhere else soon, and having to wait is making them late).

However, the use of the verb "obliged" can be understood as speaking in a more formal way, which does not have the underlying concept of impatience, or wanting to be somewhere else doing something rather than waiting.

Thanks, Koir.
Dictionaries never say things like you.
Do you have any other expressions when you have to wait with impatience?
Thank you.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Thanks, Koir.
Dictionaries never say things like you.
Do you have any other expressions when you have to wait with impatience?
Thank you.

I cannot think of any at the moment, Yuri. Too much Accounting information is overriding everything else