How would one convey the concept of "vouching" in Japanese?


**_Update:** There seems to be some controversy here as to whether or not
there really is a difference between vouching and guaranteeing, which impacts
how it is translated. Please see the discussion I started on [English
L&U](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/36205/what-is-the-difference-
between-vouch-and-guarantee) about this, where I believe the answers are
supporting the idea that there is a difference, and explain what that
difference is._

Japanese does not seem to have a readily available equivalent for the concept
of "vouching" for someone when you are introducing someone for work, or as a
possible date, or whenever there is some kind of favour involved and it's not
just social.

To be more accurate, in Japanese culture, when one introduces someone else,
the _default assumption_ is that you are vouching for that person.

Which means that just about _any_ and _every_ introduction comes with a fair
amount of responsibility. Which might be fine, except Japanese tend to err on
the side of caution by being hesitant to make introductions, for whatever
purpose, for fear that something might go wrong.

The words the dictionary provides for "vouch" is `保証【ほしょうする】`, or
`請け合う【うけあう】`, both of which mean "guarantee", which is much too strong. I
think because the default assumption is that any introduction comes with a
sense of vouching for that person, to then add words only stresses the
assurance, not qualify it.

The problem with anything like "guaranteeing", is that it implies that if
something goes wrong, you can come back to me, either for compensation, or
maybe just to punch me in the stomach, or something.

In English language and culture, when I'm vouching for someone, I am telling
you about the content of their character. What transpires from their actions
is between you and them. Guaranteeing is about putting assurance on future
actions and transactions.

So is there a way in Japanese I can say I'm vouching for the person without
guaranteeing their future actions?

Also, can I qualify a meeting by saying I'm _not_ vouching for someone? In
other words, despite the fact that this introduction is to help you with
something, I'm only making the introduction because I'm trying to help, but I
don't know the person I'm introducing well enough to give you any assurance.

This is somewhat a cultural issue as well as a language issue, which means I
wouldn't expect there's some perfect term that I simply haven't discovered
yet. If this is a concept that has to be described in some way so as to
introduce it to the language, then let's concoct something new.




Let me start by thinking about the difference between vouching and
guaranteeing. If I understand what you're saying right, you mean something
like: if I lend a guy a guitar because you vouch for him as a reliable guy,
and he breaks it and won't replace it, I'm SOL, because I have no right to
expect you to replace it instead. But if you _guarantee_ that he won't break
it, I _am_ within my rights to ask you to replace it.

I think in the first case I would still be pissed at you, though. I would feel
that you had misled me (unintentionally or not) about this guy's character,
and that you had a _moral_ obligation to step up and make the situation right.

Maybe your understanding of "vouching" is different; if so, that shows that
the concept of "vouching" is hard to translate partly because it means
different things in different contexts/to different people. And a word this
flexible is unlikely to have an exact counterpart in Japanese, as you note.

So if there's something you want to say to differentiate an introduction from
"default vouching", it's probably best to state it directly. 信頼できる人だと思いますよ, or
whatever. If my guitar got broken in that case, I might feel that you had
terrible judgment, but I probably wouldn't feel _misled_ \-- you did say
と思います, after all. (Of course, I might still decide to hold you responsible.)

I would offer a similar answer for your opposite question, how to introduce
someone _without_ vouching for them. If you want your hedge to be clear, and
don't have the skill to put it across by implication alone (I don't think I
do), the safe thing to do is to state it clearly. 直接一緒に仕事したことはないけど,
二回しか会ったことないけど, etc.




Let me start by thinking about the difference between vouching and
guaranteeing. If I understand what you're saying right, you mean something
like: if I lend a guy a guitar because you vouch for him as a reliable guy,
and he breaks it and won't replace it, I'm SOL, because I have no right to
expect you to replace it instead. But if you _guarantee_ that he won't break
it, I _am_ within my rights to ask you to replace it.

I think in the first case I would still be pissed at you, though. I would feel
that you had misled me (unintentionally or not) about this guy's character,
and that you had a _moral_ obligation to step up and make the situation right.

Maybe your understanding of "vouching" is different; if so, that shows that
the concept of "vouching" is hard to translate partly because it means
different things in different contexts/to different people. And a word this
flexible is unlikely to have an exact counterpart in Japanese, as you note.

So if there's something you want to say to differentiate an introduction from
"default vouching", it's probably best to state it directly. 信頼できる人だと思いますよ, or
whatever. If my guitar got broken in that case, I might feel that you had
terrible judgment, but I probably wouldn't feel _misled_ \-- you did say
と思います, after all. (Of course, I might still decide to hold you responsible.)

I would offer a similar answer for your opposite question, how to introduce
someone _without_ vouching for them. If you want your hedge to be clear, and
don't have the skill to put it across by implication alone (I don't think I
do), the safe thing to do is to state it clearly. 直接一緒に仕事したことはないけど,
二回しか会ったことないけど, etc.

