69990
I have a lot of trouble sorting out the different use of あくまでも.

According to goo, the definition is:

> １ 物事を最後までやりとおすさま。徹底的に。  
>  ２ どこまでも。全く。

So something like:

> Doing something until the very end. Persistent, thorough.  
>  Everywhere. Completely.

But I have seen many examples where those definitions don't seem to fit that
well. Often it's almost as if あくまでも just adds some kind of emphasize but
doesn't carry any meaning of its own?

Here are some examples I gathered.

> だいたい、自殺と事故など第三者からでは判断しづらい。あくまでも警察、そして親族や関係者だけが真実を知っている事実。

Maybe strictly only know by police and relative ?

> な、なぜ……そんな事…… いや……あくまでも勘だけどさ……でもそんな感じがした……

It's just an intuition ?

> そういうのがあるの？  
>  さぁ、あくまでも噂でしか知りませんけどそういうのがあると聞きますよ。

Another あくまでも something だけ/しかない. Really あくまでも just adds emphasis, maybe ?

> 行くかどうかを決めるのはあくまでもお前達だ。

It's entirely/completely up to you ?

> もちろん外国人も、相手の話に合わせて、うなずいたり、"Uh-
> huh"と言ったりすることもありますが、あくまでもこれは「同意」を表明するというニュアンスがあり、日本人の相槌とは、少し違います。

No idea.

> ……ここは境界…… ではなく、あくまでも境界線

No idea.

> 17世紀に実在したそんな人物の物語だよ。  
>  実話？  
>  いいや、戯曲だよ。あくまでもね。

No, it's a play. Completely ? From beginning to end ?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-09T15:04:24.063
69971
2019-08-11T03:29:24.277
2019-08-11T03:28:44.740
9831
33761
question
grammar usage
Confusing use of あくまでも
In the japanese dictionary, あくまでも have two "opposite" meaning.
<https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%82%E3%81%8F%E3%81%BE%E3%81%A7>

Simply, 1st meaning: the range is infinite.

2nd meaning: the range is finite.

Your interpretation looks correct. Because it can be thought 2nd meaning
changes in the context.

"だいたい、自殺と事故など～", あくまで means the range who know the fact.

"な、なぜ……そんな事～", あくまで stress it is the only guess by restricting expression.

"行くかどうかを～", your interpretation looks perfect.

あくまで in sentences you have no idea are same mean. In these sentences, あくまで
will emphasis by 2nd "finite" meaning.

"もちろん外国人も～", あくまで emphasis 「同意」.

"ここは境界～", あくまで emphasis 境界線. (border line is not actual border)

"17世紀に～", あくまで emphasis 戯曲。(the person is exist but, the story is fiction
based on the fact)

※注意！上記の回答は、あくまで私個人の意見です。

I referred these websites before answering your question.

<https://biz.trans-suite.jp/704#i-10>

<https://eigobu.jp/magazine/akumademo>

<https://career-picks.com/business-yougo/akumademo/>
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-10T01:15:06.160
69977
2019-08-10T01:26:31.673
2019-08-10T01:26:31.673
11358
11358
69971
answer
Clearly, Goo is lacking another set of definitions and it is a major one
necessary to understand the present-day Japanese -- in particular, the **less
formal** Japanese.

That lacking set of definitions, in my own words, would be:

> just, only, no more than, etc. used for placing limits or boundaries on the
> piece of information or word at hand.

With the above added, you should be able to understand nearly all phrases and
sentences containing 「あくまで（も）」.

**One correction: You seem to have translated 「どこまでも」 to "everywhere", but it
actually means "endless(ly)"**. "Everywhere" is 「どこでも」 with no 「ま」.

Now, let us look at the phrases you have gathered.

> **あくまでも** 警察、そして親族や関係者だけが真実を知っている事実。

Only a limited group of people know the truth. あくまでも is used in conjunction
with だけ where the former sort of emphasizes the latter.

> な、なぜ……そんな事……  
>  いや…… **あくまでも** 勘だけどさ……でもそんな感じがした……

It is nothing more than the speaker's gut feeling. Nuance here is "I could be
wrong".

> そういうのがあるの？  
>  さぁ、 **あくまでも** 噂でしか知りませんけどそういうのがあると聞きますよ。

The speaker has only heard about it in a rumor. It may or may not be true.

> 行くかどうかを決めるのは **あくまでも** お前達だ。

It is completely up to you, as you said yourself. It is you all the way.

> もちろん外国人も、相手の話に合わせて、うなずいたり、"Uh-huh"と言ったりすることもありますが、 **あくまでも**
> これは「同意」を表明するというニュアンスがあり、日本人の相槌とは、少し違います。

"Uh-huh" said by foreigners just has a nuance of "Yeah, I agree with you." It
is different from the Japanese response of 「はい」 that actually means almost
nothing.

Emphasis on "no other meaning or nuance" when a foreigner says "uh-huh".

> ……ここは境界…… ではなく、 **あくまでも** 境界線

This is not a border; It is only a border **line**.

Without further context, it would be impossible to know what that exactly
means.

> 17世紀に実在したそんな人物の物語だよ。  
>  実話？  
>  いいや、戯曲だよ。 **あくまでも** ね。

Is that a true story?  
No, it is no more than a play. (It is NOT a true story.)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-10T13:48:53.880
69990
2019-08-11T03:29:24.277
2019-08-11T03:29:24.277
9831
69971
answer