うちに / 東京の地図 / ゼミが始まって / 座って / 座らせた

[eeky]

Hiya,

1. 今週の土曜日にうちに来てください。

Translation given: "Please come to visit me this Saturday."

うちに means "to my house", not "during (Saturday)", right?


2. 東京の地図はこれですか。

Translation given: "Is this a map of Tokyo?"

When I read this, it seemed "the wrong way round". Why not これは東京の地図ですか? What is the difference?


3. ゼミが始まって二ヵ月後に、ゼミの学生たちがY教授を招待して飲み会をすることになあ ﾁた。

Does the first part mean "Two months after the study group was formed, ..."?


4. At a social gathering, Emily is sitting in the wrong seat. Someone says 「エミリー、すまないけど、もっと横の方に座って」.

From context, it seems this must be a request, "Excuse me Emily, could you sit further to one side?" But is 座って a type of imperative?


5. The story continues:

そして、エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

a) Does エミリーの座っていた modify 床の間の前の所? I don't understand Japanese punctuation very well, but if this is correct then is it right to separate the two with a comma?

b) Is Y教授を座らせた a causative meaning "(Emily) let Professor Y sit down"?

 

[undrentide]

1. 今週の土曜日にうちに来てください。
Translation given: "Please come to visit me this Saturday."
うちに means "to my house", not "during (Saturday)", right?

Yes, that's correct.
土曜日に = on Saturday
In case of within/during Saturday,
土曜日のうちに

2. 東京の地図はこれですか。
Translation given: "Is this a map of Tokyo?"
When I read this, it seemed "the wrong way round". Why not これは東京の地図ですか? What is the difference?

東京の地図はこれですか。
Literal translation is "the map of Tokyo (you're talking about) is this?"
Alternative expression is
これが東京の地図ですか。
(both are to ask which is the map of Tokyo)

これは東京の地図ですか。
"Is this a map of Tokyo?"
(Asking what is "this".)

3. ゼミが始まって二ヵ月後に、ゼミの学生たちがY教授を招待して飲み会をすることになった。
Does the first part mean "Two months after the study group was formed, ..."?

Yes.

4. At a social gathering, Emily is sitting in the wrong seat. Someone says 「エミリー、すまないけど、もっと横の方に座って」.

From context, it seems this must be a request, "Excuse me Emily, could you sit further to one side?" But is 座って a type of imperative?

Yes.
Polite form is 座ってください.

5. The story continues:
そして、エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

a) Does エミリーの座っていた modify 床の間の前の所? I don't understand Japanese punctuation very well, but if this is correct then is it right to separate the two with a comma?

b) Is Y教授を座らせた a causative meaning "(Emily) let Professor Y sit down"?

a) Yes, your understanding is correct.
Personally I feel that the comma before 床の間 unnecessary.
It makes the sentence unclear and a bit confusing.

b) No, it is someone who asked Emily to move away from where she first sat.
The person made Emily make some space for Professor Y so that he/she can also sit down.

 

[eeky]

No, it is someone who asked Emily to move away from where she first sat.
The person made Emily make some space for Professor Y so that he/she can also sit down.

Thanks @undrentide . I am still unsure about this one point.

When you say "No", do you mean "No, 座らせた not a causative"? Or do you mean it a causative but I have got the subject wrong? In other words, does Y教授を座らせた mean "(someone) let Professor Y sit down", but that "someone" is not Emily herself but the other person who previously asked Emily to move?

Alternatively, if 座らせたis not a causative, then which form of which verb is it?

 

[Toritoribe]

I'm not undrentide-san, but it's a causative and the subject is not Emily but someone who talked to her.

 

[micahcowan]

@eeky,

I believe he's saying it's a causative (if I understand correctly what you mean by causitive), but that it's not "Emily" who "let Professor Y sit there", but the person who asked Emily to move. Though perhaps it could also be read as "Emily's moving seats" is what allowed the Professor to set there.

I'm more interested in the first part, actually (here's the sentence repeated)

そして、エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

I assume there's something implied after the 座っていた, such as のは or から or something with a similar effect... but I'm surprised that here エミリーの座っていた apparently implies that she _changed_ her seat... I'd have expected that it would need to be something like 座り替えた to imply that she "re-sat", otherwise, couldn't it potentially be referring to her first act of sitting (ignoring the fact that this wouldn't make sense in context)?

 

[Toritoribe]

@eeky ,

I believe he's saying it's a causative (if I understand correctly what you mean by causitive), but that it's not "Emily" who "let Professor Y sit there", but the person who asked Emily to move. Though perhaps it could also be read as "Emily's moving seats" is what allowed the Professor to set there.

I'm more interested in the first part, actually (here's the sentence repeated)

そして、エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

I assume there's something implied after the 座っていた, such as のは or から or something with a similar effect... but I'm surprised that here エミリーの座っていた apparently implies that she _changed_ her seat... I'd have expected that it would need to be something like 座り替えた to imply that she "re-sat", otherwise, couldn't it potentially be referring to her first act of sitting (ignoring the fact that this wouldn't make sense in context)?

The past form 座っていた shows もう座っていない. This doesn't mean she "re-sat" without the context. She could be standing.

 

[eeky]

The past form 座っていた shows もう座っていない. This doesn't mean she "re-sat" without the context. She could be standing.

In other words, エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所 means "the place in front of the alcove where Emily had been sitting". Is that right?

 

[Toritoribe]

In other words, エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所 means "the place in front of the alcove where Emily had been sitting". Is that right?

 

[eeky]

I'm not undrentide-san, but it's a causative and the subject is not Emily but someone who talked to her.

I'm curious about how we know the subject is the person who talked to Emily rather than Emily herself. From the context it seems quite reasonable to me that it was Emily who, having moved, allowed the professor to sit down. Why does my interpretation not work?

 

[undrentide]

I'm curious about how we know the subject is the person who talked to Emily rather than Emily herself. From the context it seems quite reasonable to me that it was Emily who, having moved, allowed the professor to sit down. Why does my interpretation not work?

It is because in the sentence エミリー is mentioned as a third person.

そして、エミリーの座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

If the subject of 座らせた is Emily, the above sentence would become

そして、自分の座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Ｙ教授を座らせた。
そして、エミリー自身の座っていた、床の間の前の所に、Ｙ教授を座らせた。

 

[Toritoribe]

I'm curious about how we know the subject is the person who talked to Emily rather than Emily herself. From the context it seems quite reasonable to me that it was Emily who, having moved, allowed the professor to sit down. Why does my interpretation not work?

If the subject is changed, it must be stated in the sentence after そして.

そして、エミリーは（自分の）座っていた床の間の前の所に、Y教授を座らせた。

When the new subject/topic is not appeared, it's natural to judge the same person is still the subject.

 

[eeky]

Thanks everyone!