のに / にはちがいありません

[eeky]

Hi,


1. その火事を消火するのに。

Translation given: "It took a long time to put out the fire."

Is the "took a long time to..." meaning all conveyed by のに? Also, why する and not した?


2. ・・・すばらしい思いつきにはちがいありませんが・・・

Why にはちがいありません? Is this just a more elaborate way of saying にちがいません?

Edited: Oops, I mixed this up... I suppose it is merely the ～ます equivalent of にちがいない, with a は thrown in for good measure?

 

[Toritoribe]

1)
Isn't there any clause preceding it, something like 時間はかかりませんでした?

2)
Yes, your interpretation is correct.

 

[eeky]

1. This is an isolated example sentence (from tatoeba.org, which does contain the odd mistake or mistranslation). There's nothing more than what I quoted.

Shouldn't the supposed preceding clause be 時間はかかりました though? Also, I still wonder why する and not した.

2. By the way, is にちがいません and/or にちがわない correct Japanese (in this sense)? Is there any difference compared to にちがいありません／にちがいない?

 

[Toritoribe]

1)
Yeah, that's right. My bad. It should be affirmative. その火事を消火するのに時間がかかりました is more natural, though. (I presumed that you must be able to understand the sentence easily if 時間がかかりました follows その火事を消火するのに. So I thought this clause might be put preceding it.)

When ～のに refers to the purpose of a verb/an adjective, only the present tense is used for the verb preceding ～のに. Verbs/Adjectives that can be used for this structure are not so many (e.g. かかる, 要る, 必要だ, 大切だ, 便利だ, 不便だ, 役に立つ, いい, 使う, 利用する, 苦労する,,,). These verbs/adjectives take に as the "purpose" marker also for nouns (e.g. アメリカ旅行にお金が要る, 勉強に使う, 子育てに苦労する,,,), so it's considered that that is from "a nominalizer の + に which is originally needed for the verb/adjective". This noun clause doesn't express "did something" or "not to do something" but just expresses the concept of the verb just like the noun form of it. That's the reason only the present form is used in this structure.
e.g.
消火するのに時間がかかりました ＝ 消火に時間がかかりました
アメリカに旅行するのにお金が要った ＝ アメリカ旅行にお金が要った
勉強するのに使った ＝ 勉強に使った
子供を育てるのに苦労した ＝ 子育てに苦労した

Unlike this ～のに for the porpose, ～のに for adversative conjunction can take the past form of a verb/an adjective (e.g. 風邪を引いていたのに海に行った).

2)
～にちがいない means "must be/should be", thus, this is almost the same as the copula ～だ (with must/should). On the other hand, ちがわない means "to be not different", and に is hardly used to indicate the target to be compared. と is usually used for it (e.g. ひらめきは思いつきと違わない ＝ ひらめきと思いつきは同じだ). Thus, the answer is no, both in the meaning and for the use of particle.

 

[eeky]

Thank you.

 

[eeky]

Actually, I have another question about this, if I may. Does the adversative conjunction のに originally derive from particle の + particle に (I assume it probably does)? If so, do native speakers still think of it as being a special use of の + に, or has it acquired a status as a different "word" in its own right?

 

[Toritoribe]

Yeah, the adversative conjunction のに doesn't have a nuance of nominalizer(this の is not a particle but a nominalizer), just like the conditional ～たら doesn't have the meaning of past anymore.

 

[eeky]

Oh, right, I thought nominaliser の was also classed as a particle...

 

[Elizabeth]

1)～にちがいない means "must be/should be", thus, this is almost the same as the copula ～だ (with must/should).

・・・すばらしい思いつきにはちがいありませんが

Is this にはちがいありませんが being used similar to the sense of に決まっている to indicate a strong conviction in the form of "most probably" "surely" "bound to be" etc, as opposed to ＝I am sure/No mistake in guessing "にちがいない" ? I've never thought of it this way before...but if so, can it therefore be replaced with すばらしい思いつきに（は）決まっている（はず、でしょう。。）？:?

 

[Toritoribe]

No. ～にちがいありません and ～に決まっている are different. They are not interchangeable.

 

[Elizabeth]

No. ～にちがいありません and ～に決まっている are different. They are not interchangeable.

OK, maybe this doesn't fit but the textbook example I was thinking of would be ただただ漢字を書くなんて、つまらないに決まっている・ちがいない。or お客様だって安く買いたいにきまっている・ちがいない（だろう）

 

[Toritoribe]

Your examples of 違いない is for the speaker's (strong) presumption. That's not the one used here. そもそも混同が発端ですか。。。