あの人を嫌ってる奴/マグレならまだしも/もったいなさすぎて

UsoToChinmoku

後輩
Joined
31 Jul 2014
Messages
179
Reaction score
2
1) 「誰からもどんな奴からも"100%"を引き出すなんて、たとえ時間をかけたってできるとは限らない
でも及川さんは例えあの人を嫌ってる奴とかすげえクセのある選手とかでさえきっと自在に使いこなす」

Is it my imagination or does the wording sound kind of weird? Sounds like "The guy who hates that guy".
Is 奴 here a pronoun or a 形式名詞? I assume the translation would be "For example, if it's a guy Oikawa hates or guy with an incredible quirk...." But then「あの人が嫌いな奴とか~」 would feel much more natural to me.

2) 「月島だったらウシワカ止められるか!?
...無理デショ、全国トップ3のエースなんて、マグレならまだしも

Is it マグレでここまで辿り着いたやつならまだ勝てるかもしれないが? Or is マグレ referring to his own luck? If I'm lucky I could still win?

3)
新しいカップを用意し、お茶を淹れてくれた。

大輔「ありがとうございます。撫子さんご自身の手で淹れていただけるなんて、感激ですよ」

撫子「うふふ、大袈裟ですわね」

大輔「こういうのはふつう、使用人を呼んで淹れさせるものではないのですか?」

撫子「以前は、そうしていたのですけれど。それだと、なかなか私好みの味に淹れてもらえなくて」

大輔「好みの味?」

さしだされたカップの取っ手に指をかけ、口へ運ぶ。

まずは、なにも添加せずにひとくちすする……。

大輔(ぐ、ぅ……)

じわぁ~とひたすら苦い風味だけが口内に沁みわたり、吹かずに堪えるのがやっとな味わいだった。

大輔(濃い……なんてレベルじゃないな、これは)

庶民にとって紅茶はまだまだ贅沢品で、煎茶や番茶ほど味に慣れ親しんではいるわけではないが……。

それでもこの"味"が明らかにまちがっていることは、容易に理解できた。

けれど。

撫子「いかがです?」

そう問いながら、撫子さんは自分のカップにおかわりを注ぎ、にこやかな表情で美味しそうに飲んでいく。

大輔「少々、自分には濃い……ような。なるほど、これが撫子さんの好みの味なわけですね……奥が深い」

撫子「ええ。少し濃いめでないと、飲んだ気がしませんの、私」

大輔(……少し濃いめ?)

ずいぶん控えめすぎる表現だ。

しかし"濃い"という自覚はあるらしい。

大輔(たしかにこの味は、使用人にはもったいなさすぎてだせないな……)

霧谷ほどのお屋敷なのだから、使ってる茶葉も相当に高級なはず。

それをこうも見事に台無しにするとは……。

……とりあえず俺は、ミルクと砂糖を多量に放りこみ、味を調整した。

撫子「あらあら、いくらなんでもミルクとお砂糖、いれすぎですわよ。せっかくのお紅茶の風味が台無しになってしまいますわ」

大輔「はは、そうですね……でも俺、ミルクも砂糖も大好物ですから、これはこれで美味しいですよ」

……もうすでになにもかも台無しになってるとは、口が裂けてもいえない。

He's saying this taste is "too good" for servants so they're not able to (re)produce it? But then he says "and to spoil such high class tea leaves so splendidly..." So is the 使用人にはもったいなさすぎて sarcastic?
BTW:
What's the difference between "この味は、使用人だせない" and "この味は、使用人にはだせない" Does には create more emphasis/contrast than は here?
And why can we use には with potential form and the meaning doesn't change、but in other cases it does? 使用人はだせる = 使用人にはだせる、but 使用人はだす ≠ 使用人にはだす。 Is it because the potential form is not an action, but an ability/state?
(Should have probably created a separate thread, but it's kind of related to the translation so...)
 
Last edited:
1. I think あの人 may be 及川さん there.
 
Yeah, at first I wanted to re-affirm who is あの人 referring to but then settled on the other player. Since the official provided translation was "But with Oikawa-san, it didn't matter if he disliked the player, or if the player had certain habits"
...Which is probably wrong.

And I guess, changing it to 及川さんは嫌われてる奴とか~ would still be ambiguous? Since it could be interpreted as "A Guy who Oikawa is hated by" or "A Guy who is hated (in general or by the team etc)"?
 
Oikawa is able to bend to his will even guys who hate his guts is the impression I get. After all, it is hardly a feat with remarking on if he is able to manipulate at will those who admire him and are cooperative.
 
That makes sense. But I would say that being able manage/cooperate with someone YOU hate (even if they admire you for some reason) while keeping your emotions in check is also not that easy xD

That being said... Your interpretation is more logical (and likely).
 
2)
I think it's the latter since マグレ is not used as the former meaning.

3)
He is talking about the amount of the tea leaves.

Yes for emphasis. The reason why には/では is used here is because this structure expresses a characteristic of the topic. には/では is used for negative potential since 使用人 is the "lower" example comparing to 主人. にも/でも is used for positive potential in these cases.
e.g.
この味は、使用人には/ではだせない。
この味は、使用人にも/でもだせる。
あの山は、初心者には/では登れない。
あの山は、初心者にも/でも登れる。

See the difference.
e.g.
この味は、主人には/ならだせる。
この味は、主人にも/でもだせない。
あの山は、経験者には/なら登れる。
あの山は、経験者にも/でも登れない。
 
には/では is used for negative potential since 使用人 is the "lower" example comparing to 主人. にも/でも is used for positive potential in these cases.

Wow, never heard of that before. Interesting. So these lower/upper/negative/positive connotations with には/では/にも/でも only exist in potential structures?
And a standalone は/も doesn't have this connotation in these situations? F.E.
この味は、使用人はだせない。
この味は、使用人もだせる。

The reason why には/では is used here is because this structure expresses a characteristic of the topic.

A bit confused regarding this part. Doesn't a standalone は express the characteristic of the topic as well? It also has a emphasis/contrast function.
 
That makes sense. But I would say that being able manage/cooperate with someone YOU hate (even if they admire you for some reason) while keeping your emotions in check is also not that easy xD

That being said... Your interpretation is more logical (and likely).

Also consider:

1. あの人 is going to refer back to someone already mentioned
2. The speaker obviously admires Oikawa's coaching ability. You wouldn't normally expect to hear someone refer to a person they admire as 奴.

And when you trim the sentence down to its bare essentials it becomes quite clear that 奴 can't refer to Oikawa:

[及川さんは] [(あの人を嫌っている) 奴] でさえ [使いこなす]

[及川さんは] [奴] でさえ [使いこなす]

[及川さんは] [奴] を [使いこなす]

since Oikawa's coaching isn't going to involve 使いこなすing himself.
 
So these lower/upper/negative/positive connotations with には/では/にも/でも only exist in potential structures?
That's a structure for comparison, and に indicates the standard(基準). The "characteristic" must be a state (potential form, adjective).

この本は子供には難しい。
この本は大人にも/でも難しい。
この本は子供にも/でも易しい。
この本は大人には易しい。

このおもちゃは子供には危険だ。
このおもちゃは大人にも/でも危険だ。
このおもちゃは子供にも/でも安全だ。
このおもちゃは大人には安全だ。

And a standalone は/も doesn't have this connotation in these situations? F.E.
この味は、使用人はだせない。
この味は、使用人もだせる。

A bit confused regarding this part. Doesn't a standalone は express the characteristic of the topic as well? It also has a emphasis/contrast function.
Those sentences are both valid. It's considered that に(or で) is disappeared behind は/も. には/にも emphasizes the meaning, as I wrote ("too/also" vs. "even", for instance).
 
That's a structure for comparison, and に indicates the standard(基準). The "characteristic" must be a state (potential form, adjective).

That's very useful information. I mean, I've noticed how these structures are used in practice, but I didn't know the theory behind it.

It's considered that に(or で) is disappeared behind は/も

Wasn't aware of the this either. I simply thought that には provides more emphasis than は in these situations. But evidently they both carry out the same function. Since は, in these spots, is just an abbreviation of には?

Also, I noticed you used なら in your previous examples - do all of these have the same nuance:

この味は、主人にはだせる。
この味は、主人ならだせる。
この味は、主人ではだせる。
この味は、主人だとだせる。
?
 
1. あの人 is going to refer back to someone already mentioned

Agreed. I should have payed more attention here, this would have made it a lot easier. My bad.

2. The speaker obviously admires Oikawa's coaching ability. You wouldn't normally expect to hear someone refer to a person they admire as 奴.

Agree as well, but the thing is I never thought that 奴 is referring to Oikawa. My interpretation was more messed up: 「及川さんは、あの人(別の選手)を嫌ってる(というような、嫌いな)奴でさえ使いこなす。」
And I interpreted it as: 「及川さんは、あの人(及川)が嫌ってる奴でさえ使いこなす。」 I realized it doesn't make sense grammatically, but I was forcefully trying to jam it in like a piece jigsaw puzzle that didn't fit in order to adhere to the official translation (which was wrong).
 
Sorry for multi-posting, can't edit anymore... Just noticed that you used では in the negative/lower comparison, but なら in the positive/upper comparison. Is there a rule about this as well?

この味は、使用人には/ではだせない。
あの山は、初心者には/では登れない。

この味は、主人には/ならだせる。
あの山は、経験者には/なら登れる。
 
Wasn't aware of the this either. I simply thought that には provides more emphasis than は in these situations. But evidently they both carry out the same function. Since は, in these spots, is just an abbreviation of には?
この味は、使用人はだせない。 can be considered also as an inversion of 使用人はこの味はだせない。, whose word order is inverted to emphasize この味. In this interpretation, 使用人 is the subject and に is not behind は. In fact, この味は、使用人はだした。 is valid, unlike この味は、使用人にはだした。. には clearly states the function of "standard". That's the cause of the difference in nuance, imo.

Also, I noticed you used なら in your previous examples - do all of these have the same nuance:

この味は、主人にはだせる。
この味は、主人ならだせる。
この味は、主人ではだせる。
この味は、主人だとだせる。
?
The third one この味は、主人ではだせる。 is not valid, since この味は、主人でだせる。 is invalid. でも is treated as a compound word, meaning "even". なら is as well.
 
この味は、使用人はだせない。 can be considered also as an inversion of 使用人はこの味はだせない。, whose word order is inverted to emphasize この味. In this interpretation, 使用人 is the subject and に is not behind は. In fact, この味は、使用人はだした。 is valid, unlike この味は、使用人にはだした。. には clearly states the function of "standard". That's the cause of the difference in nuance, imo.

Gotcha. Yeah, the "この味は、使用人にはだした" is quite obvious since it's not "a state". But it's grammatically valid, right? It's just that the meaning is completely different? に indicates recipient here. F.E. 「この味は、(主人が)使用人にはだしたが、お客にはださなかった。主人はよっぽど使用人を大切にしてるようだ」

The third one この味は、主人ではだせる。 is not valid, since この味は、主人でだせる。 is invalid. でも is treated as a compound word, meaning "even". なら is as well.

Didn't know this. So every spot where で can't be used I can't use では as well?? I always considered では to be a compound phrase indicating contrast, closely resembling だと, and not で+は. The dictionary entry also uses だと to illustrate the usage.
  1. [連語]
02539.gif《断定の助動詞「だ」の連用形+係助詞「は」》判断の前提を表す。…であるとすれば。…だと。「雨―中止になる」「彼―だれも承知しないだろう


By the way I don't know if you noticed, but I couldn't edit the post that you replied to and posted another one regarding なら/では (#12, just above your last post) I wonder if you could help me clear that up.
 
Gotcha. Yeah, the "この味は、使用人にはだした" is quite obvious since it's not "a state". But it's grammatically valid, right? It's just that the meaning is completely different? に indicates recipient here. F.E. 「この味は、(主人が)使用人にはだしたが、お客にはださなかった。主人はよっぽど使用人を大切にしてるようだ」
Yes, だす means "to serve", not "to make/create", in that sentence.

Didn't know this. So every spot where で can't be used I can't use では as well?? I always considered では to be a compound phrase indicating contrast, closely resembling だと, and not で+は. The dictionary entry also uses だと to illustrate the usage.
Both 雨では and 彼では work as a conditional clause, whereas 主人 is associated with だせる in この味は、主人ではだせる。. That's the difference.

By the way I don't know if you noticed, but I couldn't edit the post that you replied to and posted another one regarding なら/では (#12, just above your last post) I wonder if you could help me clear that up.
なら can be used also for negative (sorry if it's confusing).
 
Both 雨では and 彼では work as a conditional clause, whereas 主人 is associated with だせる in この味は、主人ではだせる。. That's the difference.

So, if my understanding is correct, the 雨では/彼では act as standalone clauses, but in この味は、主人ではだせる the は would still need to act as a 格助 to connect 主人 and だせる? And since the 格助で is invalid here so で+は is invalid as well?
Not sure if I got it right, since it's pretty confusing. Not necessarily this particular case, but in general 「では」 is quite confusing.
Could you maybe provide a few examples, where では is invalid/valid as a conditional/contrast?

なら can be used also for negative (sorry if it's confusing).

Nah, It's OK. I don't mind asking questions as long as someone is willing to answer xD I learn a lot by asking these "small" questions.
 
The main clause must be a negative thing after the conditional ~ては. For instance, 雨では中止にならない is valid only when you hope what you are talking about is not held. この味は、主人ではだせてしまう(= 主人では、この味はだせてしまう) is OK since it clearly states the speaker don't want the taste to be made. In the sentence この味は、主人ではだせる, で doesn't work as a case particle and the interpretation as the conditional では is semantically odd, therefore it's invalid.

Here's examples of the case particle.
この味は、急須では出せるが、ティーバッグでは出せない。(で indicates the means.)
この果物は、沖縄では実をつけるが、北海道では実らない。(the location)
この料理は、小麦粉では作れるが、片栗粉では作れない。(the materials)

As for the latter clauses in the examples above, the two interpretations ("で + は" and "the conditional では") are both possible. The case particle seems to have priority in the interpretation, just in my opinion.
 
The main clause must be a negative thing after the conditional ~ては

OK, now that you explained in detail and with examples I understand the usage, but I may have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding では in general...

So this では is the same as ては from ~てはならない/~てはいけない?

But according to goo one is 《断定の助動詞「だ」の連用形+係助詞「は」》 and the other is [連語]《接続助詞「て」+係助詞「は」。上に付く語によっては「では」とも》
Although では's 4th usage points to the ては definition... But #1 and #4 are different usages? Eventhough both are conditionals?
 
So this では is the same as ては from ~てはならない/~てはいけない?
Yes.

But according to goo one is 《断定の助動詞「だ」の連用形+係助詞「は」》 and the other is [連語]《接続助詞「て」+係助詞「は」。上に付く語によっては「では」とも》
Although では's 4th usage points to the ては definition... But #1 and #4 are different usages? Eventhough both are conditionals?
Those are the same. 断定の助動詞「だ」の連用形 is the same as "the -te form of copula", and "連用形 of verbs + 接続助詞「て」" is the same as "the -te form of verbs". The term "-te form" is not used in 国文法/学校文法, therefore the dictionary uses another wording.

This might be needless to say, but all the -te form is from "連用形 + て" and its euphonic change.
e.g.
死にて --> 死んで
脱ぎて --> 脱いで
遊びて --> 遊んで
読みて --> 読んで
取りて --> 取って
 

That's quite eye opening.

Those are the same. 断定の助動詞「だ」の連用形 is the same as "the -te form of copula", and "連用形 of verbs + 接続助詞「て」" is the same as "the -te form of verbs". The term "-te form" is not used in 国文法/学校文法, therefore the dictionary uses another wording.

OK, it makes sense that the wording is different, but for some reason では proclaims to carry out the function of "判断の前提を表す。…であるとすれば" and ては's conditional usage is described as "危惧・不都合などの感情をもたらす条件を仮定して示す。…たら。" Are these usages supposed to be the same as well?
 
Yes, the main clause must be a negative thing also after this では, as I explained using the examples 雨では中止にならない or 主人ではだせてしまう in my previous post.
 
Back
Top Bottom