Learning Japanese through Translation

[Zizka]

Let me explain about what I meant about こと.
「ずばっと さがしてくるのです
そうしたら キミが 犯人でないことを
みとめましょう」
Suppose I were to remove the こと there. At a glance, it doesn't do much for the sentence. I mean, a person who isn't a criminal is a noun phrase by itself, isn't? I mean, I don't see the necessity of putting こと there. See what I mean?

I thought you said you read Tae Kim's guide twice.

I did but I'd be lying if I said I memorized/understood everything. I'll also likely end up repeating the same mistakes more than once too.

As for qualifying a noun, it's the exact same discussion up above.

I thought a progressive would be on its own as the final verb of a sentence. I didn't realize it could have the progressive aspect when preceding the single noun that it qualifies. Does it mean that any verb inflection can precede a noun to qualify it?

「なに？
チケットを もってない人が いるですと？！」
See in 「もってない人」since it's using a verb as part of a noun clause shouldn't we use こと there?

I mean if I were compare:
「犯人でないこと」 and 「もってない人」here, what's the difference? "a person who isn't a criminal" vs "a person who doesn't have a ticket", one requires こと and the other one doesn't?

Regarding と, I had read about that but it wasn't put at the end of a sentence in the examples I saw.

 

[mdchachi]

Suppose I were to remove the こと there. At a glance, it doesn't do much for the sentence. I mean, a person who isn't a criminal is a noun phrase by itself, isn't? I mean, I don't see the necessity of putting こと there. See what I mean?

I see what you're saying. I'd say it's similar to the preposition example I gave you. You can omit the preposition and still be understood but it would sound wrong.
Also that's not a noun phrase because it doesn't end in a noun. It ends in "is not" which is a adjective/verb and therefore can't be the direct object using を. The こと is needed.

I thought a progressive would be on its own as the final verb of a sentence. I didn't realize it could have the progressive aspect when preceding the single noun that it qualifies. Does it mean that any verb inflection can precede a noun to qualify it?

Yes I think so.
すしを食べる人
すしを食べた人
すしを食べている人
すしを食べていた人
すしを食べてくれた人
すしを食べてもらう人
すしを食べられた人
etc.

「なに？
チケットを もってない人が いるですと？！」
See in 「もってない人」since it's using a verb as part of a noun clause shouldn't we use こと there?

I mean if I were compare:
「犯人でないこと」 and 「もってない人」here, what's the difference? "a person who isn't a criminal" vs "a person who doesn't have a ticket", one requires こと and the other one doesn't?

こと (non-physical-thing) can't replace 人. The English translation may turn out the similarly but in Japanese the latter is saying something like "the fact (thing) that you're not a criminal" rather than "you're a person who is not a criminal."

Regarding と, I had read about that but it wasn't put at the end of a sentence in the examples I saw.

The ending verb of 言う is omitted because it's understood.

 

[Zizka]

Ok, I need to take some time to get some things straight before doing more translations.

So, let's take your examples:
すしを食べる人
すしを食べた人
すしを食べている人
すしを食べていた人
すしを食べてくれた人
すしを食べてもらう人
すしを食べられた人
Step 1:
So from my understanding of things:
Clause: a group of words that includes a subject and a verb.
Phrase: A phrase does not contain a subject and verb and, consequently, cannot convey a complete thought.
So in your example:
「すしを食べた人」that'd be a clause. More specifically, it'd be a noun clause. It's a similar sentence to: I've met the man who won the lottery vs a person who eats sushi. It's essentially the same thing.

Step 2:
In the sentence "I've met the man who won the lottery", the main verb would be "met". "The man who won the lottery" is a subordinate clause or a dependent clause. So sometimes a verb part of the main sentence and sometimes it can be part of a clause. When it's part of a clause, the verb is limited to the clause it belongs to.

すしを食べた人
This is an independent clause. It could be on its own or it could be a clause part of a longer sentence. Is that accurate?

Step 3:
「なに？
チケットを もってない人が いるですと？！」
In that sentence, 「もってない人」is a noun clause. It's part of the sentence of full sentence. In this case, the verb 「もって」 is part of the noun clause.
「いる」on the other hand is the main verb and is not part of a clause. It's the main verb of the sentence. いる is the predicate of the sentence.
Let me go even farther than this:
「チケットをもってない人」is one big noun clause where what precedes 「人」is what qualifies it. In other words, "a person who doesn't have a ticket" is the same thing as "a man who won the lottery".

Step 4:
A relative clause is: "Relative clauses are non-essential parts of a sentence. They may add meaning, but if they are removed, the sentence will still function grammatically."
In
「チケットを もってない人が いるですと」
the non-essential part would be:
「チケットを もってない人が いるですと」
Does the mean that the relative clause is:
「チケットを もってない」？
Step 5:
「と」here is a particle which expresses that something is quoted. For example:
「私はは学生ですと」means: "I am a student" with quotation marks.
So in:
「チケットを もってない人が いるですと」
the person is just repeating a quotation of some kind. What that person has heard or something.
Step 6:
Why is 「です」necessary here? Why not just:
「チケットを もってない人が いるです」We already have「いる」as a predicate? Why is
「です」here?
Also, I thought 「です」could only declare what something is by attaching 「です」to a noun or a na-adjective. いる is neither of those.
In GJG, it says: "A state of being can be implied without using だ[です]". It's used to "make the sentence sound more emphatic and forceful in order to make it more... declarative"
So in other words, 「です」 here is sort of 「よ」 at the end of a sentence in the sense that it conveys a declarative mood but could be omitted.
*
So am I right about this?

 

[Zizka]

「もうふが １まい たりなかった
ということは。。。
１人ということですな？」
もうふ：普通名詞：blanket
1「まい」: 枚 counter word for thin, flat objects
「たりなかった」: 足りる inf. past negative, "to be sufficient"
「ということは」: so that means (thank you jisho).
「な」: explanatory particle
「１人」: one person
「という」called, named... but here it means "as many as"/"as much" as because it's after a quantity.
「こと」nominalizer
「です」：be is
So far so good? Now I just need to translate it properly which is what's the most challenging for me at this point in time.
So the blanket is the essentially the subject.
「もうふが １まい たりなかった
ということは。。。」
"So that means one blanket won't be enough."
「１人ということですな？」
"So as much much as one person then." here is to be interpreted as a noun phrase because of the
「こと」。

 

[Zizka]

ならば：in that case
8号室：room number
の：助詞
ファミリー: 外来語 for "family"
は：助詞
ちがいます：違います：polite form of "to not match".
"In that case, the family from room number 8 doesn't match."

 

[Zizka]

さあ：well now
ここ：here
まで：助詞
ヒント: 外来語: hint
を：助詞
あげれば：上げれば, conditional, if "X" happen, "Y" will happen. I don't understand the meaning of 上げる here. It's not to "elevate". Jisho lists 27 meanings for that verb.
じゅうぶん：enough, satisfactory
でしょう：I guess or volitional here

 

[Toritoribe]

Step 1)
Correct.

2)
Accurate.

3)
Correct, but you should treat もってない as a single word, since ない is considered a conjugation suffix here. Needless to say, ない as the negative of ある is the predicative (e.g. お金がない).

4)
Right.

5, 6)
ですと works as a sentence final particle (終助詞) as a set. This is a variation of だって. I believe your dictionary has an entry of this word. と/って is indeed originally from the quotation particle, but ですと/だって loses this function anymore, and no verb is omitted at the end of the sentence.
Your understanding in #6 is correct. In fact, this です never conjugates. The past form is いたですと, not いるでしたと, or the negative is いないですと, not いるではありませんと. Thus, this です is not the copula here.

Before moving to the next sentences, I'm going to add some explanations, since I think this is a good opportunity.

I mean if I were compare:
「犯人でないこと」 and 「もってない人」here, what's the difference? "a person who isn't a criminal" vs "a person who doesn't have a ticket", one requires こと and the other one doesn't?

犯人でないこと is not "a person who isn't a criminal", as already pointed out. It's more likely "(your) being not a criminal". See that both 犯人でないこと and もってない人 end with a noun. That's why these clauses are treated as a noun. On the other hand, 犯人でない ends with the predicative. Now you can see why こと can't be omitted, right?

EDIT:
I've realized that mdchachi-san already explained about this. Sorry for repetition.

Does it mean that any verb inflection can precede a noun to qualify it?

"Inflection" is not appropriate since it also refers to conjugation forms such like the -te form, -masu stem, -nai stem, -ba conditonal, etc. Negative, passive, causative, causative passive, etc, can do it, but the form must be 終止形 "predicative form" of each verb form, i.e., the form used at the end of non-polite sentences. Polite forms can modify a noun in very polite sentences, but it's not so frequently used except in business scenes.

Now you got a very useful key. See one of the reasons why people can recognize the end of each sentence relatively easily.

そうしたらキミが犯人でないことをみとめましょう
でない non-polite
みとめましょう polite

ビーカーがとまった場所のボタンをおして、セットされたくすりをそそいでください
とまった non-polite
された non-polite
そそいでください polite

かいだんをのぼった先にあるトビラの近くにはられている紙を風使いのチカラをつかってはがすのです
のぼった non-polite
ある non-polite
はられている non-polite
はがす non-polite
です polite

空中にふわふわうかぶ街の中、とうぎ場のロビーが見えます
うかぶ non-polite
見えます polite

Of course, this method can't work well in non-polite sentences.
e.g.
あんたの当たらない占いなんかいっぱいの酒代にもなりゃしないよ。

Also, polite forms can modify a noun, as I mentioned above.
e.g.
かいだんをのぼりました先にありますトビラの近くに、紙がはられています。

Hope this post can be useful for your learning Japanese.

 

[Zizka]

ですと works as a sentence final particle (終助詞) as a set.

Well that settles it then. I wasn't aware ですと was to be understood as a whole unit so to speak.

Regarding your explanations:

Copula: In linguistics, a copula (plural: copulas or copulae; abbreviated cop) is a word used to link the subject of a sentence with a predicate (a subject complement), such as the word is in the sentence "The sky is blue."

So in the sentence: The ski is blue, is a copula.

Predicate: the purpose of the predicate is to complete an idea about the subject, such as what it does or what it is like. [...] A predicate is seen as a property that a subject has or is characterized by. A predicate is therefore an expression that can be true of something.

So in the sentence: The ski is blue, is a predicate too.

犯人でないこと is not "a person who isn't a criminal", as already pointed out. It's more likely "(your) being not a criminal". See that both 犯人でないこと and もってない人 end with a noun. That's why these clauses are treated as a noun. On the other hand, 犯人でない ends with the predicative. Now you can see why こと can't be omitted, right?

I understand こと can't be omitted because the clause is followed by を which can only be used with noun-like entities.

On the other hand, 犯人でない ends with the predicative.

I don't understand that. I realize that's probably the right terminology when it comes to linguistics but it's so packed with words I don't understand that it becomes very dense to analyze and understand and that's after looking it up on google. Just a copy/paste of link with a simple explanation would work if you know of one.
I found this one:

1. (grammar) An element of the predicate of a sentence which supplements the subject or object by means of the verb. Predicatives may be nominal or adjectival.

How does it relate to: 犯人でない for instance?
If it's too hard to explain, don't worry, I'll figure it out eventually through other means.

but the form must be 終止形 "predicative form" of each verb form, i.e., the form used at the end of non-polite sentences.

So by "predicative" do you mean that 犯人でない is the predicative because it's the non-polite form?

そうしたらキミが犯人でないことをみとめましょう
でない non-polite
みとめましょう polite

What you're saying by important key is that if I spot a non-polite (non-predicative?) verb in a clause inside a sentence, it'll allow me to determine that's it's likely not the main verb and therefore part of a clause which qualifies something?

ビーカーがとまった場所のボタンをおして、セットされたくすりをそそいでください
とまった non-polite
された non-polite
そそいでください polite

Same thing here. The only polite part here is at the end which ends up being the main verb. The other too serve as qualifiers for other elements in the sentence, right?

Of course, this method can't work well in non-polite sentences.

Yes of course but at least it helps with polite sentences.

Yes, it helps! You often use words I'm not familiar with but I eventually get it!

 

[mdchachi]

More specifically, it'd be a noun clause. It's a similar sentence to: I've met the man who won the lottery vs a person who eats sushi. It's essentially the same thing.

Yes.

Clause: a group of words that includes a subject and a verb.

Not sure if you would call it a "subject" but basically yes.

So sometimes a verb part of the main sentence and sometimes it can be part of a clause. When it's part of a clause, the verb is limited to the clause it belongs to.

すしを食べた人
This is an independent clause. It could be on its own or it could be a clause part of a longer sentence. Is that accurate?

Yes.

In
「チケットを もってない人が いるですと」
the non-essential part would be:
「チケットを もってない人が いるですと」
Does the mean that the relative clause is:
「チケットを もってない」？

Yes.

「たりなかった」: 足りる inf. past negative, "to be sufficient"

It's negative as you said therefore it means insufficient.

「もうふが １まい たりなかった
ということは。。。」
"So that means one blanket won't be enough."

It was past tense. I can see why you'd parse it this way but I would read it as blankets were insufficient by one not that one blanket was insufficient.
I think for it to mean what you said you'd have to say もうふの１まいがたりなかった.

あげれば：上げれば, conditional, if "X" happen, "Y" will happen. I don't understand the meaning of 上げる here. It's not to "elevate". Jisho lists 27 meanings for that verb.

It's the simple/typical meaning of "give."

 

[Zizka]

「もうふが １まい たりなかった
ということは。。。」
"So that means one blanket wasn't enough"

It's the simple/typical meaning of "give."

Regarding 上げる, you mention that "give" is one such typical definition. Are there others? That'd help me figure out that verb faster if I were to hesitate between a few as opposed to 30 of them. Of course, they're all valid. I'd be interested in the most common ones.

As for the rest, I'll wait to see if there's more feedback about the other translations so there's isn't a backlog with tons of mistakes which require explanation and make the whole endeavor harder to manage.

 

[Toritoribe]

Well that settles it then. I wasn't aware ですと was to be understood as a whole unit so to speak.

Here's the definition of だって in a J-J dictionary.

だっての意味
［終助］《係助詞「だって」の文末用法から》引用句に付く。相手の言葉に対して、非難・驚きの気持ちを込めて強調する意を表す。「欲しいくせに、いらないだってさ」「なぜ休んだかだって。病気だよ」
だって［接助係助終助］の意味 - goo国語辞書

Thus, the meaning is close to "Do you mean~?/Are you saying~?" with complaint or surprise, not "a declarative mood".


In Japanese grammar, "copula" refers to だ (and its polite form です) in noun sentences, i.e., the sentence construction "Noun(or noun phrase/clause) A は/が Noun B だ".
e.g.
君が犯人だ。
You are the criminal.

彼が買った本は推理小説だった。
The book he bought was a mystery novel.

The predicative is used as the translation of 術部, i.e., verbs, adjectives and copula. Unlike in English, adjectives can be the predicative just by itself without copula in Japanese.
e.g.
空は青い。
The sky is blue.
(青い is the predicative here.)

Note that です in the polite form of i-adjectives is not the copula. As you can see below, this です doesn't conjugate as same as です in ですと. It's a suffix to give a polite nuance to the sentence.
e.g.
空は青くないです。
The sky is not blue.

空は青かったです。
The sky was blue.

空は青くなかったです。
The sky was not blue.


Confusingly, です in the polite form of na-adjectives performs like copula. This です and copula です actually have the same etymology, but the forms listed below usually treated as conjugation forms of na-adjectives, not copula.
e.g.
この部屋は静かです。
This room is quiet.

この部屋は静かではありません。
This room is not quiet.

この部屋は静かでした。
This room was quiet.

How does it relate to: 犯人でない for instance?

So by "predicative" do you mean that 犯人でない is the predicative because it's the non-polite form?

終止形 "predicative form" and 術部 "predicative" are different. The former is a conjugation form of verbs/adjectives/copula, whereas the latter is verbs/adjectives/copula that are used in a clause/sentence.
I mentioned "non-polite sentences" because polite forms also can be used at the end of sentences (in polite sentences, of course).
e.g.
ボタンをおして、セットされたくすりをそそぐ
おして is the predicative(術部) in the first clause, but おして can't modify nouns since this is the -te form, not the predicative form(終止形). On the other hand, そそぐ is the predicative form(終止形), so そそぐくすり is valid.

「もうふが １まい たりなかった
ということは。。。」
"So that means one blanket wasn't enough"

"That" in "so that means" refers to もうふが １まい たりなかった, thus it's "もうふが １まい たりなかった, so that means...". Your translation is for the opposite order "ということは、もうふが １まい たりなかった."
Also, "one blanket wasn't enough" is for もうふが １まいでは たりなかった. もうふが １まい たりなかった means "one more blanket was needed."

We need more detailed context to interpret the first sentence; もうふが １まい たりなかった ということは。。。１人ということですな？, especially the last part １人ということですな.

 

[Zizka]

@Toritoribe :
I wouldn't really be able to relate to the J-J definition considering my level unfortunately.

Thus, the meaning is close to "Do you mean~?/Are you saying~?" with complaint or surprise, not "a declarative mood".

That'll work nicely though.

In Japanese grammar, "copula" refers to だ

So both 「だ/です」is a copula in Japanese.

空は青い。

「です」in Japanese is therefore optional and plays the same role as an sentence-ending particle such as 「よ」or 「な」.

Note that です in the polite form of i-adjectives is not the copula. As you can see below, this です doesn't conjugate as same as です in ですと. It's a suffix to give a polite nuance to the sentence.

Sort of like the ーます suffix for verbs then.

Confusingly, です in the polite form of na-adjectives performs like copula.

So depending on the type of adjective with which it's used, です changes function.

終止形 "predicative form" and 術部 "predicative" are different. The former is a conjugation form of verbs/adjectives/copula, whereas the latter is verbs/adjectives/copula that are used in a clause/sentence.

I don't understand that by a long shot.

おして is the predicative(術部) in the first clause, but おして can't modify nouns since this is the -te form, not the predicative form(終止形).

This I find in contradiction with this:
すしを食べている人
すしを食べていた人
すしを食べてくれた人
すしを食べてもらう人
All of them are ーて forms which modify the noun 人.

There's more but I'll start with that so you guys don't end up drowned in questions.

 

[Zizka]

Actually, here's another one because it contains things I'm not familiar with yet. I'll just leave the core elements for now and translate it later:

「なにも しらないようだから
おしえてやるが…」
この ゴロツキタウンの地下にはな。。。
「なにも」: nothing
「しらない」: negative of 「しる」.
「よう」: More on this later...
「だから」: therefore
「おしえて」：ーて form of 教える, "to teach"/"to instruct".
「やる」: to do, to undertake, to perform
「が」: 助詞
「この」：this
「ゴロツキタウン」Proper noun of a place (town)
「の」: 助詞
「地下」: underground
「には」: 「助詞」compound of 「に」+「は」。

 

[Toritoribe]

So both 「だ/です」is a copula in Japanese.

Yes.

「です」in Japanese is therefore optional and plays the same role as an sentence-ending particle such as 「よ」or 「な」.

It's only for です used with i-adjectives, not the copula or the one with na-adjectives.

Sort of like the ーます suffix for verbs then.

Not really. ます conjugates, thus, it has grammatical function such like tense or negative/affirmative. です used with i-adjectives doesn't have this function.

present: 食べます
negative: 食べません
past: 食べました
past negative: 食べませんでした

present:高いです
negative:高くないです
past:高かったです
past negative: 高くなかったです

So depending on the type of adjective with which it's used, です changes function.

Right.

This I find in contradiction with this:
すしを食べている人
すしを食べていた人
すしを食べてくれた人
すしを食べてもらう人
All of them are ーて forms which modify the noun 人.

食べている is "食べて + いる". いる works as an auxiliary verb, and いる is 終止形 of it. The same goes to くれる/もらう. Notice that all those forms can be the main predicative of non-polite sentence.

人がすしを食べている
人がすしを食べていた
人がすしを食べてくれた
人がすしを食べてもらう

On the other hand, the -te form can't modify nouns directly, thus, すしを食べて人 is ungrammatical. (すしを食べて can be used at the end of a sentence as a polite order, but it's not 終止形.) Similarly, すしを食べ人(-masu stem/-nai stem), すしを食べてくれて人(-te form) or すしを食べてもらわ人(-nai stem) are all invalid.
すしを食べ can't modify nouns, but can be the predicative in a clause.
e.g.
すしを食べ、お茶を飲んだ
I ate sushi, and drank green tea.

 

[Zizka]

While I still don't understand 終止形, I'll wing it for now. It'll likely dawn on me eventually. There's very little information about this on the internet and it's therefore difficult to have sufficient explanation to understand it.
This reddit post is about the best explanation I could find about it:

終止形 is the form that ends a sentence.

And yet this doesn't apply to how you present it:

食べている is "食べて + いる". いる works as an auxiliary verb, and いる is 終止形 of it.

いる doesn't end a sentence here, it's just part of a nominal clause that ends with 人.

On the other hand, the -te form can't modify nouns directly, thus, すしを食べて人 is ungrammatical.

I understand that though.

not really. ます conjugates, thus, it has grammatical function such like tense or negative/affirmative.

You're right. an important distinction.
*
Back to my last translation, more specifically about the 「よう」 which expresses an appearance or manner.
So in 「なにも しらないようだから」expresses "it looks like". So basically:
Since it looks like there's nothing you don't know...
Note that I'm comparing my translation to this one to make sure I'm right:
「ここは、 誰もないようだ」
*
In my next message, I'll explore:
「おしえてやるが…」

 

[Zizka]

Alright, I read Tae Kim's section about －ている/－てある again to refresh my memory. I also read
「やる」to mean 「あげる」to help me with:
「おしえてやるが…」
「やる」normally means "to do" as in:
「殺してやる！」
I'll kill you!
(sorry for the offensive tone, it's the only one I could find).
It can also mean to give though, as in:
犬に餌をやった？
Did you give the dog food?
If I compare 「殺してやる！」and 「犬に餌をやった？」, the first thing I notice is that the first sentence is more similar to 「おしえてやるが…」than it is to the second one.

My first instinct with 「おしえてやるが…」is that 「やる」has the function of "to do" . So "to give instructions" if you will.
*「なにも しらないようだから
おしえてやるが…」
この ゴロツキタウンの地下にはな。。。
"Since it looks like there's nothing you don't know you could given instructions although...
The (proper noun) town's underground..."
(Note that I think that the function of 「が」is "although/but" here.) There's the connotation here that the underground is where "it's at" because of the には there.

Question:
「殺してやる！」
Why is the やる necessary there? Let me explain what I mean (there's a good chance you can refer to my own explanations to say if I'm right or wrong or quote something you've already said).

a) 殺す is a verb. If やる means to "to do", why is it necessary? 殺す is a verb, the "doing" is implied.

For eample, you wouldn't say: 食べてやる if you want to mean to eat. This would imply that every single verb in Japanese requires やる to indicate that it's being done. So that's not it.

Interestingly, I'm not the only one confused about this. I する is used in combination with nouns to make verbs. From what I read in that thread, you can't use やる with nouns to do the same thing.

According to the same thread, やる can also be used to send someone to some place as in:
「息子を戦場へやる」

Again, in the same thread, やる is used to feed animals or to give to an inanimate object. This isn't the case in my sentence either because it's not used in conjunction with a noun but rather with a verb.
This blog post by Tae Kim is also informative about this:
"「やる」 means "to do" only as a physical action. "
Even with all this, I don't understand why やる is needed here: 「殺してやる！」

b) The ーて form is used for various things. A hammer can be used to hit nails or to remove them, the ーて form is the same, it can be used to achieve various distinct things. In other words, it's important to determine what the ーて form is used for in written text as a wrong interpretation of its assigned purpose can lead to misunderstanding the sentence.

c) One function of the ーて form is to express numerous actions:
食堂に行って、昼ご飯を食べて、昼寝をする。
(Action [link] action [link] action).
It's clearly not the case here either.

d) The enduring state requires ーて+いる/－て+ある. Although it looks similar, おしえてやるが… is not the same. It's not using 「いる」or 「ある」.

e) Then there's what comes across as the imperative with the ーて form as in:
見て！聞いて!
Look! Listen!
Tae Kim on the other hand, describes this as making requests as opposed to being imperatives:
漢字で書いてください。
So basically the ーて form + ください for requests and just the ーて form for imperatives?

From my point of view, this means 3 different functions so far:
1-listing various active verbs
2-enduring state similar to the progressives in English
3-the imperative
4-requests (although 3 and 4 are very similar and could almost be merged as one entity)
5-Resulting states for shunkan dōshi (see f)


For some reason, おしえてやるが doesn't seem to fit any of these three functions listed so far. I'm almost certain it's a ーて+やる situation here with its very specific purpose.

f) Then there's also what Toritoribe said at the very first page:
"It's the present state resulting from the past action since 覚える is a punctual verb."
regarding to: 「覚えていますか？」which is essentially the polite form of: 覚えている.

According to Tae Kim, the "resultant state" Toritoribe is talking about here is expressed with ーて+ある except for motion verbs which can be expressed with ーて+いる for "resulting states". This is what Toritoribe refers to in this post as shunkan dōshi (I believe).

Regardless, おしえてやる isn't used with either いる or ある here so that's not that either.
*
So basically is おしえてやるが = instruct+to do? In that case, why the ーて form? In which one of the following does it fit (if any):
1-listing various active verbs
2-enduring state similar to the progressives in English
3-the imperative
4-requests (although 3 and 4 are very similar and could almost be merged as one entity)
5-Resulting states for shunkan dōshi (see f)

 

[joadbres]

So in the sentence: The ski is blue, is a predicate too.

Actually, the predicate is the entire part of the sentence which says something about the subject, so "is blue" would be the predicate.*

*using the definition of predicate that you gave in your post; there is also a newer, different way of thinking about the predicate, according to Wikipedia.

The predicative is used as the translation of 術部, i.e., verbs, adjectives and copula. Unlike in English, adjectives can be the predicative just by itself without copula in Japanese.

I think the word you are wanting to use here is 'predicate', which is the noun form. 'Predicative' is the adjective form.
Also, in Japanese, I believe that the term is 述部, not 術部.

 

[Zizka]

Alright, I think I understand the difference.
Continuing translations then. Not sure if my previous ones were correct but practice makes perfect:

「ゆうふくなものたちが すむ街
駅の近くにいる きん色のものに
せいいを 見ている オタシが 見えます。」
Since I don't understand all the pieces, I'll just say what I understand:
「ゆうふくなものたちが」:Some things which are not well off? Some poor things maybe? It's weird why 「もの」would be used here. Things are not poor, people are.
「すむ街」: no clue.
「駅の近くにいる」: near the train station, something exists (probably the ''poor things'')
「きん色のもの」：A gold colored thing
「せいい」Don't understand this here.
「見えている」looking/seeing
「オタシ」: don't know
*
ゆうふくない: 裕福くない：wealthy, well-off, negative inflection.
もの：thing
たち：plural
が：助詞
すむ：to live
街：town
駅：train station
の：助詞
近く：adverbial noun (?), would've though that's an adjective. Means: near.
に：助詞
いる：to exist, animate
きん：gold
色：color
の：助詞
もの：thing
に：助詞
せいい：sincerity
を：助詞
見ている：見る, ーて form+いる, progressive.
オタシ: don't know, thinking the name of a person.
が：助詞
見えます：polite, 見える, ''to be seen''.

 

[Toritoribe]

いる doesn't end a sentence here, it's just part of a nominal clause that ends with 人.

Yes, in the examples mdchachi-san made. In the same manner, I made those example sentences in my previous post. If you prefer really used examples, here's the ones from a corpus.

…水辺の植物や昆虫を食べている。腹甲には、…
…また黙々とキャベツを食べている。虫の居所が悪いユウジに…
…カルフォルニア米を食べている。以前、…
…先輩の歌手がカツ丼を食べている。その横で…
…全生産量の６０％を食べている。残りは関東が…
…茄子を食べている。新しく伸びた葉に…

You can find countless examples in google search results also for other forms, of course.

I used the term 終止形 since I thought "the form used at the end of non-polite sentences(more precisely, including past, negative, past negative, etc.) " would be easier to understand for you. Grammatically, 連体形 "adnominal/attributive form" is the correct terminology for the one used in attributive/relative clause to modify nouns. However, 終止形 and 連体形 are completely the same in modern Japanese, so I chose 終止形.

Incidentally, these two forms are different with each other in classical Japanese, therefore these forms are classified into the different categories. The grammar taught in Japanese school I mentioned previously (学校文法 literally "school grammar") is useful to learn classical Japanese (or rather, this grammar was made to analyze ancient/classical Japanese, which was hard to understand even in Edo period ), but it's inconvenient for non-native learners who usually only learn modern Japanese, since, for instance, the conjugation table doesn't contain the -te form. In fact, most Japanese people have never heard the term "-te form(テ形)". It's taught as "a conjugation form 連用形 + the particle て" in school grammar. This is exactly why you hardly find the explanations about 終止形 (or 連体形) in English.
Here's the article about 終止形 in Japanese Wikipedia.

終止形 (文法) - Wikipedia

You can see the examples (かく, うける, おきる,,,) in the column 語形 in the right category 口語 (= modern Japanese).
And here's the one about 連体形.

連体形 - Wikipedia

See 語形 (かく, うける, おきる,,,) are the same as 終止形 (well, except 形容動詞 "na-adjective"), but these two forms are not always the same in the left category 文語 (= classical Japanese).

So in 「なにも しらないようだから」expresses "it looks like". So basically:
Since it looks like there's nothing you don't know...

You are misunderstanding the meaning of なにもしらない. Try again.

As for your questions about やる, you seem to be confusing a verb やる and an auxiliary verb やる, i.e., the one attached to the -te form of verbs directly, often written as ～てやる. やった in 犬に餌をやった is a verb "to give (the past "gave" here, of course)", whereas やる in 殺してやる or おしえてやる is an auxiliary verb, adding a nuance of "give a favor of doing" to the verb preceding it. Think about "have" in English. This is a verb, meaning "to own" etc, and it's also an auxiliary verb in the perfect tense "to have + past participle". ～てやる is close to it.
The nuance of ～てやる is from やる as "to give", thus, ～てやる has basically nothing to do with やる as "to do".
I believe some of your questions doesn't make sense already. Ask again about things you still don't understand.

I think the word you are wanting to use here is 'predicate', which is the noun form. 'Predicative' is the adjective form.

Ah, yes, thanks for your correction. I seem to be confusing those words from the word "adjective", maybe.:emoji_sweat_smile:

Also, in Japanese, I believe that the term is 述部, not 術部.

Ooops! My bad. Yes, it's 述部, of course.

 

[joadbres]

「ゆうふくなものたちが すむ街
駅の近くにいる きん色のものに
せいいを 見ている オタシが 見えます。」

In this text, you overlooked one hiragana character, and misidentified one katakana character.

 

[joadbres]

I seem to be confusing those words from the word "adjective", maybe.

Ironically, the word 'adjective', while a noun, has the form of an adjective. I had never noticed that before.

Apparently the word originally was an adjective, with a different meaning.

And in modern usage, the word 'adjectival' is used when needing to use 'adjective' as an adjective.

 

[bentenmusume]

joadbresさん has already pointed out some misidentified kana that are getting in the way of your understanding here, but let me go ahead and point out some other clear errors.

I'm afraid to say that it seems you're struggling to process many of the concepts we've already been explaining. I don't say this to attack or criticize you, but this is again why we've been encouraging you to try to study in a more structured fashion. With your current method, it seems like you're able to understand certain concepts within in a particular sentence, but once you're presented with the slightest variation, you not only fail to understand it, but sometimes fail to even recognize it as the same pattern you've already seen.

Anyhow, enough editorializing...

ゆうふくない: 裕福くない：wealthy, well-off, negative inflection.

Where in the world did you see 裕福くない? This is completely incorrect. 裕福 is what's called a な adjective or "adjectival noun". It connects to nouns with な, so 裕福なX means, simply, "(a) wealthy X". The negative form would be 裕福じゃない. い-adjectives and な-adjectives are a very fundamental concept in Japanese grammar, so you should probably look this up and make sure you grasp it completely before moving on to more advanced grammatical structures.

It's weird why 「もの」would be used here. Things are not poor, people are.

もの can also mean "person." It's typically written in kanji as 者, but in this case it's in katakana, again only really for stylistic purposes. (Not to editorialize again, but this is another reason why games with nonstandard notation aren't always best for studying.)

「すむ街」: no clue.

「駅の近くにいる」: near the train station, something exists (probably the ''poor things'')

I'm afraid that this and the above example show that you don't really understand the concept of relative clauses that we've been explaining to you. (This doesn't really surprise me, as it's more of an advanced concept that in a structured Japanese class wouldn't be covered until the students have thoroughly mastered more basic concepts like particles, adjectives, verb conjugation, etc. Still, I'll do my best to explain in the hopes that seeing it in multiple variations will help it "stick" for you.)

This is the same pattern as 階段を登った先, etc.
The relative clause modifies the noun that follows it.
In 駅の近くにいるX, X is being modified/described by 駅の近くにいる
Hence, "the X near the station".
Japanese word order might be free, but if you understand the language, it is very, very clear what is modifying what in a given sentence.

Likewise, in Xが住む街, 街 is being described/modified by Xが住む.
Do these explanations help your understanding at all?

I think I'll stop here for now, as you already have a lot to digest.

 

[mdchachi]

「殺してやる！」
Why is the やる necessary there? Let me explain what I mean (there's a good chance you can refer to my own explanations to say if I'm right or wrong or quote something you've already said).

a) 殺す is a verb. If やる means to "to do", why is it necessary? 殺す is a verb, the "doing" is implied.

For eample, you wouldn't say: 食べてやる if you want to mean to eat. This would imply that every single verb in Japanese requires やる to indicate that it's being done. So that's not it.

Interestingly, I'm not the only one confused about this. I する is used in combination with nouns to make verbs. From what I read in that thread, you can't use やる with nouns to do the same thing.

According to the same thread, やる can also be used to send someone to some place as in:
「息子を戦場へやる」

Again, in the same thread, やる is used to feed animals or to give to an inanimate object. This isn't the case in my sentence either because it's not used in conjunction with a noun but rather with a verb.
This blog post by Tae Kim is also informative about this:
"「やる」 means "to do" only as a physical action. "
Even with all this, I don't understand why やる is needed here: 「殺してやる！」

Main thing you need to do is read up on your giving/receiving verbs and how all that works. There are many differences from English.
私は食べてあげる = I'll give you the eating i.e. I'll eat (it) for you.
食べてやる could also mean this but it's not something anyone would say. As you say やる can also mean do so this could also be translated as "eat and do."
Anyway the 殺してやる example is giving down to somebody in lower station. So it's a ruder way to say I'll kill you than simple 殺す. I guess in English we might translate it to something like "I'll kill you like a dog."
教えてやる is also the give meaning of やる. It makes it clear the station of the giver and the receiver.
By the way I almost never see やる (give) used in real life. Even when we talk about feeding our dog, we say ごはんをあげた.

 

[Zizka]

I'll be sticking to simple questions for now and won't do more translations until I have a sound understanding of explanations so far otherwise it'll be too much to understand at once. I'll progressively reply to each message so I'm not ignoring anything here .

So a single question this time:

教えてやる is also the give meaning of やる. It makes it clear the station of the giver and the receiver.

I can understand how'd give food to an animal using やる. Here, however, it's 教える we're talking about, more specifically, the ーて form of おしえる.

As for your questions about やる, you seem to be confusing a verb やる and an auxiliary verb やる, i.e., the one attached to the -te form of verbs directly, often written as ～てやる.

So in:
「おしえてやるが」やる is an auxiliary.
「犬に餌をやった？」やる is a verb やる.
If I were to use this form:
Q1:「何を読んでいる」would I be right in calling いる an auxiliary here?

Q2: Could the 「ーて やる」 ever mean to do or does it always mean to give when it's in that form?

Q3: A few days ago when I started the thread, we talked about gerunds.

Also, the -masu stem/i-form can work as a noun like "gerund" in English.

In this sentence, we're not using the stem form as I have trouble picturing how you can give 教えて. It'd make sense if it were: "To give teachings (gerund)" but the way I see it you can only give nouns (abstract or not) to someone or something.

 

[Majestic]

Q1: I don't think it is an auxiliary verb - its just the "te-iru" form of the verb.
Q2: I think Toritoribe-san already answered this above. In addition, you asked a couple of times why -やる was necessary. In fact, it isn't necessary. The writer could have just said おしえる or ころす, to use your other example, but the writer wishes to add the nuance of condescension, which is why you see おしえてやる or ころしてやる. In any event, it is a somewhat advanced concept. It is not something that most beginners encounter.
Q3: I don't think there is a question in here, but I think you are looking for validation of your understanding. Mdachi-san explained it, but I'll take another crack at it: Japanese is a language where status of the speaker and listener influences the kind of language used. We do not have this concept in English, and so this is one case (among many) where you will have no English reference to guide you. Japanese employs auxiliary verbs as a way of indicating status, or to provide nuance regarding attitude or position of the speaker and listener. Trying to parse this auxiliary verb into a one-for-one translation into English is futile, because the concept doesn't occur in English. Maybe the easiest way to say this is: in Japanese you can indeed "give teachings", and if you learn this concept it will carry you a long way in your Japanese studies.
おしえてあげる = transferring knowledge from a position of humility. In English, it is just "teach", because we don't have an elegant way of indicating the status of the two speakers.
おしえてやる = transferring knowledge from a position of relatively high status to someone of relatively lower status. Again, in English this simply translates into "teach" because this explicit concept of status isn't hard-coded into the English language.
Incidentally, as Toritoribe-san said, in the case of giving a dog food, where やる is simply the verb "to give" and not an auxiliary to anything, you could just as easily use the polite (humble) form of あげる.
犬に餌をあげた。
This is completely valid, and common. やる explicitly defines the positions of the person doing the action, and the person/animal receiving the action. Like Mdachi-san said, we too do not use the やる form in our house when talking about feeding the dog. I think this is because there is no need or desire to define the position of the family dog, and あげる is more polite-sounding, and the essence of humility in caring for pets or other living things is nicely reflected in this polite form. (I should say that using やる towards your dog doesn't necessarily reflect rudeness...I think its just a holdover from times when pets were not considered to be the close family companions they are considered to be nowadays). I know the dog-feeding situation is often used in textbooks as a way of teaching the verb やる, but in real life it is not the only option to use when feeding animals.