は and が part 2: subordinate clauses

blippy · 30 Nov 2010

I return with more queries

pertaining to the particles は and が used in subordinate clauses. The third sentence has been used in a previous question but I deemed it adequate enough to use again.

1. わたしはきたときにはいませんでした
When ---- (he/she/they/it) came, I wasn't there

2. わたしがきたときにはいませんでした
When I came, --- (he/she/they/it) were not there

3. わたしがでんわしたときなつみはもういなかった
When I called, Natsumi had already left

First of all, in sentences 1 and 2, is it a case of に+ は which just happen to coincide here, or the conjoined particle には?

Secondly, could someone explain the first two sentences? The third one is more or less clear to me now, but the first two confuse me.

Thirdly, is it possible to rephrase the first sentence using the が, は and もう structure of the third ( わたしは-----がきたときにはもういませんでした ) ? And likewise, rephrase the third sentence using th

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

Toritoribe · 1 Dec 2010

blippy said:
First of all, in sentences 1 and 2, is it a case of に+ は which just happen to coincide here, or the conjoined particle には?

In this particular case, the meaning is basically the same among きたときには, きたときに, きたときは, and きたとき. These particles emphasize とき.

blippy said:
Secondly, could someone explain the first two sentences? The third one is more or less clear to me now, but the first two confuse me.

1. わたしは、（誰か/何かが）きたときには、いませんでした。＝（誰か/何かが）きたときには、わたしはいませんでした。

2. わたしがきたときには、（誰か/何かは）いませんでした。

Does this make sense?;-) As I wrote in another thread, は tends to cover the whole sentence, so わたしは is interpreted as the subject of the main clause or "いませんでした" in #1.

blippy said:
Thirdly, is it possible to rephrase the first sentence using the が, は and もう structure of the third ( わたしは-----がきたときにはもういませんでした ) ? And likewise, rephrase the third sentence using th

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

もう changes the meaning of the sentence. いませんでした just says the person(s)/thing(s) wasn't/weren't there at that time, so it can mean "they didn't come yet" (or could be "they didn't plan to come"). However, もう means they had been there and were gone, i.e., "they had been already gone".

EDIT:
Oh, sorry, I explained about #2. But it's the same regarding もう also in #1.

blippy · 2 Dec 2010

edited: もういっかいトリトリベさんありがとうございました!
It's much clearer now.

Glenn · 2 Dec 2010

Looks like you got bit by the ローマ字 bug: さなりがとう --> さんありがとう、でしょう？

blippy · 3 Dec 2010

Indeed.
And looks like I still need to start reading my messages properly before I post them

TheMinion · 5 Dec 2010

While reading this, I thought of another question:

Is there a difference between
わたしがきたときにはいませんでした
and what I previously thought the right format was,
わたしのきたときにはいませんでした

Toritoribe · 5 Dec 2010

の can be replaced with が in adjectival clauses. わたしのきたときに/には might be barely acceptable but you can't say わたしのきたとき.

TheMinion · 5 Dec 2010

Oh, thanks for the info!

So in what situations would it be preferable to use の?

Toritoribe · 5 Dec 2010

"In adjectival clauses", as I wrote.;-)

×私の来たら
×私の来ても
×私の来たのに
○私の読んだ本（＝私が読んだ本）
○雪の降る夜（＝雪が降る夜）
○料理の上手な人（＝料理が上手な人）

However, when a noun follows right after が, が can't be replaced with の even in adjectival clauses, since it's confusing.

a book I bought at a bookstore
私が本屋で買った本（×私の本屋で買った本）

As you can see in the example above, 私の本屋で買った本 could be misinterpreted as "a book someone bought at my bookstore".

TheMinion · 6 Dec 2010

Ah, ok, that's basically how I thought it was, anyway.
Thanks for the answer!

は and が part 2: subordinate clauses

blippy

perpetual newb..currently

Toritoribe

松葉解禁

blippy

perpetual newb..currently

Glenn

一切皆苦

blippy

perpetual newb..currently

TheMinion

先輩

Toritoribe

松葉解禁

TheMinion

先輩

Toritoribe

松葉解禁

TheMinion

先輩

Similar threads