This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

〜ってのと……〜ってのだと

zuotengdazuo

Sempai
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
830
Reaction score
19
「‥…ま、現場としちゃそうなんだけどさ。攻撃許可を出したけど一撃で仕留めきれなくて精霊が暴れ出しましたー、ってのと、精霊が勝手に暴れたけど、現界してたなんて知りませんでしたー、ってのだと、責任問題になったときに随分意味合いが違ってくるのよ」

Hi. Can we omit the って and the two "、" (which bracket the underlined part) for the two underlined parts? And what is the function of だと in the second underlined part?

Thank you.
 
zuotengdazuo said:
Can we omit the って and the two "、" (which bracket the underlined part) for the two underlined parts?
Click to expand...
No for って. って is a colloquial form of という, and って/という can't be omitted there since the preceding clauses are both quotation. っての/というの can be omitted, though.
e.g.
〇「明日来ます」というのと「明日来る」というのでは、ていねいさが違う。
×「明日来ます」のと「明日来る」のでは、ていねいさが違う。
〇「明日来ます」と「明日来る」（と）では、ていねいさが違う。
cf.
食べるのと飲むの（と）では、かかる費用が違う。
(食べる and 飲む are not quotation here.)


As for 読点, the meaning is not changed whether it's used or not, as bentenmusume-san explained previously in your another thread, but if 読点 are not there, it's a bit confusing in your example.

zuotengdazuo said:
what is the function of だと in the second underlined part?
Click to expand...
AとBだと is a structure to compare two things. You can also use AとB（と）では.
e.g.
田中さんと山田さんだと、田中さんのほうが背が高い。
田中さんと山田さん（と）では、田中さんのほうが背が高い。
 
人の住んでいない開発地で、というのが唯一の救い、だがーー十香の一撃は、そんな楽観を容易く打ち砕いた。

Hi. I have read this sentence. I think the underlined というの is if the same usage as the っての in the op because the red part is a quotation. Am I on the right track?
 
Toritoribe said:
Yes, you got it right.
Click to expand...
Hi. Having reconsidering the second example (人の住んでいない開発地で、というのが唯一の救い、だがーー十香の一撃は、そんな楽観を容易く打ち砕いた。), I don't quite think the というの is the same usage as the op. Because if it was, then it the というの could be omitted, but the sentence would be weird without というの and the red part is not a clause. I tend to think this sentence is the same as 人の住んでいない開発地というのが唯一の救い、だがーー十香の一撃は、そんな楽観を容易く打ち砕いた。, so it is more like this example:
「シドー！クッキィというのを作ったぞ！」

の=もの?

「シドー！クッキィというのを作ったぞ！」 Hi. Can I think this の stands for もの or 食べもの? Thank you.
jref.com

What do you think now?
 
You need to realize that 人の住んでいない開発地で is not a complete clause. The last half of the clause is omitted since it's obvious from the context, as always. The complete one would be something like 人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まった、というのが唯一の救い .

という can be omitted for the complete clause; 人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まったのが唯一の救い. Notice that の is necessary here because, unlike the ones in your initial post, this clause is not a direct quotation but the contents of the thoughts, so it's closer to 食べるのと飲むの（と）では、かかる費用が違う .
cf.
「人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まりました！」が救いの声のように聞こえた。
 
Thank you for the response. So generally, how can we tell if the part preceding というの is a quotation or the contents of the thoughts?
 
If you mean direct quotation, the form used there is exactly the same as the one it's said or written. I don't think direct quotations are commonly used, but you need to judge it from the context, after all.
 
Thank you.
Toritoribe said:
If you mean direct quotation,
Click to expand...
So are the two examples in this thread direct quotations? Or they are indirect quotations? But according to the context, the parts preceding というの are not quoting what someone else said or wrote.
 
Those are direct quotations since it's written in the writing style used in the report, whether it's a real report or fictional one. Think about the difference between direct and indirect speech in English. It's like that.
 
Thank you again.
But I find that, without quotation marks 「」, it is difficult to tell whether a clause is a direct quotation or contents of one's thoughts. Thus it is difficult to determine if a というの／っての is needed following the clause.

For example, 人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まりました！. This clause can be a direct quotation or contents of one's thoughts without quotation marks 「」. And we cannot tell that from the context.
So if we intend the clause to be a direct quotation, it seems that we have to use 読点 and というの／っての to make it clear. Otherwise, it seems 「」are necessary.
For example, we can't say 人の住んでいない開発地でが唯一の救い、だがーー十香の一撃は、そんな楽観を容易く打ち砕いた。, while 「人の住んでいない開発地で」が唯一の救い、だがーー十香の一撃は、そんな楽観を容易く打ち砕いた。seems to work.

If I misunderstand you, please let me know.
 
zuotengdazuo said:
Thus it is difficult to determine if a というの／っての is needed following the clause.
Click to expand...
"Can be omitted" is not the same as "can't be used". There is no problem to use という both for direct and indirect quotations. In fact, the writer used っての after the two direct quotations and というのが after 人の住んでいない開発地で probably because they thought, consciously or unconsciously, it's more appropriate to put them there for conveying what they wanted to say correctly.

Polite forms can't be the contents of thoughts. The same goes with 暴れ出しました and 知りませんでした. 彼は彼女が自分を愛していますと信じている sounds odd, right?

人の住んでいない開発地で is not a direct quotation in the first place, as I wrote, and 「人の住んでいない開発地で」が唯一の救い can work well for emphasis like italic in English even for indirect quotations.
 
Thank you again.
Toritoribe said:
人の住んでいない開発地で is not a direct quotation in the first place, as I wrote,
Click to expand...
You wrote that 人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まった is contents of thoughts. Do you mean indirect quotation is the same as contents of thoughts? If so, 人の住んでいない開発地で is also contents of thoughts, right?
 
direct quotation(direct speech)
彼は彼女に「あなたが好きです」と言った。
手紙にはお体にお気をつけくださいと書いてあった。

indirect quotation(indirect speech)
彼は彼女に（彼女が）好きだと言った。
手紙には体に気をつけるよう（にと）書いてあった。

contents of thoughts
来年ハワイに行こうと思っている。
彼女が間違っていると気付いたので、本人に教えてあげた。

The answer is no.
 
Thank you. So 人の住んでいない開発地で is an indirect quotation.
And according to you, if a clause is not complete, it must be an indirect quotation if it is followed by というの, whether the clause is contained in quotation marks or not.
And whether a clause preceding というの is contents or thoughts or direct/indirect quotation depends on the grammar construction following the clause, not on the context, it seems. Does it make sense?
 
zuotengdazuo said:
So 人の住んでいない開発地で is an indirect quotation.
Click to expand...
in the post#8
this clause (= 人の住んでいない開発地で(戦闘が始まった)) is not a direct quotation but the contents of the thoughts,

post #14
人の住んでいない開発地で is not a direct quotation in the first place, as I wrote

post #15
Do you mean indirect quotation is the same as contents of thoughts?
post #16
The answer is no.

人の住んでいない開発地で and 人の住んでいない開発地で戦闘が始まった are both contents of thoughts.

zuotengdazuo said:
And according to you, if a clause is not complete, it must be an indirect quotation if it is followed by というの, whether the clause is contained in quotation marks or not.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you got that impression from, but it has nothing to do with whether the clause is complete or incomplete.
e.g.
「ほんとに？」というのが彼女の口癖だった。
帰り際に彼が、明日また学校で、というのを聞いた。

zuotengdazuo said:
And whether a clause preceding というの is contents or thoughts or direct/indirect quotation depends on the grammar construction following the clause, not on the context, it seems.
Click to expand...
Example: 彼が間違っているというのだ。

彼が「間違っている」というのだ。
direct/indirect quotation of his words

彼が間違っているというのだ。（＝ 彼が間違っている！）
the contents of the speaker's thoughts

Both are possible. The context is also the key.
 
Thank you again. I see.

Do I get it right about the underlined part in the following examples you wrote?
「ほんとに？」というのが彼女の口癖だった。(direct/indirect quotation)
帰り際に彼が、明日また学校で、というのを聞いた。(contents of thoughts)
 
I used both sentences as examples of direct quotation. 明日また学校で is a very a common farewell greeting, and the situation is 帰り際に, i.e., when going home, so it's natural to interpret it as I heard he said "See you tomorrow at school".

However, in a specific situation, it indeed can be contents of hearsay; what he(= 彼) heard, not direct quotation. For example, the speaker/writer and he had been talking about the date or location of an event or something before that sentence, and he heard that the event would occur again the next day at school from someone else. In this case, the structure is the same as 人の住んでいない開発地で、というのが唯一の救い, and this sentence can be another example of "the context is the key".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Understanding the usage of 'ippai' - いっぱい
Replies
14
Views
90K
ewww
「くれている」とも「いてくれる」
Replies
5
Views
46K
Amigo
A
漢字のしりとり - Shiritori kanji game
5 6 7
Replies
171
Views
38K
thomas
D
What is のは, のが, が?
Replies
8
Views
36K
nhk9
N
S
What is the meaning of だってばよ？
Replies
4
Views
18K
Scrivener
S
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…