I had supposed whether が or をis used depended on the verb, not on the subject. If the subject takes が then it would use an intransitive verb as I had supposed such as 生える in this case. There must be something I have missed.The subject of a transitive verb (including 作る) of course, can (and does) take が
I can see the fur or hair grow from cells in the pores of skin according to the sentence, nothing else.what the role of 細胞 and 毛 are here with relation to the verb 作る.
I have expected を goes with 作る anyway.consider where you would put を if you want to use it.
healer said:I had supposed whether が or をis used depended on the verb, not on the subject.
healer said:I came across also the following example in a dictionary.
そのグループはディックが作った。
The group was made up by Dick.
healer said:I have expected を goes with 作る anyway.
毛は、皮膚の小さな穴にある細胞を作ります。
Thanks for your kindness!let's try to help you understand and overcome it.
Yes, I'm aware.が can mark the grammatical subject of <i>any</i> verb, transitive or intransitive.
I believe I understand the grammatical structure of the three example sentences.you would understand how が could serve as the subject in transitive verb sentences
I realised that.there is no passive verb in the Japanese sentence, the passive voice is simply being introduced in the (non-literal) English translation.
I understand that words in Japanese sentences can be in any order so long as the main verb is at the end of the sentence.this (like the example with Dick and the group) is simply an example of an inverted sentence.
I didn't assume that. However I did assume at the time the direct object should precede を. So I looked for をin both sentences but I couldn't find it. That was where I got stuck.you seem to be assuming that what's coming directly before the transitive verb is the direct object
From the meaning of the sentences I think I can guess what the objects are. They're グループand 毛respectively.The direct objects of 作る in both of these sentences:
I remembered all of a sudden that は can replace をor が for contrast or emphasis. I'm not sure if this is the case with the examples in question though.they're not marked with を for a certain reason.
Why do you suppose that might be?
I understand は is to mark the predicate while が the subject.the topic particle は does not dictate the role (subject/object) of the noun it marks.
I wasn't thinking straight. My bad.What you have done here is change the meaning of the sentence.
It didn't seem so because of your words "I had supposed whether が or をis used depended on the verb, not on the subject. If the subject takes が then it would use an intransitive verb as I had supposed such as 生える in this case." in your previous post. I, too, thought you were misunderstanding the role of が, as bentenmusume-san interpreted.Yes, I'm aware.
What do you mean by "predicate"? Probably you are misunderstanding something.I understand は is to mark the predicate while が the subject.
That's the answer. That's exactly bentenmusume-san and mdchachi-san wanted to convey. The objects are topicalized in those sentences. That's why は is used instead of を.What about the following version?
そのグループをディックが作った。
毛を、皮膚の小さな穴にある細胞が作ります。
The part of a sentence or clause containing a verb and stating something about the subject.What do you mean by "predicate"?
healer said:I understand は is to mark the predicate while が the subject.bentenmusume said:
the topic particle は does not dictate the role (subject/object) of the noun it marks.
Yes, as Toritoribe-san says, this can be more generally referred to as "topicalizing" that which is marked with は. We can't really say whether or not it's for contrast in these examples (since they're just examples with no greater context), but it could be. "Emphasis" is a word that gets tossed around a lot that I like to avoid when possible, as it can be misleading and can obscure important distinctions/differences at times (i.e. in a certain sense of the word "emphasis", one could argue that を and が can also add a sort of "emphasis" when they are used in certain ways.)healer said:I remembered all of a sudden that は can replace をor が for contrast or emphasis. I'm not sure if this is the case with the examples in question though.
It didn't seem so
As far as Bentenmusume-san's statement is concerned, it is very clear to me because it defines only what がdoes.が can mark the grammatical subject of <i>any</i> verb, transitive or intransitive.
On second thought it is between the object and the verb whether がor をis used,nothing to do with the subject. Please help if it is not correct.I had supposed whether が or をis used depended on the verb, not on the subject.
It has completely nothing to do with は.
I was saying things in general.Could you explain what you mean by this?
This statement itself is not exactly incorrect, but I want to clarify something here.healer said:I have the impression that the difference between が and は is が refers to what is stated before it which is usually the subject and は to what is after it which is everything after the topic.
Generally, when we talk about a certain particle "marking" something, we mean the noun (or noun phrase) that precedes that particle, i.e. whose role in the sentence is governed by or dictated by that particle. In this sense, は does not "mark" the predicate, because in the sentence そのグループはディックが作りました, for example, そのグループ is not the predicate.healer said:I understand は is to mark the predicate while が the subject.
I edited your post#13 because your way of quoting looks as if "I had supposed whether が or をis used depended on the verb, not on the subject." is my original words.On second thought it is between the object and the verb whether がor をis used,nothing to do with the subject.
It is difficult to point out where the predicate of a sentence is when the word order is unusual especially when はis used instead of がor をand some Japanese sentences might not even have the predicate at all.は does not "mark" the predicate, because in the sentence そのグループはディックが作りました, for example, そのグループ is not the predicate.
I had supposed predicate is everything other than the subject including the object. So I was wrong upon your correction. I presume the same definition applies to Japanese language too.In this sentence, 田中さん is the subject (marked with が), バナナ is the direct object (marked with を) and 食べました is the predicate.
Thanks for giving me the examples of topicalising the subject and the direct object.Both of these are valid, even though the "topic" being marked by は is the subject in (1) and the direct object in (2).
I have looked up the dictionary again and both 要るand できるare intransitive verbs. Do I understand you correctly? Are they like what you said before that the dictionaries are not correct in this regard?a certain type of transitive verbs that takes が as the object marker, such like 要る, できる or potential verbs
I was wrong in that がmarks the subject or the object and has nothing to do with the verb.you were misunderstanding that が couldn't be used to indicate the subject for transitive verbs.
If you're not referring to 要るand できるyou mentioned above, could you please give some examples?indeed が can be used as the object marker for specific verbs, but those verbs are special
Can you give us examples?some Japanese sentences might not even have the predicate at all.
No. The predicate, verb, adjective or even "noun + copula", can't be topicalized.Is it correct that any part of the sentence including verb or adverb and so on can be topicalised?
"が indicates the object for those verbs" is the most common interpretation in Japanese grammar, so those verbs are transitive in this sense. It might be similar to 歩く, 飛ぶ, 渡る, etc. These verbs are intransitive even though を is used with them.I have looked up the dictionary again and both 要るand できるare intransitive verbs. Do I understand you correctly? Are they like what you said before that the dictionaries are not correct in this regard?
I'm referring to those verbs (including potential form of verbs).If you're not referring to 要るand できるyou mentioned above, could you please give some examples?