What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

たら versus てから

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
600
Reaction score
5
It says here たらcannot replace てから because of an intentional act in the past.
Why would one interpret "宿題をしました" an intentional act not simply a statement of fact in the past?
Is any part of the syntax fit only to represent an intention?
If not, perhaps we should rephrase the intent of this grammar structure to say that たら cannot convey a fact of the past.
◯家へ帰ってから、宿題をしました。
X家へ帰ってたら、宿題をしました。

IMG_2433.jpg
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
3,142
It says here たらcannot replace てから because of an intentional act in the past.
Why would one interpret "宿題をしました" an intentional act not simply a statement of fact in the past?
"An intentional act" means that (宿題を) する is a volitional verb (意志動詞) there. It doesn't matter whether that's a statement of a fact or just a personal description of an event written in their diary.

Is any part of the syntax fit only to represent an intention?
If not, perhaps we should rephrase the intent of this grammar structure to say that たら cannot convey a fact of the past.
◯家へ帰ってから、宿題をしました。
X家へ帰ってたら、宿題をしました。
Typo:
家へ帰ったら, not 家へ帰ってたら

If the main clause doesn't express the speaker's volitional action, ~たら can be used for a real past event. The meaning of ~たら is more likely "when" rather than "after" especially in the latter example below, though. (Incidentally, ~たら conditional can be replaced with ~と conditional here. As for the difference, ~たら sounds more colloquial.)
e.g.
家に帰ったら、眠くなりました。
After/When I got home, I got sleepy.
(眠くなる is a non-volitional action.)

家に帰ったら、弟がテレビを見ていました。
When I got home, my brother was watching TV.
(見る is a volitional action, but the subject is not the speaker.)
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
600
Reaction score
5
Having read your comments, I presume you are saying the example sentence 宿題をしました does not necessary refer to intention in the past, the author just took it as such in order to explain the topic. So is 弟がテレビを見ていました.. Is my understanding correct?

Thanks for reminding my typo.

I understand ~と conditional is only for something of nature, or somethings always happen regardless, or discovery. That is something not controllable by the speaker, The two examples you gave doesn't seem to fit in with the criteria of using ~と conditional.

Perhaps 弟がテレビを見ていました could be expressed with と conditional if it is something the younger brother always does but I'm not too sure if it is still all right grammatically when the actions were in the past though.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
3,142
Having read your comments, I presume you are saying the example sentence 宿題をしました does not necessary refer to intention in the past, the author just took it as such in order to explain the topic. So is 弟がテレビを見ていました.. Is my understanding correct?
The key is that the speaker's real past volitional action can't be used in the main clause of ~たら conditional. In other words, someone else's real past volitional action, the speaker's unreal past volitional action, the speaker's future volitional action or the speaker's real past non-volitional action are OK.
e.g.
someone else's real past volitional action
I already gave an example.

hypothetical contrary-to-fact event in the past
家に帰れたら/帰れていたら、宿題をしたのに。
If I could get home, I would do my homework.
(I actually couldn't get home, so I didn't do my homework.)


the speaker's future volitional action
Your textbook already gave an example.

the speaker's real past non-volitional action
I already gave an example.

Other combinations are also OK, needless to say.
e.g.
someone else's future non-volitional action
家に帰ったら、母は驚くでしょう。
When I get home, my mother will be surprised.

I understand ~と conditional is only for something of nature, or somethings always happen regardless, or discovery. That is something not controllable by the speaker, The two examples you gave doesn't seem to fit in with the criteria of using ~と conditional.
The brother's case is "discovery". The speaker found/realized that the brother was watching TV when he got home.

The functions of ~と conditional are not just only three you wrote. It can be used also for a one-shot event other than discovery as same as ~たら conditional. ~と sounds more formal, so it's often used in written language. ~たら sound more colloquial, as I already wrote.

島村は家に帰ると、須崎に電話をかけ、犬を見に来てくれと言った。
犬バカものがたり 近藤啓太郎著

家に帰るとすぐに、事件を目撃したという藤尾に電話をかけた。
鍵 東野圭吾著

フレデリックは家に帰ると、まっすぐに寄宿生の部屋に向かった。
小説ショパン ワルシャワ幻想曲 藤嶋美路著

家に帰ると、マイケルはビールの栓を抜いた。
スローワルツの川 ロバート・ジェームズ・ウォラー著 村松潔訳

家に帰ると、バドは袋を手で引き裂き、レザーのナップザックを取りだした。
バド・ウィギンズ氏のおかしな人生 下 ブルース・ワグナー著 柳下毅一郎訳

These are excerpts from novels found in a corpus. These are a one-shot event, and not a naturally-happened event, not a past habit or not discovery. The main clauses 言った, 電話をかけた, 部屋に向かった, 栓を抜いた, 袋を引き裂いた and ナップザックを取りだした are all the subject's volitional action, i.e., an action controllable by the subject.

~たら can be replaced with ~と when the sentence expresses a real past event, whether the main clause is the speaker's or someone else's action, or whether it's volitional or non-volitional action. In other words, ~たら can't be replaced with ~と when it's a future event or contrary-to-fact event.


I have once written that there's no problem to use two は in a single sentence in my reply. A member claimed that she had learned we could use only one は in a sentence from a textbook. That's wrong, of course.

Textbooks often don't explain all the usages of an expression/a sentence construction at one time. It's often the case that textbooks for beginner learners don't cover advanced usages. It's possible that there are other unmentioned functions of a sentence construction than the ones your textbook explains.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
3,142
An additional explanation:
You mentioned "that is something not controllable by the speaker" regarding the usage of ~と conditional. Actually, this is a key for the usage of ~たら conditional we are talking about. In your textbook's explanation

たら cannot replace てから because C2(= the main clause) represents an intentional act in the past,

"an intentional act" actually represents "an action controllable by the speaker". The speaker can control their volitional actions (e.g. 宿題をする, 映画を見る), but cannot control their non-volitional actions (e.g. 元気になる, 眠くなる), other's volitional or non-volitional actions (e.g. 弟が映画を見る, 友達がやって来る) or something's (non-volitional) movement (e.g. 雨が降る, 地震が起きる). Thus, these are "something not controllable by the speaker".

This concept "controllable by the speaker or not" is a key also for some other Japanese expressions/sentence constructions you will learn later.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
600
Reaction score
5
Thanks for all your help.

The key is that the speaker's real past volitional action can't be used in the main clause of ~たら conditional. In other words, someone else's real past volitional action, the speaker's unreal past volitional action, the speaker's future volitional action or the speaker's real past non-volitional action are OK.
Does unreal past refer to an incident never happened whereas real past did happen?
Your statement covered speaker's real past volitional and non-volitional, unreal past volitional. What about unreal past non-volitional?
Moreover, only someone else's real past volitional action was mentioned. What about the other three possibilities?

"an intentional act" actually represents "an action controllable by the speaker". The speaker can control their volitional actions
It sounds like intentional = volitional and vice versa.
What throws me is no volitional verb conjugation is seen in the example sentences, such as しよう for する?

家に帰れたら/帰れていたら、宿題をしたのに。
Does のに in the sentence above mean "though"? I haven't seen のに located at the end of a sentence. I usually see them at the end of the first clause. I can't figure out how the meaning of "though" fits in with the sentence.

友達がやって来る
I have seen quite a few instances of verb that consists of やって, such as やって来る, やって行く, ヤって見る. I'm not too sure what meaning that やって imparts in addition to the main verb.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
3,142
Does unreal past refer to an incident never happened whereas real past did happen?
Right. "Contrary-to-fact event (反事実)" is more appropriate, though.

Your statement covered speaker's real past volitional and non-volitional, unreal past volitional. What about unreal past non-volitional?
Moreover, only someone else's real past volitional action was mentioned. What about the other three possibilities?
As I wrote above, "other combinations are also OK", i.e., all those combinations are also OK.

It sounds like intentional = volitional and vice versa.
Exactly. "Volitional verb" is a common English translation of 意志動詞, but it's translated as "intentional verb", too

What throws me is no volitional verb conjugation is seen in the example sentences, such as しよう for する?
You seem to be confusing "volitional verb (意志動詞)" and "volitional form of verbs (意志形/ウ・ヨウ形)". The former is a verb that expresses an action the subject does/can do by their will, whereas the latter is a conjugation form of verbs.

Incidentally, this form can mean conjecture, so it's also called "presumptive form". Especially, non-volitional verbs(非意志動詞) can't express "one's will", so this form is only used to express conjecture for non-volitional verbs, (e.g. 地震が起きよう an earthquake will occur). Actually, "conjecture" is a bit classical usage, so ~だろう (e.g. 地震が起きるだろう) is more common for this meaning in modern Japanese, but this usage still remains in set phrases or proverbs.
e.g.
雨が降ろうが槍が降ろうが
even if it rains or spears fall out of the sky (= no matter what happens)

地震が起きようが起きまいが
whether an earthquake will occur or not

Does のに in the sentence above mean "though"? I haven't seen のに located at the end of a sentence. I usually see them at the end of the first clause. I can't figure out how the meaning of "though" fits in with the sentence.
のに works as a sentence ending particle that expresses the speaker's dissatisfaction, complaint or blame there. You can think the part following it (実際は帰れなかったから、宿題ができなかった I actually couldn't get home, so I didn't do my homework) is omitted.

I have seen quite a few instances of verb that consists of やって, such as やって来る, やって行く, ヤって見る. I'm not too sure what meaning that やって imparts in addition to the main verb.
やって来る and 来る are almost the same in meaning there.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
600
Reaction score
5
Contrary-to-fact event (反事実)
Whether in English or Japanese, contrary-to-fact or 反(opposite to)事実(fact), it all refers to something untrue, impossible. Is that what it means?

hypothetical contrary-to-fact event in the past
家に帰れたら/帰れていたら、宿題をしたのに。
If I could get home, I would do my homework.
(I actually couldn't get home, so I didn't do my homework.)
This is the unreal past example you gave, isn't it? So it is something that didn't happen because I didn't get home. I can't say the statement is not true.
I'm trying to work out how "Contrary-to-fact event (反事実)" is more appropriate?

other combinations are also OK
Just to be sure.

You seem to be confusing "volitional verb (意志動詞)" and "volitional form of verbs (意志形/ウ・ヨウ形)".
Yes I was confused. Having the same term I had presumed they were related if not the same thing.
雨が降ろう槍が降ろう
地震が起きよう起きまい
What does the particle do in the above two example sentences? Does it still mean "but, however"?

須崎に電話をかけ
Should 須崎に電話をかけ be 須崎に電話をかけ?
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
3,142
This is the unreal past example you gave, isn't it?
Yes.

I'm trying to work out how "Contrary-to-fact event (反事実)" is more appropriate?
As a grammatical technical term, I mean.

What does the particle do in the above two example sentences?
"Volitional form of verbs + が" is a conditional clause, meaning "even if", as same as "volitional form of verb + と" or "-te form of verbs + も".

雨が降ろうが槍が降ろうが = 雨が降ろうと槍が降ろうと = 雨が降っても槍が降っても
地震が起きようが起きまいが = 地震が起きようと起きまいと = 地震が起きても起きなくても

Should 須崎に電話をかけ be 須崎に電話をかけ?
One of the most fundamental usage of the -masu stem of verbs is to connect clauses. (引き裂き in the last example is the same usage.) -Masu stem sounds more formal and written-language-like, and -te form is more casual and spoken-language-like.
 
Top Bottom