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

で v に

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
私達は娘の誕生日パーティーにキャンディーで一杯のピニャータを用意します。
Should パーティーに above be パーティーで for action verb such as 用意する in this case? If not, why?

イギリスのために大胆で新しい役割を打ち立てていくのです。
Should 大胆で be 大胆に being the adverb of the な-adjective? I’m not sure how 大胆で comes about grammatically.

毛で覆われたアライグマ
I have learnt that the particle for the object of a passive verb is に for animated agent, によって for others. How does て come in in 毛で? What is the definition of this grammar point?
 
Last edited:

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
私達は娘の誕生日パーティーにキャンディーで一杯のピニャータを用意します。
Should パーティーに above be パーティーで for action verb such as 用意する in this case? If not, why?
The action "to prepare" is not done in/at the party. It's done previously for the party. Thus, パーティー is not the location of the action. That's why に is used there, not で.
cf.
私達はパーティーでピニャータを割りました。

イギリスのために大胆で新しい役割を打ち立てていくのです。
Should 大胆で be 大胆に being the adverb of the な-adjective? I’m not sure how 大胆で comes about grammatically.
で is the -te form of copula there, thus, it's the continuous usage of the -te form. 大胆 is an adjective which modifies 役割, not an adverb which modifies 打ち立てていく in that sentence.
cf.
新しくて大胆な役割

毛で覆われたアライグマ
I have learnt that the particle for the object of a passive verb is に for animated agent, によって for others. How does て come in in 毛で? What is the definition of this grammar point?
で indicates material. 毛に/によって覆われた also works well, though.

I have learnt that the particle for the object of a passive verb is に for animated agent, によって for others.
家具 is inanimate, isn't it?

 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
The action "to prepare" is not done in/at the party.
Could you please tell me which part of the sentence indicates the pinata was filled somewhere else in advance?
Is it just because に was used instead of で so the pinata had to be filled somewhere else?
If で is used instead then the pinata had to be filled at the party and the sentence is still grammatically correct, am I right?
Besides the verb in this case is 用意する in non-perfect tense. Could I presume the pinata hadn't been filled at the time the sentence was spoken?
Doesn't the particle に in this sentence have to go with some verb?

家具 is inanimate, isn't it?
How to define when で can be used as well instead of に? I understand によって can be used instead of に where confusion can result? So is によって universally acceptable for passive verb? Is で universally acceptable for passive verbs too?
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
Could you please tell me which part of the sentence indicates the pinata was filled somewhere else in advance?
Is it just because に was used instead of で so the pinata had to be filled somewhere else?
Yes. I wouldn't say it's "just because", though.

If で is used instead then the pinata had to be filled at the party and the sentence is still grammatically correct, am I right?
Besides the verb in this case is 用意する in non-perfect tense.
パーティーで is grammatically correct but semantically odd. As I wrote, 用意する connotes that it's done previously/in advance. パーティーでピニャータを用意します sounds like to me that ピニャータ is prepared for something else, not for the party. Also, it's not "pinata had to be/was filled at the party" but "pinata will be filled at the party" because it's 用意します, not 用意しました, as you wrote.

Doesn't the particle に in this sentence have to go with some verb?
に is associated with 用意します, as in パーティーにピニャータを用意します. This に is the same as ~のために in meaning, needless to say.

How to define when で can be used as well instead of に? I understand によって can be used instead of に where confusion can result? So is によって universally acceptable for passive verb? Is で universally acceptable for passive verbs too?
It's totally depends on the context, including the type of the verb or the relation between the verb and the noun preceding the particle. For instance, 家具で囲まれた書斎 is OK, but 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is not. Particles have multiple functions. There are many cases where に or で can't refer to the agent in a passive sentence.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
Thanks again! Toritoribe-san.

用意する connotes that it's done previously/in advance
I see now. 用意する always refer to an action done in advance, doesn’t it?

The piñata hadn't been filled at the time the sentence was spoken because 用意します was used, had it? If the piñata had already been done, 用意しました should be used, shouldn’t it?

で is the -te form of copula there, thus, it's the continuous usage of the -te form
I misread that because I had expected that a comma ‘、’ would have been in order right after で in written form, a pause in verbal form, if it is a で in です. That is イギリスのために大胆で、新しい役割を打ち立てていくのです。Should there always be a comma after で in cases like this?

家具で囲まれた書斎 is OK, but 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is not.
I don’t quite get why 家具で囲まれた書斎 is okay while 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is not.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
I see now. 用意する always refer to an action done in advance, doesn’t it?

The piñata hadn't been filled at the time the sentence was spoken because 用意します was used, had it? If the piñata had already been done, 用意しました should be used, shouldn’t it?
All yes.

I misread that because I had expected that a comma ‘、’ would have been in order right after で in written form, a pause in verbal form, if it is a で in です. That is イギリスのために大胆で、新しい役割を打ち立てていくのです。Should there always be a comma after で in cases like this?
No. A comma is optional. A comma indeed can be used to make clear the meaning when the sentence is ambiguous, since, for instance, there are two or more interpretations are possible, but it's not the case there. There is no ambiguity, and the sentence is not confusing at all.
It seems to me that the point is on your way of thinking. It's not "大胆に, not 大胆で, should be used for the adverbial form of the na-adjective" but "since 大胆で, not 大胆に, is used here, it wouldn't be the adverbial form of na-adjective" whether there is a comma after で or not.
The same goes with パーティーに in the first example sentence. It's not "パーティーで, not パーティーに, should be used for the location of action" but "since パーティーに, not パーティーで, is used here, パーティー wouldn't be the location of action".

I don’t quite get why 家具で囲まれた書斎 is okay while 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is not.
I already answered the reason in this thread (at least a hint of it).
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
で indicates material.
毛で覆われたアライグマ
家具で囲まれた書斎
What I can see from above is both are material or inanimate while 泥棒 in 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is a person. I guess で can’t be used for a person or anything animate. Is it correct?


There are many cases where に or で can't refer to the agent in a passive sentence.
Is it correct that に can’t be used only where there is confusion so によって will be used instead? And で can’t be used for an animate agent, can it?


毛に/によって覆われた also works well, though.
I suppose 家具に/によって囲まれた書斎 is okay too? Am I right?
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
It seems to me that you are confusing different functions of particles. Think about a question by a non-native learner of English.

I saw a passive sentence "raccoon's body is covered with hair". Why it's not "raccoon's body is covered by hair"? Also, can "with" be used in all passive sentences? If not, when is "with" used?

Your question is like this. You need to explain about the functions of "by" and "with", and why there are verbs where "with" can't be used in a passive sentence.

毛で覆われたアライグマ
家具で囲まれた書斎
What I can see from above is both are material or inanimate while 泥棒 in 泥棒で盗まれた財布 is a person. I guess で can’t be used for a person or anything animate. Is it correct?
Then how about these examples?

ウイルスで入国を拒否された。
駅前のカラスが鷹で追い払われた。

I don't know why you stick to the idea "animate vs. inanimate", but it's not the point. It's just that the agent is often animate in a passive sentence. The key is that で actually doesn't indicate the agent there. ウイルス is cause/reason in the first sentence, and 鷹 is means in the second one. In fact, unlike the agent marker に, the particle is not changed in the counterpart active sentence.
e.g.
ウイルスで入国を拒否した。
駅前のカラスを鷹で追い払った。

The same goes with other examples.
毛で覆った表面
家具で囲んだ書斎
cf.
×毛に覆った表面
×家具に囲んだ書斎
×泥棒に盗んだ財布

Is it correct that に can’t be used only where there is confusion so によって will be used instead?
I don't know what you refer to by "confusion", but the point is whether the verb can take に as the target marker. For instance, 渡す belongs to this group. In a sentence 彼女に渡された, 彼女 can be both the target(the one who received something) and agent(the one who handed it). In this case, によって or から is used for the latter meaning if it's unclear from the context.

I suppose 家具に/によって囲まれた書斎 is okay too? Am I right?
Yes. に is used in your example in the first place, isn't it?
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
Thanks again Toritoribe-san.

You need to explain about the functions of "by" and "with", and why there are verbs where "with" can't be used in a passive sentence.
It seems to me that where で and に used with Japanese passive verbs do not always translate to “with” and “by” in the English counterparts.

駅前のカラスが鷹で追い払われた。
I would still say the crow was chased away BY rather WITH the falcon even though で is used in the sentence. I guess that に can be used instead of で in this case, can't it?

the particle is not changed in the counterpart active sentence.
I see that the noun that goes with で is not involved in a subject and object relationship in the two sentences.

I don't know what you refer to by "confusion"
What you said was the confusion I had been referring to.

ウイルスで入国を拒否した。
駅前のカラスを鷹で追い払った。
Having seen your examples of active voice converted from the passive counterparts I tentatively conclude pending your opinion that で goes only with noun that can’t be a volitional subject when the passive verb is converted to active verb. I don’t know what else I can base it on.

×毛に覆った表面
×家具に囲んだ書斎
×泥棒に盗んだ財布
Would they be alright that the verbs be rendered into passive form?
That is as follows.
毛に覆われた表面
家具に囲まれだ書斎
泥棒に盗まれた財布
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
First of all, you shouldn't use the term "subject" or "object" when talking about active vs. passive voice. These terms are ambiguous since they are changed when the voice is changed. "Agent" is preferable, but at least you need to make it clear by using "subject in the active sentence" if you use those terms.

It seems to me that where で and に used with Japanese passive verbs do not always translate to “with” and “by” in the English counterparts.
I didn't say such a thing. That's not my point at all. It is common knowledge that a particle in Japanese is not in one-to-one corresponding to a preposition in English, needless to say. I just said that your question was like my parable, as if it's like a question of a learner who is confusing different functions of prepositions in English.

I would still say the crow was chased away BY rather WITH the falcon even though で is used in the sentence. I guess that に can be used instead of で in this case, can't it?
"Those two sentences are almost the same in meaning" doesn't (at least not always) mean "で can be replaced with に" and "the function is the same between で and に in that sentence". Indeed, there are cases where the difference can be considered to be just a nuance as a result, like 毛で覆われた vs. 毛に覆われた or 家具で囲まれた書斎 vs. 家具に囲まれた書斎, but "there are cases where に and で seems to be interchangeable in a passive sentence almost without changing the meaning" is not the same as "に and で are the same in the function in those sentences", of course. You need to realize a simple fact that に and で are different particles in the first place. に indeed can be used there, but 駅前のカラスが鷹追い払われた。and 駅前のカラスが鷹追い払われた。are not the same in meaning, as I explained below.

How do you interpret ウイルス入国を拒否された。, by the way? Why に can't be used here? (Although it's grammatical, the meaning is clearly different form the original.)

Having seen your examples of active voice converted from the passive counterparts I tentatively conclude pending your opinion that で goes only with noun that can’t be a volitional subject when the passive verb is converted to active verb. I don’t know what else I can base it on.
Why do you think that those active sentences are derived from the passive ones? Isn't it possible that the active ones are the original? No one can say which is original since both are equally possible. (More precisely, the idea which is original is non-sense.)

Also, are you saying that で can indicate the agent when it's volitional? You yourself said "I see that the noun that goes with で is not involved in a subject and object relationship in the two sentences.", no?

You seem to be still misunderstanding. The noun indicated by で is not the agent (= the subject in the active sentence), as I explained so far repeatedly. Seems like your sticking to the idea "で can be used to indicate the subject/agent in a passive sentence in some cases" is the key of your misunderstanding and confusion in this case. I have to point out that the problem is on your way of thinking also here again. It's not "で is used to indicate the agent in a passive sentence instead of に", but "unlike に, で is not used to indicate the agent in a passive sentence. で is actually used for other functions such like to indicate material, means, cause/reason, etc., as same as in an active sentence". This is a fact. Whether or not you insist that it seems to you that で can indicate the agent in a passive sentence, it's simply wrong.

See the following sentences. These examples are clearly show that ウイルス and 鷹 are actually not the agent, right?

入国管理官にウイルスで入国を拒否された。
駅前のカラスが鷹匠に鷹で追い払われた。

cf. active version
入国管理官がウイルスで入国を拒否した。
鷹匠が鷹で駅前のカラスを追い払った。

Would they be alright that the verbs be rendered into passive form?
That is as follows.
毛に覆われた表面
家具に囲まれだ書斎
泥棒に盗まれた財布
Yes, of course, but I don't understand why you need to confirm it. It's obvious, as you can see those examples in this thread, no?

に indicates the agent in the passive sentence.

therefore

に can't be used in the counterpart active sentence, as in the three examples below, since に can't indicate the agent in the active sentence.
×毛に覆った表面
×家具に囲んだ書斎
×泥棒に盗んだ財布

で doesn't indicate the agent both in the passive and active sentence.

therefore

で can be used also in the active sentence without changing the function of で.
〇毛で覆った表面
〇家具で囲んだ書斎
(で can't be used for 泥棒 in the active sentence since, unlike other examples, the agent is the only one possible function of 泥棒 in the example 泥棒に盗まれた財布/泥棒が盗んだ財布, and で can't indicate the agent in an active sentence.)

This is applied to other examples in this thread, of course.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
Thanks again for your detailed response, Toritoribe-san!

I didn't say such a thing.
You didn’t. That was just what I had found.

"Those two sentences are almost the same in meaning" doesn't (at least not always) mean "で can be replaced with に" and "the function is the same between で and に in that sentence".
I’m not sure which two sentences you were referring to. If you were referring to 駅前のカラスを鷹で追い払った and 駅前のカラスを鷹に追い払った as you talked about later on. I accept what goes with で can’t be an agent though a passive verb is used. And で or に being used have to be different in nuance. So are 毛で覆われた and 毛に覆われた as well as 家具で囲まれた書斎 and 家具に囲まれた書斎. Perhaps they’re sort of like the nuance of “with” and “by” in the English language.

How do you interpret ウイルス入国を拒否された。, by the way? Why に can't be used here?
There is no subject in this sentence, so no agent is specified. ウイルス is not an agent and で is used to indicate a reason.

Why do you think that those active sentences are derived from the passive ones?
I just went by what you did with your examples at the time. It so happened you had the sentences in passive voice first and then subsequently in active voice. Certainly the conversion could well be done in the other way.

are you saying that で can indicate the agent when it's volitional?
Not at all. I was suggesting the agent has to be volitional because what I had found was all those that went with で seemed to be non-volitional.

Seems like your sticking to the idea "で can be used to indicate the subject/agent in a passive sentence in some cases" is the key of your misunderstanding and confusion in this case.
I had never learnt of で taking an agent in the course of passive voice in Japanese language. However I took で at the time as a probable particle that might take an agent when I came across a sentence the first time consisting of a verb in passive voice and something going with で helping implementing an action, i.e. 毛で覆われたアライグマ. I did what I did because my definition as I understood then of agent wasn’t clear-cut and I always supposed I might have missed something in my earlier learning.

Whether or not you insist that it seems to you that で can indicate the agent in a passive sentence, it's simply wrong.
I would not have insisted. I just didn’t get it. I have been trying to find out in what circumstances one can use で where the verb is in passive voice. I haven’t associated the particle で with the word “agent”. The impression I have had is that で can be replaced with に if it indicates means of action, such as 駅前のカラスが鷹で追い払われた.

入国管理官にウイルスで入国を拒否された。
駅前のカラスが鷹匠に鷹で追い払われた。

cf. active version
入国管理官がウイルスで入国を拒否した。
鷹匠が鷹で駅前のカラスを追い払った。
Thanks for the contrasting examples that elucidate your explanation. ウイルスで is “because of virus” and 鷹で is “with falcon”.

Yes, of course, but I don't understand why you need to confirm it.
I often feel inadequate to be sure. I had supposed I knew about how to make passive voice in Japanese language, then the encounter of で threw me.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
There is no subject in this sentence
There is no subject in the sentence ウイルスで入国を拒否された。,either, no?

so no agent is specified. ウイルス is not an agent
Then, what is the function of ウイルス in this sentence? The subject of a passive sentence is not the agent in the first place, right?

で is used to indicate a reason.
ウイルスに入国を拒否された。 and ウイルスで入国を拒否された。 are two different sentences from each other, needless to say, and で is not used here.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
either, no
No object either.

what is the function of ウイルス in this sentence
It's stating the reason.

The subject of a passive sentence is not the agent in the first place, right?
It's not. The agent should be referred to with に or によって in a sentence of passive voice.

ウイルスに入国を拒否された。
I had supposed this sentence is nonsensical because ウイルスに doesn't make sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
No object either.
No. 入国 is the object. Furthermore, you don't seem to get my intention correctly. You said "There is no subject in this sentence, so no agent is specified.". This can be applied also to ウイルスで入国を拒否された。, right? Why can this be the reason why に can't be used here?

It's stating the reason.
As already pointed out, ウイルスに入国を拒否された。 and ウイルスで入国を拒否された。 are two different sentences from each other.

ウイルスで入国を拒否された。
ウイルス is the cause/reason because of で. ウイルス has nothing to do with agent.

ウイルスに入国を拒否された。
ウイルス is the agent because of に. ウイルス has nothing to do with cause/reason.

Actually, this is the key of your misinterpretations where I repeatedly pointed out so far. You shouldn't interpret the meaning by the relation between the noun and verb, as you did in パーティーに用意します or カラスが鷹で追い払われた. パーティー is not the location of action since に is attached to it. 鷹 is not the agent since で is attached to it. For exactly the same reason, ウイルス is not the cause/reason here since に follows it, not で.

See the following example.

ウサギがライオンを追いかけている。

In this sentence, ウサギ is the agent/subject (= pursuer) and ライオン is the object (= the one that is pursued) even if it's unusual. You probably wouldn't misinterpret this sentence as ウサギ is the object and ライオン is the agent/subject just because it makes more sense, right? This meaning is provided by the particles が and を. It's also the same as で, に or any other particles. Again and again, particles are the key.

It's not. The agent should be referred to with に or によって in a sentence of passive voice.
Then, why do you think ウイルス is the reason in ウイルスに入国を拒否された。? This interpretation contradicts your understanding, no?

I had supposed this sentence is nonsensical because ウイルスに doesn't make sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, that's right, but your replies don't seem to say so. ウイルスに入国を拒否された。is grammatical but semantically odd because ウイルス is the agent, not because ウイルス is (actually) the cause/reason. No one can say ウイルス is the cause/reason just from ウイルスに入国を拒否された。.

ウイルスに入国を拒否された。 can work well as a personification, by the way.
 

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
5
入国 is the object
My bad! I guess I was looking for a physical object.

You said "There is no subject in this sentence, so no agent is specified.".
I can’t find a subject. A subject would have nothing to do with an agent in this case being a sentence with passive verb. I must’ve been thinking of verb of active voice.

Why can this be the reason why に can't be used here?
As に works for passive verbs with an agent only I didn’t think a virus could be an agent because I didn’t take virus something volitional at the time. I'm not sure if "volitional" is the right word to use though.

You shouldn't interpret the meaning by the relation between the noun and verb
You have broadened my understanding of に and で, in their usage with agent and non-agent.

パーティーに用意します
I understand に here means “for the purpose of”.
I have also found that に can also mean “because of”. With that meaning in mind, could we then say ウイルス入国を拒否された?

You probably wouldn't misinterpret this sentence
You guessed right. Not only the particles, it would be more obvious with animate things.

your replies don't seem to say so
I just took virus not something volitional, so it couldn’t be an agent.
 

Toritoribe

松葉解禁
Moderator
Joined
22 Feb 2008
Messages
16,579
Reaction score
2,924
I have also found that に can also mean “because of”. With that meaning in mind, could we then say ウイルス入国を拒否された?
No.

You have broadened my understanding of に and で, in their usage with agent and non-agent.
You initially thought パーティー was the location of the action, as you clearly wrote.

Should パーティーに above be パーティーで for action verb such as 用意する in this case?

Similarly, you insisted that 鷹 was non-volitional subject (more precisely "agent") even after I explained that で indicated the means. You finally agreed my explanation after I showed you カラスが鷹匠に鷹で追い払われた. If you say you didn't interpret the meaning by the relation between the noun and verb, tell me in what way you initially got those interpretations.

Not only the particles, it would be more obvious with animate things.
You need to realize your impression like "more obvious with animate things" doesn't mean "your interpretation is correct." Remember your initial translation of カラスが鷹で追い払われた. It makes much more sense if 鷹 is the agent, and that's the reason of your initial interpretation, no? You must keep in mind that this is exactly the cause of your misinterpretations so far.

Finally, just one more thing. You shouldn't stick to your own understanding such like "animate vs. inanimate", "volitional vs. non-volitional". As you already experienced by "transitive vs. intransitive" in other tread, the impression you just got from very limited examples often causes you troubles.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top Bottom