とする / だけ / きて

[eeky]

Hi,


1. htmlは、基本的ルールとして開始タグと終了タグでマークアップして要素とすると説 明しました。

Is "html" the subject of マークアップして and 要素とする? What exactly is the meaning of とする here?


2. 鋼材不足にも関わらず、工業生産高は５％だけ増加した 。

Is the use of だけ consistent with 関わらず? The emphasis seems wrong.


3. どんな男にもそれ相当の嫁のきてがあるもの。

What is きて? Is it 来手?

 

[Toritoribe]

1)
Yes about the subject.
する means "to make" here; "make it(= what is marked up) an element".

2)
It's common that 工業生産高 decreases when 鋼材不足, nevertheless 工業生産高 increased, although it's only 5%.

3)
Yes.

 

[eeky]

2) So the implication of the sentence is that an increase was not expected, but nevertheless 5% is not a very big increase?

 

[Toritoribe]

The key is that it was 鋼材不足 nevertheless 工業生産高 increased (鋼材不足にも関わらず、工業生産高は増加した). だけ can be interchangeable with ほど, or another expression, for instance, わずか５％だけだが増加した / わずか５％だけとはいえ増加した.

 

[eeky]

OK, I think I see.

By the way, in your example, what is だけとはいえ増加した? Is it だけ・と・は・いえ・増加した? いえ as in 言え??

 

[Toritoribe]

Right. いえ is 言え. とはいえ means "although" as a set.

とはいえ【とは言え】の英語・英訳 - 和英辞書 - goo辞書

 

[eeky]

Right. いえ is 言え. とはいえ means "although" as a set.

とはいえ【とは言え】の英語・英訳 - 和英辞書 - goo辞書

Strange, I looked that up and couldn't find it. I suppose I must have mistyped it.

 

[eeky]

Is it possible to use the following sentence with the meaning that a good supply of steel should increase output, yet it increased by only 5%, which is less than expected? (If 鋼材充足 is not the natural term here then please substitute the natural one.)

鋼材充足にも関わらず、工業生産高は５％だけ増加した 。

 

[Toritoribe]

鋼材（の供給）が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった。

 

[eeky]

It is a puzzle. When in plenty of other cases だけ can perform the same function as the English word "only", is there any particular reason why だけ alone will not work in my sentence? Does it not have sufficient force or something?

 

[Toritoribe]

不足にも関わらず、増加した。
十分だったにも関わらず、増加しなかった。

This is the key. When supply is 不足, output usually decreases, NEVERTHELESS output increased. Similarly, when supply is 十分, output usually increases, NEVERTHELESS output didn't increase (enough). You can use the following expressions in the same logic.

不足にも関わらず、減少しなかった。
十分だったにも関わらず、減少した。

 

[eeky]

Does 十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％だけ増加した have any coherent meaning? If so, what?

 

[Toritoribe]

It is incoherent. It must be 鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は増加しなかった / 減少した or 鋼材不足にも関わらず、増加した / 減少しなかった.

 

[eeky]

OK, it's very confusing for me. The whole way of thinking about these statements seems to be different in Japanese than in English. Either that or だけ doesn't mean what I have always thought it meant.

 

[Toritoribe]

In the sentence 鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった, output actually increased, not "didn't increase". It's just less than expected. It's close to an expression "didn't increase enough" in English, isn't it? (Output indeed increased, but it's not enough/it's less than expected.)

 

[Mike Cash]

OK, it's very confusing for me. The whole way of thinking about these statements seems to be different in Japanese than in English. Either that or だけ doesn't mean what I have always thought it meant.

Same thing happened to me regarding だけ

 

[eeky]

In the sentence 鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった, output actually increased, not "didn't increase". It's just less than expected. It's close to an expression "didn't increase enough" in English, isn't it? (Output indeed increased, but it's not enough/it's less than expected.)

鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった is fairly easy for me to understand.

What is still hard for me to understand is why 鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％だけ増加した does not work. To me, this appears to correspond to "Despite the plentiful supply of steel, industrial output increased by only 5%", which makes good enough sense in English (implying that the increase was expected to be more than 5%).

 

[Toritoribe]

工業生産高は増加した is an expected result of 鋼材が十分だった, therefore you can't use an adversative conjunction にも関わらず to connect these two clauses. The main clause of 鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず must be 増加しなかった or 減少した, as I wrote previously, since these are an unexpected result of 十分だった.

鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった。
鋼材が十分だったにも関わらず、工業生産高は（わずか）５％だけ（とはいえ）減少した。

 

[eeky]

Is there any way to join 鋼材が十分だった and 工業生産高は５％だけ増加した so as to make a valid statement with the meaning "Despite the plentiful supply of steel, industrial output increased by only 5%", implying that the increase was expected to be more than 5%?

 

[Toritoribe]

The only way I can think of is to use another form 工業生産高の増加は５％だけだった.

工業生産高は５％だけ増加した and ５％（だけ）しか増加しなかった are basically the same in meaning (The nuance is a bit diffetent, though). The subordinate clause and the conjunction determine which form should be used. This rule causes you confusion, maybe?

十分だったが、増加しなかった
十分だったので、増加した
不足していたが、増加した
不足していたので、増加しなかった

 

[eeky]

十分だったが、増加しなかった
十分だったので、増加した
不足していたが、増加した
不足していたので、増加しなかった

This is all logical to me, and these would be the common combinations in Engiish too.

However, English also allows:

there was plentiful supply, but production increased by only 5%
there was a shortage, but production decreased by only 5%

These seem to be the ones that can't be expressed in Japanese with だけ and the affirmative verb. Instead, judging by the original sentence, だけ seems to be used in a positive (or at least neutral) sense, similar to ほど, as you mentioned.

 

[Toritoribe]

Your understanding seems correct. The negative form is needed in Japanese to express the nuance of "production increased by only 5%" in English, and "だけ減少した / 増加した" has a positive nuance since the verb is affirmative.