なら confusion

[wataame]

Hi,
I am looking for a better explanation of and examples for なら. My class textbook briefly explains なら as a way to apply "limitation" and "contrast" to a concept, but as usual doesn't go into any detail regarding when or why it is used.
To add to my confusion I haven't yet been able to find any further reading on the topic. That is, unless the textbook is actually trying to describe the contextual conditional grammar なら(ば).

Two examples direct from the text book are:

Q: 日本語がわかりますか。
A: ひらがなならわかります。
Q: ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
A: メキシコなら行ったことがありますが、ブラジルは行ったことがありません。
​

Example 1 can easily be explained using the grammar "(contextual condition) なら(ば) (result)", but example 2 seems a little harder. At a stretch using a very liberal translation, my guess would be, "If you were asking about Mexico then I've been there before, but I've never been to Brazil.".

My textbook claims that, for example 1, なら contrasts ひらがな against the whole of the language, and for example 2, なら contrasts Mexico against Brazil with a "positive" weight on Mexico. Needless to say, I don't understand this one bit.

After rereading up on conditional grammar and writing this post, I am almost convinced that the textbook is actually explaining なら(ば) in a confusing way.
Could someone... enlighten me? :?

 

[Angel Valis]

lol I'm guessing you're using Genki. I remember those sentences.

なら could be loosely translated as "only (if)".

In the example

Q.日本語がわかりますか。
A.ひらがなならわかります。

You're essentially saying that you don't know katakana or kanji and thus you understand Japanese only if it is written in hiragana. This may or may not imply that you can or can't understand the spoken language.

In the second example

Q.ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
A.メキシコなことがありますが、ブラジルは行ったごと がありません。

This is just giving more information than was required. Essentially the translation is "I've only ever been to Mexico, not to Brazil (in particular)". You could just reply 「メキシコなら行ったことがあります」, but the comment about Brazil is just there to directly answer the question you were asked. If you leave out the part about Brazil, you're already telling the person you're talking to that you've never gone anywhere else.

 

[Elizabeth]

Q.ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
A.メキシコなことがありますが、ブラジルは行ったごと がありません。
This is just giving more information than was required. Essentially the translation is "I've only ever been to Mexico, not to Brazil (in particular)". You could just reply 「メキシコなら行ったことがあります」, but the comment about Brazil is just there to directly answer the question you were asked. If you leave out the part about Brazil, you're already telling the person you're talking to that you've never gone anywhere else.

Although there isn't necessarily the implication at all that you've never been anywhere besides Mexico. Instead of talking up their trips all over Europe, Africa, and Asia what is relevant and conversational is giving a positive spin to not having gone to Brazil but have traveled somewhat in the general region.

Have you ever been to Brazil ?
No, but I have gone to Mexico...

 

[Toritoribe]

Hi,
Hi,
I am looking for a better explanation of and examples for なら. My class textbook briefly explains なら as a way to apply "limitation" and "contrast" to a concept, but as usual doesn't go into any detail regarding when or why it is used.
To add to my confusion I haven't yet been able to find any further reading on the topic. That is, unless the textbook is actually trying to describe the contextual conditional grammar なら(ば).
Two examples direct from the text book are:
Q: 日本語がわかりますか。
A: ひらがなならわかります。
Q: ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
A: メキシコなら行ったことがありますが、ブラジルは行っ たことがありません。
Example 1 can easily be explained using the grammar "(contextual condition) なら(ば) (result)", but example 2 seems a little harder. At a stretch using a very liberal translation, my guess would be, "If you were asking about Mexico then I've been there before, but I've never been to Brazil.".
My textbook claims that, for example 1, なら contrasts ひらがな against the whole of the language, and for example 2, なら contrasts Mexico against Brazil with a "positive" weight on Mexico. Needless to say, I don't understand this one bit.

After rereading up on conditional grammar and writing this post, I am almost convinced that the textbook is actually explaining なら(ば) in a confusing way.
Could someone... enlighten me?

"Noun + なら" is an adverbial phrase rather than a conditional clause. The なら in the example sentences are the 副助詞 or the particle to make an adverbial phrase, meaning "as for~/talking about~". The both なら have the same origin, though.

 

[wataame]

lol I'm guessing you're using Genki. I remember those sentences.

Yes, the textbook is Genki II.

Although there isn't necessarily the implication at all that you've never been anywhere besides Mexico.

Is this because the nouns used ("Brazil" and "Mexico") are both contextually at the same level? (i.e. they are both countries). Or is this inherent in any なら usage?
For example, if the response to the question about Brazil was instead「サンパウロなら行ったことがあります」, does なら indicate that the only place in Brazil the speaker has visited is Sao Paulo or is the possibility of the speaker visiting other locations still available?

Instead of talking up their trips all over Europe, Africa, and Asia what is relevant and conversational is giving a positive spin to not having gone to Brazil but have traveled somewhat in the general region.

What do you mean by "positive"? My textbook also uses "positive" in relation to なら, but I am unclear as to its meaning here. Are we just talking about in the grammatical sense?
Thus does the following:

Q: どんな食べ物が食べてみましたか。
A: 馬肉なら食べてみませんでした。​

not make grammatical sense because it uses a negative form?
Anyway thanks for help so far, but I'm still a little lost.
Edit:

You could just reply 「メキシコなら行ったことがあります」, but the comment about Brazil is just there to directly answer the question you were asked. If you leave out the part about Brazil, you're already telling the person you're talking to that you've never gone anywhere else.

And I really should clarify, which part infers that the speaker hasn't been elsewhere (or more specifically to Brazil)? なら or the fact that the answer is not Brazil?
Taking Toritoribe's response into account, I am thinking that なら doesn't really modify the sentence in such a way and the "only (if)" loose translation falls out of a particular use case?

 

[Angel Valis]

A statement of the form "noun A なら predicate X" says that the predicate X applies only to A and is not more generally valid. The main ideas of a なら sentence, in other words, are "limitation" and "contrast."

Situation 1
Q: ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
Have you ever been to Brazil?
A: メキシコなら行ったことがありますが、ブラジルは行っ たことがありません。
I've been to Mexico, but never been to Brazil.

Situation 2
Q: 日本語がわかりますか。
Do you understand Japanese?
A: ひらがなならわかります。
If it is in hiragana, yes.

なら introduces a sentence that says something "positive" about the item that is contrasted. In the first situation above, なら puts Mexico in a positive light, and in contrast with Brazil, which the question was originally about. In the second situation, a smaller part, namely hiragana, is brought up and contrasted with a larger area, namely, the language as a whole.

Just quoting this so everyone knows where we're coming from. I suppose that なら doesn't mean that you've only ever been to Mexico as Elizabeth said, but this text (and my teacher) make it seem otherwise.

And I really should clarify, which part infers that the speaker hasn't been elsewhere (or more specifically to Brazil)? なら or the fact that the answer is not Brazil?

Just like you can leave out subjects and objects (and a whole lot else) in a sentence when it's clear from context, similarly, Japanese sentences also make implications outside of their own scope. So なら in combination with some other place indicates you've not been to the place you were questioned about. Unless I'm completely mistaken....and if I am it makes me sad...

 

[Toritoribe]

Is this because the nouns used ("Brazil" and "Mexico") are both contextually at the same level? (i.e. they are both countries). Or is this inherent in any なら usage?

The speaker just brought up Mexico as the nearest country to Brazil where s/he have gone to. If it's 韓国なら行ったことがあります, the speaker might have traveled abroad only to Korea.

For example, if the response to the question about Brazil was instead「サンパウロなら行ったことがあります」, does なら indicate that the only place in Brazil the speaker has visited is Sao Paulo or is the possibility of the speaker visiting other locations still available?

Q: ブラジルに行ったことがありますか。
A: サンパウロなら行ったことがあります。

This is quite the same structure to "日本語 <--> ひらがな". A smaller part Sao Paulo is brought up and contrasted with a larger area Brazil. Thus, the speaker has visited ONLY Sao Paulo in Brazil.

What do you mean by "positive"? My textbook also uses "positive" in relation to なら, but I am unclear as to its meaning here. Are we just talking about in the grammatical sense?

That "positive" might be the contrary to "negative" 窶堋ｵ窶堋ｩ. Incidentally, the contrasive marker 窶堙 can be used both "positive" and "negative".

That "positive" might be the contrary to "negative" しか. Incidentally, the contrasive marker は can be used both "positive" and "negative".

Q.日本語がわかりますか。
A1.平仮名ならわかります。 （＝片仮名や漢字はわかりません。）
A2.平仮名しかわかりません。 （＝片仮名や漢字はわかりません。）
A3.平仮名はわかります。 （＝片仮名や漢字はわかりません。）
A4.漢字はわかりません。 （＝平仮名や片仮名はわかります。）

 

[Glenn]

I look at the 〜なら行ったことがあります response as something like "well... I've been to X!" Probably not as strong as that, though.

 

[wataame]

Thanks for the responses. Between the posts here, talking to my 先生 again and my own research I think I'm almost there.

Just like you can leave out subjects and objects (and a whole lot else) in a sentence when it's clear from context, similarly, Japanese sentences also make implications outside of their own scope. So なら in combination with some other place indicates you've not been to the place you were questioned about.

I guess the question was more meant to be more along the lines of asking if this behavior is a general language feature or some part of it was special to なら. My understanding is that it is the former.

Basically I was trying to determine if なら had any real function or if it was purely auxiliary for the purposes of emphasis. I was thinking that if なら specifically wasn't responsible for the conclusion that the speaker hadn't been to Brazil (e.g. if the same conclusions could be drawn from a response of「メキシコに行ったことがあります。」) then なら must be for emphasis only. Which isn't correct as なら has the function of "contrast" and "limitation".

Unless I'm completely mistaken....and if I am it makes me sad...

But otherwise, what you said falls in line with what I understand as well. Sorry for the roundabout way of asking.

"Noun + なら" is an adverbial phrase rather than a conditional clause. The なら in the example sentences are the 副助詞 or the particle to make an adverbial phrase, meaning "as for~/talking about~".

As you have called なら a particle, does it syntactically function like any other particle?
For example, can the following:

医者なら６桁の収入は珍しくない。​

be rewritten as:

６桁の収入は医者なら珍しくない。​

without changing the meaning? or was 医者なら behaving as some form of a subordinate clause?

To clarify my understanding of the above example, am I correct in saying that なら causes ６桁の収入 to be limited by 医者, thus resulting in the sentence meaning "6 digit salaries for doctors ...".

Additionally, what is the difference between the original sentence above and the following?:

６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない。​

Seems to me that it should have the same meaning but with different emphasis. (e.g. "doctors with 6 digit salaries")

Anyway, thanks again for spending your time to help so far.

 

[Angel Valis]

Basically I was trying to determine if なら had any real function or if it was purely auxiliary for the purposes of emphasis. I was thinking that if なら specifically wasn't responsible for the conclusion that the speaker hadn't been to Brazil (e.g. if the same conclusions could be drawn from a response of「メキシコに行ったことがあります。」) then なら must be for emphasis only. Which isn't correct as なら has the function of "contrast" and "limitation".

Well, if you said 「メキシコに行ったことがあります」, that seems (at least to me), that you still may have gone to Brazil and are just dodging the original question. So I don't necessarily think you can draw the same conclusion without the use of なら. So in this sense, なら is indeed working as contrast and limitation.

I find it interesting that I've come to this conclusion; but when I saw your example without なら, I immediately thought it seemed odd if you were trying to say you hadn't been to Brazil.

By the way...I'm really sleepy, so if I'm a bit hard to understand, I'm sorry...

 

[Elizabeth]

As you have called なら a particle, does it syntactically function like any other particle?
For example, can the following:
医者なら６桁の収入は珍しくない。
be rewritten as:
６桁の収入は医者なら珍しくない。
without changing the meaning? or was 医者なら behaving as some form of a subordinate clause?
To clarify my understanding of the above example, am I correct in saying that なら causes ６桁の収入 to be limited by 医者, thus resulting in the sentence meaning "6 digit salaries for doctors ...".
Additionally, what is the difference between the above sentence and the following?:
６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない。
Seems to me that it should have the same meaning but with different emphasis. (e.g. "doctors with 6 digit salaries")
Anyway, thanks again for spending your time to help so far.

You would have to specify how many in total are making 6 digit salaries to answer. If there are a very limited pool but out of which includes a significant proportion of doctors, than it obviously doesn't work...

 

[undrentide]

As you have called なら a particle, does it syntactically function like any other particle?
For example, can the following:
医者なら６桁の収入は珍しくない。
be rewritten as:
６桁の収入は医者なら珍しくない。
without changing the meaning? or was 医者なら behaving as some form of a subordinate clause?

To clarify my understanding of the above example, am I correct in saying that なら causes ６桁の収入 to be limited by 医者, thus resulting in the sentence meaning "6 digit salaries for doctors ...".

To me both sentences mean almost the same.
If anything, the emphasis (or what one is talking about) changes slightly depending on the word order - the main thing comes first.
It depends on the context, both sentences can be used as a general statement but the first one might be used when talking about the income of 6 digits and "if we are talking about doctors, it is not unusual". Since in the 1st sentence 医者なら comes first, maybe なら works a little bit stronger than the 2nd sentence, yet the difference is still not big.

Additionally, what is the difference between the original sentence above and the following?:
６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない。
Seems to me that it should have the same meaning but with different emphasis. (e.g. "doctors with 6 digit salaries")

If it is ６桁の収入の医者なら珍しくない, then the meaning is almost the same.
But ６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない sounds a lot more different - maybe because this sentence sounds somehow awkward.

The first two examples are talking about whether 6 digits income is unusual or not for doctors, but the 3rd example focuses on 6 digits income and talking about for what occupation it is unusual.

(Maybe I'm talking about the same thing as Elizabeth san, with only longish explanation... )

 

[wataame]

Well, if you said 「メキシコに行ったことがあります」, that seems (at least to me), that you still may have gone to Brazil and are just dodging the original question. So I don't necessarily think you can draw the same conclusion without the use of なら. So in this sense, なら is indeed working as contrast and limitation.

I find it interesting that I've come to this conclusion; but when I saw your example without なら, I immediately thought it seemed odd if you were trying to say you hadn't been to Brazil.

By the way...I'm really sleepy, so if I'm a bit hard to understand, I'm sorry...

Actually, I think you are right, and would have to agree that the conclusion on Brazil is vague. I guess with "contrasting" its harder to draw a conclusion without more information unlike with "limitation" (e.g. A1 and A3 from Toritoribe's example 6 posts up).

You would have to specify how many in total are making 6 digit salaries to answer. If there are a very limited pool but out of which includes a significant proportion of doctors, than it obviously doesn't work...

Sorry, which part of the quote and/or question is this in response to? I can't quite figure out what you meant.

 

[Elizabeth]

Sorry, which part of the quote and/or question is this in response to? I can't quite figure out what you meant.

６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない。

Of all the persons/occupations making 6 digit salaries, doctors are not rare. But logically this doesn't speak to the proportion of doctors in that smaller group. Saying there is likely to be a significant percentage of doctors among the higher income groups (3) is completely different than saying that not a few doctors make a six figure salary (1 & 2).

It is true that 6 digit incomes are relatively rare among all professions, but it is presumably less rare, comparatively speaking, among doctors. But it still doesn't mean that out of all the doctors in the sample, making 6 figures is not unusual.

 

[Glenn]

I found ６桁の収入なら医者は珍しくない to be strange at first, but then I thought about it and it seems like it's saying "if we're talking about 6-figure salaries, it's not uncommon for doctors." That is, it seems like "doctors" is being contrasted with other professions here. Anyone else feel that way?

[Edit] Elizabeth just beat me to it.

 

[wataame]

That makes sense. How stupid of me, that logic error didn't even have anything to do with Japanese.

Thank you for spelling it out.