What's new

一ヶ月に三~四本映画を見ます。

healer

Sempai
13 May 2019
687
10
28
Is 一ヶ月 in the sentence above still read as いっかげつ though 一ヶ by itself is read as いっこ?
It doesn't matter how many months ヶ before 月 is always pronounced as か, doesn't it?
Is 一ヶ月に映画を三~四本見ます grammatically correct for the meaning the same as the topic?
What about 一ヶ月に映画を三本か四本見ます?

Below is what my dictionary tells me.
一ヶ月, 一カ月, 一か月, 一箇月, 一ケ月, 1ヶ月, 1カ月, 1か月, 1箇月, 1ケ月 [いっかげつ (ikkagetsu)]
一個, 1個, 一箇, 一ヶ [いっこ (ikko)]
 
Is 一ヶ月 in the sentence above still read as いっかげつ though 一ヶ by itself is read as いっこ?
It doesn't matter how many months ヶ before 月 is always pronounced as か, doesn't it?
Is 一ヶ月に映画を三~四本見ます grammatically correct for the meaning the same as the topic?
All yes.

What about 一ヶ月に映画を三本か四本見ます?
That works perfectly fine.
 
I refer to topic sentence again.

How come we don't need to have の between the counter and the noun here?
Shouldn't we say 一ヶ月に三~四本映画を見ます。
Should we also say 一ヶ月に三本か四本映画を見ます instead of 一ヶ月に三本か四本映画を見ます?
 
の is optional. The followings are all correct.

一ヶ月に三~四本映画を見ます。
一ヶ月に三~四本の映画を見ます。
一ヶ月に三本か四本映画を見ます。
一ヶ月に三本か四本の映画を見ます。
映画を一ヶ月に三~四本見ます。
映画を一ヶ月に三本か四本見ます。
(の can't be used in the last two example sentences, of course.)
 
I try to formulate a rule here so that I can determine straight away whether の is optional.
Can I say の for the counter of the object is optional? The rest should be compulsory, aren't they?
 
Grammatically, 三本か四本 or 三~四本 works as an adverb when の is not attached to it, whether the noun is the object or subject.
e.g.
明日三本か四本/三~四本映画が公開される。 = 明日映画が三本か四本/三~四本公開される。

This is applied to all counters.
二冊本を読んだ。 = 本を二冊読んだ。
二冊本が置いてある。 = 本が二冊置いてある。
二本鉛筆を買った。 = 鉛筆を二本買った。
二本鉛筆が落ちていた。 = 鉛筆が二本落ちていた。

However, note that the meaning could differ depending on the word order or whether の is there or not.
e.g.
1. 買った三個のリンゴを食べた。
2. 買ったリンゴを三個食べた。

The former means that the speaker had bought three apples and ate all of them, while the latter is that they ate three apples in the ones they had bought, i.e., they might buy more than three apples. 三個買ったリンゴを食べた。 is the same meaning as #2, but 三個の買ったリンゴを食べた。 is ambiguous. It can mean both #1 and #2.
 
Wow word order does matter!

買った三個のリンゴを食べた。
Is の optional here for the same meaning?
It seems to me that when の is in, it implies the whole lot according to your translation.
So I suppose 買った三個リンゴを食べた would mean here three out of the whole lot.

they might buy more than three apples. 三個買ったリンゴを食べた。 is the same meaning as #2, but 三個の買ったリンゴを食べた。 is ambiguous. It can mean both #1 and #2.
The difference of these two sentences is の. Here the の doesn't necessarily mean 三個 was the whole lot one bought. So it defeats my inference above.

二本鉛筆が落ちていた。 = 鉛筆が二本落ちていた。
落ちていた above is a state not an action in progress, isn't it? This applies to all intransitive verbs in 〜ている form. Am I right? That means the pencil had fallen and was already on the ground or somewhere at a lower level.
 
Is の optional here for the same meaning?
No. の is necessary since 買った三個リンゴを食べた is ungrammatical. 買った modifies the whole phrase 三個のリンゴ in the original sentence, but 三個 works as adverb in the word order 三個リンゴを食べた, as I already wrote. There is no problem with 買った三個を食べた (or of course 買ったリンゴを食べた). Try to think about the reason.

落ちていた above is a state not an action in progress, isn't it?
Yes.

This applies to all intransitive verbs in 〜ている form. Am I right?
No. For instance, 歩く is intransitive, but 歩いている is present progressive/on-going action, not state. The point is "durative verb vs. punctual verb", not "transitive verb vs. intransitive verb".

As for transitive-intransitive verb pairs, it can be said that most intransitive verbs are punctual verb, and most transitive verbs are durative verb, though. (Notice that "most" means that there are exceptions.)
 
No. の is necessary since 買った三個リンゴを食べた is ungrammatical.
Is it because 買った can only modify one word that follows not the whole phrase?

The point is "durative verb vs. punctual verb", not "transitive verb vs. intransitive verb".
So it's only the punctual verbs in ~ている form that convey a state, right? Sometimes it's different to define what a punctual verb is. I guess it refers to those actions that can be completed in an instant, such as marry, die and so on. Is 落ちる a punctual verb? Is falling an act of an instant?
 
Is it because 買った can only modify one word that follows not the whole phrase?
It's possible that 買った modifies the whole phrase as I wrote "買った modifies the whole phrase 三個のリンゴ in the original sentence". The point is, unlike a single phrase 三個のリンゴ, 三個リンゴ is actually two phrases. 三個 works as an adverb, as I already wrote, therefore the two different word orders 三個リンゴを and リンゴを三個 are both correct.

See the following examples.

1. ゆっくり料理を食べた。
2. 料理をゆっくり食べた。

ゆっくり is an adverb modifying 食べた for both #1 and 2.

3. ゆっくり辛い料理を食べた。
4. 辛い料理をゆっくり食べた。
5. 辛いゆっくり料理を食べた。

It's the same for #3 and 4. However, #5 is invalid since 辛い modifies 料理, not ゆっくり料理. The word order 買った三個リンゴを食べた is equivalent to #5, so it's ungrammatical, too.

So it's only the punctual verbs in ~ている form that convey a state, right?
As for ~ている form, yes. State verbs like いる, ある or できる can express a state with the present form, though.

Sometimes it's different to define what a punctual verb is. I guess it refers to those actions that can be completed in an instant, such as marry, die and so on.
Yes, that's right.

Is 落ちる a punctual verb? Is falling an act of an instant?
The action "falling" completes instantly when the subject (= the thing that falls) touches down the ground, so it's the same sense as 行く, 来る or 着く.
 
I notice this adjective can mean both spicy hot and salty. When it qualifies food, does it mean either or both together? If either, it is not clear. I can't imagine why would one use it for food.

As for ~ている form, yes. State verbs like いる, ある or できる can express a state with the present form, though.
If I'm not wrong, て-form of transitive verbs + ある is also a state of a finished action.
 
I notice this adjective can mean both spicy hot and salty. When it qualifies food, does it mean either or both together? If either, it is not clear. I can't imagine why would one use it for food.
辛い means spicy hot in most cases nowadays. 鹹い is only used for salty, but this kanji is rarely used. Hiragana からい or 塩辛い/塩からい is often used for salty.

If I'm not wrong, て-form of transitive verbs + ある is also a state of a finished action.
Yes, that's right. ~てある is basically attached only to transitive verbs, though.
"The -te form of the passive form of transitive verb + いる " also expresses a state. Thus, there are three different forms to express a state for transitive-intransitive pair verbs.
e.g.
コップを割る (transitive) - コップが割れる (intransitive)
コップが割れている (-te iru of intransitive)
コップを/が割ってある (-te aru of transitive)
コップが割られている (-te iru of passive of transitive)
 
Hiragana からい or 塩辛い/塩からい is often used for salty.
Are you saying when it is written 辛い means spicy hot in most cases nowadays whereas written in hiragana means salty? I suppose when spoken we would say からい for spicy hot and しおからい for salty.
 
Hiragana からい can mean both "spicy hot" and "salty".
There is another word しょっぱい for salty, which is often used in casual conversation.
 
Back
Top Bottom