What's new

Example Help

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone,

I went through an exercise practice in a textbook and was wondering if the two are correct to use grammatically.
Also, what is the difference?

1. メアリーさんは 木曜日に 喫茶店で 日本人の友達 会います。
2. メアリーさんは 木曜日に 喫茶店で 日本人の友達 会います。

Thank you.
 

Toritoribe

禁漁期
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
15,271
Reaction score
2,186
#1 is correct, but #2 is not. 会う is intransitive, so it can't take an object.
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
#1 is correct, but #2 is not. 会う is intransitive, so it can't take an object.
Hello Toritoribe,

Thank you for your response. Would someone learning Japanese have to remember to categorize verbs like 会いますand its usage as an intransitive verb along the way? Or are there different rules for how its used?

Thank you!
 

Toritoribe

禁漁期
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
15,271
Reaction score
2,186
You need to remember if the verb is transitive or intransitive. Dictionaries usually have the definition.
Godan verb with u ending, intransitive verb

Also, as you might already know, there are many transitive-intransitive pair verbs in Japanese. You need to choose the correct one strictly.
e.g.
家を壊す (transitive)
家が壊れる (intransitive)

家を壊れる is invalid, and 家が壊す is non-sense (it means that the house is the agent who destroys something).
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
You need to remember if the verb is transitive or intransitive. Dictionaries usually have the definition.
Godan verb with u ending, intransitive verb

Also, as you might already know, there are many transitive-intransitive pair verbs in Japanese. You need to choose the correct one strictly.
e.g.
家を壊す (transitive)
家が壊れる (intransitive)

家を壊れる is invalid, and 家が壊す is non-sense (it means that the house is the agent who destroys something).
Thank you Toritoribe for explaining transitive and intransitive verbs! I have somewhat of an idea to be more careful now to watch what particles to use. Still learning them as I go along. :)

Also, a question about your example:
"家を壊す (transitive)",

I know you gave an explanation why it's non-sense, but wouldn't we assume that it is the topic is 私?
(私は) 家を壊す。 - I break houses./I destroy houses.

Grammatically, this would be correct right? Although the idea/concept is something that makes no sense in the real world right? No one would actually destroy houses regularly. Was that what you meant by it being nonsensical?
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
More questions :(.
Would these two mean exactly the same thing and be grammatically correct for 2. a) & b)? :confused:
1. 木村さんは パーティに 行きます。

2. a) 山口さん パーティに 行きます。
b) 山口さんは パーティにも 行きます。
Mr./Ms. Yamaguchi will also go to the party.

Thank you in advance. :)
 

Majestic

先輩
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
630
2a = Mr. Yamaguchi will also go to the party. (i.e. Among the people going to the party, Mr. Yamaguchi will be one of them ). The person is the focus. Mr. Yamaguchi is the one of several.
2b = Mr. Yamaguchi will go to the party as well. (i.e. In addition to the other places he will go, Mr. Yamaguchi will also be going to the party). The party is the focus. The party is the one of several.

In English these could both be covered by, "Mr. Yamaguchi will go to the party, too." Or, as you say in your example, "Mr. Yamaguchi will also go to the party". Depending on the context, you would understand what the emphasis is.
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
2a = Mr. Yamaguchi will also go to the party. (i.e. Among the people going to the party, Mr. Yamaguchi will be one of them ). The person is the focus. Mr. Yamaguchi is the one of several.
2b = Mr. Yamaguchi will go to the party as well. (i.e. In addition to the other places he will go, Mr. Yamaguchi will also be going to the party). The party is the focus. The party is the one of several.

In English these could both be covered by, "Mr. Yamaguchi will go to the party, too." Or, as you say in your example, "Mr. Yamaguchi will also go to the party". Depending on the context, you would understand what the emphasis is.
Wow, thank you Majestic for the explanation. This clears things up a lot. If I hadn't ask, I would have assumed that they would mean the same thing more or less. :confused:

Why is life so difficult?! :mad: Just joking. I must learn more. :) 😈
 

Toritoribe

禁漁期
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
15,271
Reaction score
2,186
Also, a question about your example:
"家を壊す (transitive)",

I know you gave an explanation why it's non-sense, but wouldn't we assume that it is the topic is 私?
(私は) 家を壊す。 - I break houses./I destroy houses.

Grammatically, this would be correct right? Although the idea/concept is something that makes no sense in the real world right? No one would actually destroy houses regularly. Was that what you meant by it being nonsensical?
Read again my post more carefully. I wrote "家壊す is non-sense". The subject is the house in this sentence, as I wrote "the house is the agent who destroys something". Your house doesn't (or can't) destroy anything, except in metaphorical expressions such like "the house destroyed my family" or in case you live in a haunted house, right? This is exactly a good example you need to be more careful to watch what particles to use, isn't this?;)

The subject is usually interpreted as "I" in 家を壊す, as you interpreted correctly. This sentence is valid, needless to say.
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Read again my post more carefully. I wrote "家壊す is non-sense". The subject is the house in this sentence, as I wrote "the house is the agent who destroys something". Your house doesn't (or can't) destroy anything, except in metaphorical expressions such like "the house destroyed my family" or in case you live in a haunted house, right? This is exactly a good example you need to be more careful to watch what particles to use, isn't this?;)

The subject is usually interpreted as "I" in 家を壊す, as you interpreted correctly. This sentence is valid, needless to say.
しまった! :mad: You got me there! :( Now this makes a lot more sense!

が would in fact change everything - it's just as you said, :) "The house is the one that is doing the breaking/destroying". That wouldn't make any sense at all.

True! Would that work though - with the right context, metaphorically? Just curious, does metaphors and similies work the same way in Japanese as it is in English? o_O

Haha, yes. Now you've got me on my toes to watch out and be more careful with what particles to use. 😒 🙂

Thanks for confirming! :)
 

Toritoribe

禁漁期
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
15,271
Reaction score
2,186
True! Would that work though - with the right context, metaphorically? Just curious, does metaphors and similies work the same way in Japanese as it is in English?
Yes. あの家が私の家族を壊した works perfectly fine as a metaphor in Japanese (their housing loan was too high for their income, for instance).
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Yes. あの家が私の家族を壊した works perfectly fine as a metaphor in Japanese (their housing loan was too high for their income, for instance).
Ahh, okay. Although, it would literally mean, "That house, is the house, that broke my family." right? 😮:)

Would native Japanese speakers pick up that it's a metaphor? That it meant that the house was too financially difficult to maintain?
 

Toritoribe

禁漁期
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
15,271
Reaction score
2,186
Although, it would literally mean, "That house, is the house, that broke my family." right?
It literally means "That/The house(= the house the speaker is referring to) broke my family". "That house, is the house, that broke my family" is あの家が私の家族を壊した家だ. Notice that my original Japanese sentence is a verb sentence (subject が object を verb), whereas your English sentence is a noun sentence (Noun A is Noun B) since the core of it is "That house is the house".

Would native Japanese speakers pick up that it's a metaphor? That it meant that the house was too financially difficult to maintain?
Yes and yes. The loan caused the family trouble.
 

JohnTitor

後輩
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
It literally means "That/The house(= the house the speaker is referring to) broke my family". "That house, is the house, that broke my family" is あの家が私の家族を壊した家だ. Notice that my original Japanese sentence is a verb sentence (subject が object を verb), whereas your English sentence is a noun sentence (Noun A is Noun B) since the core of it is "That house is the house".


Yes and yes. The loan caused the family trouble.
It literally means "That/The house(= the house the speaker is referring to) broke my family". "That house, is the house, that broke my family" is あの家が私の家族を壊した家だ. Notice that my original Japanese sentence is a verb sentence (subject が object を verb), whereas your English sentence is a noun sentence (Noun A is Noun B) since the core of it is "That house is the house".


Yes and yes. The loan caused the family trouble.
Hmm, thanks for the explanation! It really helped clear things up for me! :)
I could not thank you enough. Time to learn some more Japanese. 😮
 
Top