Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
#1 is correct, but #2 is not. 会う is intransitive, so it can't take an object.
You need to remember if the verb is transitive or intransitive. Dictionaries usually have the definition.
Godan verb with u ending, intransitive verb
会う - Jisho.org
jisho.org
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).
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.
Read again my post more carefully. I wrote "家が壊す 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?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 "家が壊す 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.
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).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).
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".Although, it would literally mean, "That house, is the house, that broke my family." right?
Yes and yes. The loan caused the family trouble.Would native Japanese speakers pick up that it's a metaphor? That it meant that the house was too financially difficult to maintain?
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.