This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fourth Newspaper Translation: 新しいコロナウイルス　手を洗うこととマスクが大切

手を使うと手にウイルスがつきます。
If you use your hands, the virus remain in your hands.
Not 100% on the use of つきます. I think it's this one 付. I mean I know it's this one, it says so in the help section of the article. I'm wondering which one if the 13 meanings it is.
 
Zizka said:
Since there is こと after する would it be more accurate to say "wearing a mask"?
Click to expand...
It would be the parallel grammar in English, and so a more literal translation.

The meaning is very similar, and is the same in all the essential details, so as a natural translation your original answer is fine.

It's good to recognize the underlying structure though!


Zizka said:
Here there's a non-exhaustive list followed by 腕. Does this mean "Or your arm" or that among other things you can use your arm to cover your mouth?
Click to expand...
"tissues, or your arm, (or something)".

By definition, non-exhaustive means there could be other things in the list, so the meaning is definitely "among other things".

As an English translation, you can go either way. We don't distinguish exhaustive and non-exhaustive lists that way; if we don't say something like 'and nothing else' or 'and other things' then it's not entirely clear.
 
Is this any good:
手を使うと手にウイルスがつきます。
If you use your hands, the virus remain in your hands.

If so, when a verb is written in kana, is there a way to pick the right meaning beside the context?
 
I'm not sure where you got 'remain' from, but that's not right.

Zizka said:
If so, when a verb is written in kana, is there a way to pick the right meaning beside the context?
Click to expand...
No.

In this case it's simply 付く.
 
I got it from 「付く」: the second meaning of my dictionary.
If you use your hands, the virus stick to your hands.
 
ウイルスがついた手でドアなどに触ると、ウイルスがほかの人にうつるかもしれません。
If you touch the door and the like with your hands, it may spread to other people.
 
Zizka said:
I got it from 「付く」: the second meaning of my dictionary.
If you use your hands, the virus stick to your hands.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about this one?
2. to remain imprinted; to scar; to stain; to dye

つく - Jisho.org

jisho.org

If so, see it more carefully. It's "to remain imprinted", not just "to remain".
Also, you can check that there is no definition "to remain" in any other dictionaries than jisho.org.

goo

NTTドコモが運営するポータルサイト「goo」。今話題のニュースやドコモのキャンペーン、サービス紹介などお役立ちコンテンツを展開しています。
dictionary.goo.ne.jp

「つく」の英語・英語例文・英語表現 - Weblio和英辞書

｢つく｣は英語でどう表現する？【単語】stick...【例文】It's hard to remove chewing gum sticking to the floor...【その他の表現】adhere... - 1000万語以上収録！英訳・英文・英単語の使い分けならWeblio英和・和英辞書
ejje.weblio.jp

It's not just 手, but ウイルスがついた手.
 
Zizka said:
I got it from 「付く」: the second meaning of my dictionary.
Click to expand...
In addition to what Toritoribe-san said, that jisho entry seems to be including definitions for 付いている and 付いていた that require very specific contexts, not strictly definitions for 付く in that form. That particular entry is a little bit problematic, in my opinion.

Zizka said:
If you use your hands, the virus stick to your hands.
Click to expand...
This is the right meaning but the English should be at least "If you use your hands, the virus sticks to your hands."
Better, "The virus gets on your hands when you use them."
 
Alright then! It'd say it's a wrap for this one. If you want to check my understanding about something go ahead otherwise I'll start a new one.
 
Oops sorry.
If you touch the door and the like with the virus sticking to your hands it may spread to other people.
 
Zizka said:
Not 100% on the use of つきます. I think it's this one 付. I mean I know it's this one, it says so in the help section of the article. I'm wondering which one if the 13 meanings it is.
Click to expand...

Zizka said:
If so, when a verb is written in kana, is there a way to pick the right meaning beside the context?
Click to expand...

I'd just like to make a general comment on this. Lots of beginning learners often get confused because they look on something Jisho.org and see words like 付く（つく） having all these definitions. They think "Japanese words have so many different definitions! How am I supposed to remember all of them (or know which definition is which in a given sentence)!?"

At the same time, in most dictionaries the English word run has upwards of 30 definitions (including 14 as an intransitive verb and 17 as a transitive verb). Does this confuse you when you speak/read English? Are you constantly aware of specifically which of those 30-something definitions "run" is being used as in a given sentence? Probably not.

What I'm trying to say here is that a lot of these varying definitions are just an attempt to capture multiple nuances of the word that can manifest themselves in different situations. A native speaker will be aware of these differences to some extent, but many of them will largely seem interrelated, and/or easily intuited from context. つく has a general meaning of coming together or something sticking to or becoming attached to another thing. This manifests itself in different ways, and the most common idioms are worth memorizing for what they are (e.g. 気が付く, 身に付く), but it will also help you as you continue to learn to be able to kind of perceive the verb in an abstract sense and get a feel for how all the meanings are interrelated.

I realize this is more of a meta-comment than something specific to what you're asking about, but this is one of those things that can help you "de-mystify" and not overcomplicate the language. (Trying to memorize and distinguish some 13 meanings for an incredibly common verb is an almost hopeless and needlessly intimidating task.)
 
Point taken.
Was this ok:

ウイルスがついた手でドアなどに触ると、ウイルスがほかの人にうつるかもしれません。
If you touch the door and the like with the virus sticking which has stuck to your hands it may spread to other people.
ついた is in the past here. So I probably should change to the above? ↑
 
It's ウイルスがついた手でドアなどに触る. Your translation is for 手についたウイルスでドアなどに触る. Can you see the difference?

ついた doesn't express the past tense there. It shows that the action is already completed, as bentenmusume-san explained previously in your thread. In other words, ウイルスがつく手 is used in a context where virus is not stuck yet.
 
Well, if I put them side by side:
ウイルスがついた手でドアなどに触る.
Let's see, the virus is the subject as indicated by 「が」so it's not you who is touching, it's the virus. So:
ウイルスがついた手でドアなどに触ると、ウイルスがほかの人にうつるかもしれません。
If the virus stuck to you hand and touches doors and the like, it may spread to other people.
 
Remember how a clause modifies a noun. That's exactly the same pattern you've come across repeatedly.
 
「ウイルスが」「ついた手で」「ドアなどに」触ると、ウイルスがほかの人にうつるかもしれません。
が➡The virus is doing the action of 触る followed by the if particle と.
で➡Stuck to the end is the manner
に➡the location which is doors, etc...
と➡tells that the whole preceding clause could lead to the last clause
 
That が is marking ウィルス as the subject of the verb つく. ウィルス is not the subject of 触る.

ウィルスがついた is a relative clause modifying the noun 手.
 
In addition to bentenmusume-san's explanation, the subject of 触る is "you", thus, your initial translation is correct in this point. The problem is on your translation of ウイルスがついた手. As I wrote, your translation is for 手についたウイルス. What does the subject(=you) touch doors with? Hope this makes sense.
 
Is it wrong logic to think that what's been identified with が is the subject of the clause and therefore the doer of the verb? In the first subordinate clause, if there's a が marker, how can I tell which verb it relates to if there is more than one?
 
You need to interpret it from the context.

1)
If virus is the subject of 触る, not ついた, then the subject of ついた is unclear. In other words, ついた手 doesn't make sense, unlike きれいな手 or 動いた手. (Notice that 手 is the subject of 動いた in the last example, and this structure can't be applied to ついた手.)

2)
Inanimate things like virus are rarely used as the subject of 触る. (Well, virus is actually "animate", but it doesn't have a will to touch.) This is knowledge probably from experience, so you need to check these things in the dictionary, though.
 
In that first clause, there are two verbs namely 触る and ついた of 付く.

Is it a coincidence that one is written in kana and the other one isn't or is just because they wanted to make the article easier?

As far as grammar is concerned, are they both just verbs or do they belong to two different categories of verbs. For me, I see one, 触る as the ''main'' verb of the clause while the other one, 付く as the verb of another subject within the clause.

Because right now I'm in a situation that with ellipsis it becomes difficult to determine who does what. With the explanations about the virus seldom doing things, it helps in that context.

How to explain... I didn't see ついた as a verb which had a subject. I saw it as a modifier of 手. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?
 
Zizka said:
In that first clause, there are two verbs namely 触る and ついた of 付く.

Is it a coincidence that one is written in kana and the other one isn't or is just because they wanted to make the article easier?
Click to expand...
Just a coincidence. 触る is commonly written in kanji, and つく is often hiragana.

Yes, that's right.

Zizka said:
How to explain... I didn't see ついた as a verb which had a subject. I saw it as a modifier of 手. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?
Click to expand...
Yes, but ついた手 doesn't make much sense in that sentence, as I already wrote. If your interpretation is correct, what is your translation? You can think the interpretation that doesn't make sense could be wrong.
 
Ok, I found what I'm talking about: prenominal form. To me, ついた手 I thought was a prenominal while 触る isn't.

Oops posted at the same time.

...but the translation doesn't matter if I don't learn anything from it . Even if I do translate it correctly, by tentatively trying different things, I just go on with something I still don't understand.
 
OK, one more thing. If ウイルス is the subject of 触る, the core of the clause is ウイルスが手でドアに触る. Virus doesn't have their hand(s). That's why this interpretation is illogical. "Grammatically possible" is not the only one necessary condition. It's just one of them. You should consider all the possibilities, but you should abandon non-sense ones at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
English -> Romaji translator...
2
Replies
26
Views
302K
haibuihoang
「くれている」とも「いてくれる」
Replies
5
Views
46K
Amigo
A
N
Understanding the usage of 'ippai' - いっぱい
Replies
14
Views
90K
ewww
漢字のしりとり - Shiritori kanji game
5 6 7
Replies
171
Views
38K
thomas
牛means cow and is pronounced うし(ushi), but ushi doesn't mean cow?
Replies
14
Views
59K
mdchachi
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…