Help with this sentence

[Toritoribe]

3)
For confirmation, do you realize 伺う is used as a special verb in that sentence? Indeed, 伺う means "to hear", but why it's used there instead of 聞く? In other words, do you know what the difference between 伺う and 聞く is?

By the way, "from" is from アンドルー・マカリフから, not from うかがいました.

Do you mean you used "he" in your translation because of "indirectness"?

4)
Refer to the following post.
koto | Japan Forum

 

[Narktor]

About 3)
うかがう is a honorific word. The reporter used to show his respect for the person he interviews.

I'm using he because in my translation this is necessary to give the english sentence a subject. The reason why I feel that the reporter tries to be "indirect" is that he is "adressed" with 社長は. Well, ultimately he's both the topic and subject of this whole sentence, but I'm just not used to talking to people like that ^^
If an english reporter interviewed someone, saying "the president did X, right?" it would feel more like he's trying to avoid talking to him directly, probably because he/she doesn't like him/her xD
I understand that this is not the case here since the language just works that way, but I couldn't rule out the possibility that there might not be the intention to make it sound more indirect through this construction, that's why I asked again ^^

 

[Narktor]

again Fehler - abload.de for context

1) せんせい、今、どこの大学でも学生の数が減っているようです。
=> Is this some kind of split form of どこでも?
"Teacher, currently it looks like the number of students of universities everywhere drops."

2) ええ。日本はこれからも子供の数は増えそうもありませんから、...
=> what does も do there?
"Yes. Concerning japan, since it looks like the number of children won't increase from now on,..."

3) 例えば、どこにいても、インターネットで授業が受けられるようにするのも、一つの方法だと思います。
=> Same as in 2) what does も do there?
"For example, I think one method would be to make that I can receive lessons in the internet wherever I am."

 

[Toritoribe]

3)
Speaking strictly, it's a humble verb.
Is it possible that other translations make sense in that sentence than "to hear"?


Then I have to point out that your interpretation is totally wrong. 社長 performs like a second-person pronoun there. Have you ever seen a scene where a subordinate calls their boss 部長 or 課長 when talking to them directly? Or, you've just come across a case that 先生 is used in quite the same way in #4, right? There are many other examples that work as a personal pronoun such like お客様, お父さん or 奥さん. This is a common way in Japanese when talking to people in order to avoid using second-person pronouns, which could sound rude.

The first-person pronouns (e.g., watashi, 私) and second-person pronouns (e.g., anata, 貴方) are used in formal contexts (However the latter can be considered rude).
--------
In some contexts, it may be considered uncouth to refer to the listener (second person) by a pronoun. If it is required to state the second person, the listener's surname, suffixed with -san or some other title (like "customer", "teacher", or "boss"), is generally used.
Japanese pronouns - Wikipedia

That's the case. I would simply use "you" in the translation since it's common to use 社長 or 先生 in Japanese as same as "you" in English, whether you talk to people like this or not.


1)
Yes.

2) 3')
too/also

 

[Narktor]

3)
Speaking strictly, it's a humble verb.
Is it possible that other translations make sense in that sentence than "to hear"?


Then I have to point out that your interpretation is totally wrong.

Okay, another try then ^^
"We have heard that concerning your way of working, you have a policy"
Or with another translation for うかがう
"We have taken note that concerning your way of working, you have a policy"
The latter translation could imply that they haven't necessarily heard about it, but that they have come to the conclusion on their own.

About 2) 3')
okay. In the function of "too", I found it a bit superfluous and wanted to make sure that I didn't get it wrong.

 

[Toritoribe]

My question about the interpretation of 伺う in my previous post is a rhetorical question, and I was referring to the translations listed in jisho.org (to ask; to inquire; to hear; to be told). "To take note" is just a free translation of "to hear" after all.

 

[Narktor]

1) 市役所の説明によると、電気製品を捨てる場合はお金を払わなければならなくなったということです。
=>
1.1 Concerning the explanation of the municipal office, it says that...
a)...if we dump the electrical products... (like the coffeemachine etc.)
b)...if we dump the "products concerning electricity"... (What I mean is the electrical connection itself, although you can't "dump" them literally, but one could terminate the contract.)
...we don't have to pay the money

1.2 Concerning the explanation of the municipal office,
a)...if we dumped...
b)...if we dumped...
...we wouldn't have had to pay the money.

- First, its about the interpretation of 電気製品 for which I gave the variations a) and b)

- Second its about the grammatical category of "ならない" which is "ならなく" here.
Is this one of the cases where, like with ない, the verb is used as an adjective?
I would then say that this is "...ならなく成ります" -> "To become not must".

-Third its about the use of the past tense ...ならなくなった.
In 1.1 and 1.2 I gave variations of translating in plain indicative (1.1) or "modus Irrealis"/subjunctive (1.2). About the terminology:
"Modus Irealus is the latin terminology for the subjunctive mood. Potentialis would be something that is not but could conceivably be, whereas Irealus is just "contrary to fact." "The untrue becomes true" would be a simplified translation."

I haven't learned anything about a direct equivalent to the subjunctive mood in english/german yet, but since there was a conditional clause involved here, I couldn't help but feeling like the subjunctive mood might be necessary, especially with the past tense in the main clause...^^

 

[Narktor]

3)
Problem with my textbook:
causative-passive forms were introduced.
According to my textbook, they are built like this:
File 1:
Pic-Upload.de - 3.jpg
so for example 書かされる or 読まされる.

In the examples of the grammar section, this was also reflected by the class I verbs:
File 2:
Pic-Upload.de - 4.jpg

However, in the following exercise, according to my solution book, 行く was conjugated into 行かれる. But 行く should be class I, right?

File 3:
Pic-Upload.de - 2.jpg

File 4:
Pic-Upload.de - 1.jpg

Why is that? Or is my textbook wrong here?

 

[Narktor]

3.1)
pretty much the same goes for kuru -.-
In the grammar section, 来させられる is the only form displayed.
However, in my solution book, I find this sentence:
...かしこまりました。ワン-さんがこちらへ来られるということですね。

 

[PaulTB]

3)
Why is that? Or is my textbook wrong here?

I think you have confused passive with causative-passive.
The iku example is (polite) passive, the utau example is causative-passive.

 

[Toritoribe]

1)
It's not [払わなければ] + [ならなくなった], but [払わなければならない] + [なった]. Have you never learned a set phrase なければならない?

By the way, did you get all your questions so far, for instance why "to ask" can't be a correct interpretation in #3 (not the recent one, of course)? Even if you don't have any questions, isn't there anything to say?

 

[Narktor]

1)
It's not [払わなければ] + [ならなくなった], but [払わなければならない] + [なった]. Have you never learned a set phrase なければならない?

By the way, did you get all your questions so far, for instance why "to ask" can't be a correct interpretation in #3 (not the recent one, of course)? Even if you don't have any questions, isn't there anything to say?

First, I did learn the set phrase, but I didn't know the exact components.
Second, I didn't understand your last post that way ^^ So far I think all my questions from last time have been answered ^^
Third, Thanks

 

[Toritoribe]

Does that mean you already understand why 伺う can't be "to ask" in 社長は仕事のやり方について、ポリシーを持っていらっしゃると伺いました or what 払わなければならなくなった means?

 

[Narktor]

First, since と marks reported speech here, if 伺う meant "to ask", the reported speech would have to contain a question, for which I would at least expect -か at the end of the reported speech phrase as a marker.
Thats determining the meaning of うかがう by the sentences content. I wouldn't know of any other formal markers which could hint the meaning of うかがう here.

Second, I would know for example what お金を払わなければならない means:
"I have to pay (the) money."
Thats because I learned the phrase ない-form + なければならない.
From what you've told me now, that it's [払わなければならない] + [なった]
I could guess that [払う (nai-form)] + [なければならない] form one word, probably a verb which is also in the function of a verb? Or in function of an adjective?

However,
if 払わなければならない becomes 払わなければならなく + なった then I would say that 払わなければならなく functions as an adjective. This would also fit the "to become" semantics of なる。
That's what I "know" about it so far.

I would

 

[Toritoribe]

Yes, your understanding about 伺う is correct. That's exactly why 伺う can't mean "to ask" there. Now I wonder why you couldn't reach the correct translation "to hear" when you initially read that sentence...

As I wrote previously, adjectives perform as predicative as same as verbs with no problem. Do you think a negative sentence お金を払わない sounds odd? This is just a negative form of the verb even if the sentence ends with ない, no? You seem to be overly bothered by the English term "adjective".

adjective (Japanese: 形容詞, keiyōshi, literally "adjective"), or i-adjectives
These can be considered specialized verbs

adjectival noun (形容動詞, keiyō-dōshi, literally "adjective verb"[a]), or na-adjectives
These can be considered a form of noun

Both the predicative forms (終止形 shūshikei "terminal form") and attributive forms (連体形 rentaikei) of adjectival verbs and adjectival nouns can be analyzed as verb phrases, making the attributive forms of adjectival verbs and adjectival nouns relative clauses, rather than adjectives. According to this analysis, Japanese has no syntactic adjectives.
Japanese equivalents of adjectives - Wikipedia

The basic function of adjectives (形容詞/形容動詞) as the predicative is to express a state, not a movement/action in Japanese. The negative form or -tai form are state, as well.

 

[Narktor]

Yes, your understanding about 伺う is correct. That's exactly why 伺う can't mean "to ask" there. Now I wonder why you couldn't reach the correct translation "to hear" when you initially read that sentence...

Well, somewhen I read in my textbook, I think it was when the dictionary form was introduced, that in colloquial contexts か can be left out in questions^^ That was one aspect which contributed to my confusion. The other was that I struggled a lot with 社長は, because I didn't know that this is a common way to address someone in second person. From such "blocks" in the understanding of a sentence, often further problems arise...^^

You seem to be overly bothered by the English term "adjective".

I wouldn't call it like that, but yes, I do have some issues dealing with the way japanese forms and uses its verbs as "adjectives", or better, "attributes".

What I was asking above was centered around two aspects of lingual category:
word class and syntactical function.
What I wanted to know here was into which word class 払わなければならない has to be put. Is it still classified as a verb, or is it a (deverbal) adjective?

However, from what you've written now, I can assume that the word class of adjectives doesn't really exist in japanese, right? Words like "yellow" in english are pure adjectives for example, they don't stem from any kind of verbal or nominal origin (at least not from a synchronous perspective, under a historical perspective there probably would be another word class it originated from).
This kind of "real" adjectives doesn't exist in japanese, it's either nominal or verbal morphemes which are coaxed into functioning as attributes, right?

So, since I would also like to be able to make it through sentences like the one in question without having to ask the same thing over and over again in the future,
can I assume then that, even if a ない-form of any verb behaves like an "adjective" morphologically (the switch from い in ない to く in なく is something I would associate with i-adjectives, although only in context of an adjective -> adverb conversion so far), there is nothing special at play and I can just proceed?
To make this clear, I'm still not sure wether the way I handle this is correct or not. Therefore, I will probably bring up such constructions again and ask wether I interpreted them correctly.
But I think I got the theory behind it, so I don't need to wonder that much when I encounter a verb functioning like an "adjective" in a predicative manner like here ^^

 

[Toritoribe]

It reminds me of this thread. The OP was confused because of the English term "gerund". I, or most of all textbooks use "adjective" as the most common English translation of 形容詞, as same as "adverb" for 副詞, as I explained previously. 形容詞 is not the same as adjective in English grammar. 形容詞 can be predicative(術部) by itself without any copula or something. That's what I mean by You seem to be overly bothered by the English term "adjective".

 

[Narktor]

thanks
concerning:

I think you have confused passive with causative-passive.
The iku example is (polite) passive, the utau example is causative-passive.

How would one translate this (polite) passive then?

 

[Narktor]

4)
21世紀は平和であってほしい。
=> Concerning the 21st century, I wish there is peace.

Just learned about the formal -である for -だ.
If someone wants to say the above standing sentence, how would he say it if he doesn't want to say it using -である?
Would he say
a) 21世紀は平和だってほしい (is that form grammatical at all?)
or use the nominal version
b) 21世紀は平和がほしい

 

[Toritoribe]

How would one translate this (polite) passive then?

The meaning is the same as 北京へ出張する, 会場へ行く or こちらへ来る since it's just an honorific form. You translated 伺う as "to hear" as same as 聞く even though a humble verb is used, no?

4)
The -te form of copula だ is で, not だって. "この部屋は静かだ + 広い" is この部屋は静かで広い, and not この部屋は静かだって広い, right?
ほしい can be attached only to verbs. The copula or adjectives can't be used there. You need to use であって even when the original sentence is ～だ (e.g. この部屋は静かだ --> この部屋は静かであってほしい).

 

[Narktor]

Thanks

地震で壊れた建物には多くの人が残っていて、けがをしている人もいるようだ。
=> In the buildings which broke down due to the earthquake, there were many people left inside and it looks like there are also hurt/wounded people.

1) 多くの人
I guess this is an adverbial construction instead of the attributive construction again, like we've had it recently?

2) ようだ only modifies the phrase ケガしている人もいる right?

 

[Toritoribe]

ようだ is the present tense, so 残っていて is also present.
Your interpretation is not wrong, but it would be more common to interpret that 多くの人が残っていて、その中にはけがをしている人もいる.

1)
The -ku form can be used as a noun in some adjectives, mostly spatial or temporal ones, for instance 遠くを見ている, 近くにある, 夜遅くまで起きている or 若くから働き始めた. 多く is neither spatial nor temporal, but works as well. Incidentally, the nominal usage of 多く has another expression ～の多く. In this case, 多く only means "majority/most part", not "many".

2)
It's also possible to interpret that ようだ is modifying 残っていて too.

 

[Narktor]

多くの人が残っていて、その中にはけがをしている人もいる.
=> a) ...there are many people left, and inside there are also wounded people.
Or is その中には meant as "part of a whole"?
b) ...there are many people left, and out of those there are also people who are wounded.

I doubt its b) because for this I'd expect noun + [の中]で...
I only wrote it because I must admit that I don't really know what exactly you wanted to tell me with this modified sentence...^^

About 2)
Okay, then I'd rather translate it like this, to express more clearly that ようだ modifies both:
"In the buildings which broke down due to the earthquake, it looks like there are many people left inside and there are also hurt/wounded people."

 

[Narktor]

3)

ほしい can be attached only to verbs.

a) 息子は新しい電子辞書をほしがっています。
Was standing in my textbook like this and there are several more examples which work just the same way ^^

b) Furthermore, in my elementary lvl 1 book I learned this construction:
noun+が+欲しいです
for example: 私は友達が欲しい

=> Now I'm confused ^^

There's confusion about a) because I've never seen ほしい implemented into a sentence like that. If it is grammatically related/subordinated to がっています then it would make at least a bit sense to me because I just learned て-form + ほしい. But in these cases ほしい follows the verb and doesn't precede it like here.

And now there's also confusion about b) because I took a look at this early chapter where "noun+が+欲しいです" was introduced so I now wonder why I can't use this pattern in the sentence we discussed earlier:

b) 21世紀は平和がほしい

 

[Narktor]

4)
I just learned ます-form/い-adj/な-adj + (た)がる , also...(た) がっている.

My textbook says that -たい simply becomes -た.
There's also an example:
このごろの若者は, むすかしい本を読みたがらない。
"Nowadays young people don't want to read difficult books."
=> morphologically there's no difference anymore between a simple expression and the expression of a wish here, right?