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

Is Passive Causative Form Acceptable?

飛

飛べるハム太郎

後輩
Joined
7 Jan 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Probably a linguistic curiosity rather than of any practicality. Usually when one combines the causative form and the passive form, the causative inflection is attached first to the root, then the passive. My question is, can you switch the process? e.g. 食べる, 食べさせられる, 食べられさせる. Also, if this is possible, are the two forms semantically the same?
 
Apparently there is no Edit icon? I apologize if I committed the sin of double-posting. I want to additionally ask for interpretation for this sentence: 太郎は猫が魚を食べているのを蹴った. I was told that the direct object of kick can be either the cat or the fish. My head says that the cat should be the one to be kicked. Can the fish be kicked as well? What if the sentence is 太郎は魚が猫に食べられているのを蹴った. Probably there are more elegant ways to say this, of course, just trying to understand the grammar.
 
飛べるハム太郎 said:
Apparently there is no Edit icon?
Click to expand...
You couldn't edit your post due to 15 minutes time limit.

No, you can't change the order. 食べられさせる is interpreted as 食べられるようにさせる "to make thing/one be eaten (i.e., the causee is not the subject)" or 食べられて、させる "to be eaten, and then as a result of that, make someone else do something other than 'to eat'".

Yes, you are correct. The direct object is the cat, and the fish can't be the object.

飛べるハム太郎 said:
What if the sentence is 太郎は魚が猫に食べられているのを蹴った. Probably there are more elegant ways to say this, of course, just trying to understand the grammar.
Click to expand...
Probably what you want to say is 太郎は魚を食べている猫を蹴った vs. 太郎は猫に食べられている魚を蹴った. The object is the fish in the latter one.
 

Concerning the second question, indeed those were more elegant ways to the say the same thing. However, since Japanese is syntactically flexible, one couldn't say 太郎は猫が魚を食べているのを蹴った, or 太郎は魚が猫に食べられているのを蹴った are grammatically incorrect. Those awkward clauses can stand alone as sentences. What I am interested in finding out is whether the noun marked by the subject marker in such relative clauses is always interpreted as the direct object of the verb, or whether there is ambiguity in the direct object.
 
The awkwardness is from your choice of the nominalizer の. I just explained the structures using your examples as it is. There is no awkwardness in 太郎は猫が魚を食べているのを見た, for instance.

飛べるハム太郎 said:
What I am interested in finding out is whether the noun marked by the subject marker in such relative clauses is always interpreted as the direct object of the verb, or whether there is ambiguity in the direct object.
Click to expand...
The ambiguity doesn't exist in almost all cases. Please give us your examples, if you can think of. There is no problem with English sentences if you can't make Japanese ones.

(Your signature ここに書いて、お前のためにわけがねえだからな doesn't make sense, by the way.)
 

You said that awkwardness is from the nominalizer, but the sentence you present here only differ from mine in the final verb. Is 見た and 蹴った that different? They are both transitive...

That sentence is my own creation analogous to the one from Kuroda 1992 Japanese Syntax and Semantics, which has the following: そのお巡りは学生たちがCIAのスパイを組み伏せたのを撃ち殺した, which he deemed to contain two possible direct objects -- students and CIA spy. I guess in linguistics, one's interpretation of a sentence is not universal, or simply that there are grammatical sentences that are rarely in use.

And my intent for my signature is to say "there is no way I am writing here for you" in a masculine way. In what manner is it not correct?
 
Last edited:

There is a difference between "grammatically correct" and "makes sense". You overestimate the limits of flexibility.

In the first, you're saying "Taro kicked the eating of a fish by a cat" and in the second you're saying "Taro kicked the being eaten by a cat fish"( which is giving you too much credit, as you actually have him kicking "being eaten" but I can't warp the English enough to fit it), which I feel certain you will argue they don't mean but that's exactly how idiotic they sound in Japanese. They sure as hell don't come through as "Taro kicked a cat eating a fish" or "Taro kicked a fish being eaten by a cat". You've nominalized the eating and the being eaten, which is what is being kicked in your oddball constructions. Neither work if it is the cat or the fish being kicked.
 

The book I have said that Japanese has a type of relative clause called internally headed relative clause, which allows the head of a relative clause to be within the clause itself. Thus, 太郎は[猫が魚を食べている]のを蹴った, の is the nominalizer for the clause 猫が魚を食べている, so the cat is eating the fish, and either the cat or the fish is the head of the clause to be taken as the head to be the direct object of 蹴った.
 
Have you ever learned Japanese from a textbook or are you just trying to teach yourself from reference books?
 
飛べるハム太郎 said:
You said that awkwardness is from the nominalizer, but the sentence you present here only differ from mine in the final verb. Is 見た and 蹴った that different? They are both transitive...
Click to expand...
Refer to the following post for detail.
koto | Japan Forum

That sentence sounds rather awkward to my ears. It would be acceptable only for the readers who already know the context so far, and there is no ambiguity for them who the object is. We use languages to convey what we want to say. If the sentence is ambiguous, we avoid using it and choose other expressions probably mostly unconsciously, no?

飛べるハム太郎 said:
And my intent for my signature is to say "there is no way I am writing here for you" in a masculine way. In what manner is it not correct?
Click to expand...
Then, ここに書いてんのはお前のためじゃねえからな is the one you are looking for. I would reword it to お前のために書いてんじゃねえからな, though. (Note that these sentences sound rather rude in a public forum like here. I recommend using more appropriate expressions.)
 
I guess I am learning Japanese for entertainment purposes, and as an amateur linguist trying to learn how people of other culture think through language usage. I think in many textbooks, they only teach head external relative clause because that alone will work and that's how most Indo-European languages work anyway. You can search for studies on Japanese children's acquisition of head internal relative clauses for some other examples other than mine. For example, this study seems to say that young children can understand sentences such as mine quite well.

Also, signature like mine is what most tsundere character would say, right? It's not meant to be offensive in any regard. And why is 訳がない not viable in this case?
 
Last edited:
You need to learn a whole lot more about the language and the culture before you decide to branch off into "masculine" speech. What you are trying to say in your signature comes across as antagonistic and confrontational. If you had gotten it right and I had noticed it early I would have thrown you straight into my Ignore list. Fortunately, it was gibberish.
 

Haha~! Must have read too many light novels. I was trying to be antagonistic and confrontational, but within a context which is meant to be funny. I guess I am one of those people whose only introduction to Japanese culture is the animated media, so I apologize if I offended you in anyway.
 
飛べるハム太郎 said:
I think in many textbooks, they only teach head external relative clause because that alone will work and that's how most Indo-European languages work anyway.
Click to expand...
No. It's quite natural also in Japanese. You need to reread Mike-san's explanation and my previous post linked above. The verb and the nominalizer is the key for each situation.

飛べるハム太郎 said:
You can search for studies on Japanese children's acquisition of head internal relative clauses for some other examples other than mine.
Click to expand...
I, a native Japanese speaker, must have come across those examples so far no doubt more often than you if it exists.

EDIT:
I googled and found "Kuroda (1992) admits that many of his examples could potentially sound unnatural or that they could be too complicated to be understood." in the following thesis. (You can check whether what the writer quoted is correct in your book.)
Internally Headed Relative Clauses
(52 pages pdf file, 996KB)

I have to point out that the expressions such like 太郎は花子が昨日リンゴを買ったのを取って or 太郎はリンゴが皿の上にあったのを取って are rarely used, as Kuroda himself admitted, or as you can see many natives said it's understandable but unnatural at the end of the thesis. 主要部内在型関係節 is more likely treated as the topic of how the meaning is recognized, i.e., in the field of cognitive linguistics in Japanese. It's far more useful to come to be able to make a simple Japanese sentence to mean "there is no way I am writing here for you" first, I believe.

飛べるハム太郎 said:
Also, signature like mine is what most tsundere character would say, right? It's not meant to be offensive in any regard.
Click to expand...
No one knows your "dere" part, therefore it only works as "tsun", or more likely rude, as I pointed out. As Mike-san wrote, you might be banned if you continue to use those rude expressions in a public space.

飛べるハム太郎 said:
And why is 訳がない not viable in this case?
Click to expand...
Because it's more natural there.
 

Have you ever met foreigners there at home who have a poor grasp of English but who delight in gratuitously throwing in English profanity regardless of situational or grammatical appropriateness? That's how it comes across.

Have you ever seen the foreign learners of Japanese who try to BS everybody regarding their deficiencies by throwing bits of slang into their speech or who throw bits of regional dialect in and delude themselves into thinking everybody is so impressed that they won't notice they couldn't form a simple sentence in standard Japanese if their life depended on it? That's how it comes across.

Not offensive, but indicative of a type too tiresome to bother with.

Look, I've spent the bulk of my working life surrounded by nothing but Japanese truck drivers and they don't go around copping the kind of cartoonish attitude indicated by that type of speech, though every single one of them is fully capable of that register of speech when and where it is appropriate.

I've never tried to pull off that kind of speech in real life because if one can't pull it off naturally and maintain it and do it artfully then one merely sounds like an aśś. Let us learn from the example of Livy Clemens:

Twain's wife Livy Clemens disliked his habit of swearing, and he tried to keep it from her. One day when he was dressing alone, he realized that his shirt was missing a button and went off on a blue streak. To his horror, he realized that his wife was listening behind the door. In her prim voice, she repeated his words to him as a reprimand.

"Livy," he said, "did it sound like that?"

"Of course it did," she said, "only worse. I wanted you to hear just how it sounded."

"Livy," he said, "it would pain me to think that when I swear it sounds like that. You got the words right, Livy, but you don't know the tune."

How much worse when one doesn't even have the words right?
 
I presume this is an international forum with focus on Japanese culture, and hence I am supposed to able to learn about it without worrying too much about appearing silly. Your long-winded comment sounds to me that you are too culturally insulated of other cultures that are adapted to equate friendliness with doses of profanity. Think of me, if you like, as a child who talks to native for the first time in a real settling. Understand that I presently know very little and guide me on the morality of this great nation, rather than scolding someone so harshly for using inappropriate words in an inappropriate context, since I know very little of this context of which you speak, in the empirical sense in any case. If Mark Twain went to Japan, even if he's fluent in the language, he still needs to learn the context. I doubt the literary quotation you used is analogous to the present case.

I have 10 posts; can't you please be more patient with me?

Now back to the post, head internal relative clauses are real grammatical structures. You guys may not actively use them and therefore thought them unnatural, but these are analyzed by linguists who are also native speakers of Japanese. As I mention in my initial posts, I know these are awkward constructions, and I am not trying to question your authority in your own native language. But given these sentences are grammatical, I just want your prima facie option on which head is more likely to be the direct object.

And Toritoribe-san, all you gave for explaining why 訳がない is inappropriate in this case is that it's unnatural. That doesn't help much as to why exactly it is unnatural. I construct the sentence thus ここに書いて, a gerund, a noun, お前のために, a postposition modifying the gerund. 訳がないだから, an exclamation for the "tsundere effect" with little grammatical function. Why is this not correct?
 
Well, then, let's start with your misunderstanding about the function of the -te form, which almost all, or more likely all learners must learn before 主要部内在型関係節. The -te form is not "gerund". The very basic function is to connect clauses in the temporal order when it's used at the end of a clause (e.g. 朝起きて、学校に行った), but the meaning differs depending on the relation between the clauses. It might indicate the reason/cause of the main clause (e.g. 疲れて眠ってしまった), the means (e.g. 電車に乗って仕事に行った), state (e.g. 笑って見ている), etc, and it can be even an adversative conjunction (e.g. 答えを知っていて、わざと教えない) . The -te form has many other functions, but it can't be treated as a noun in any usages, anyway. The following explanations would be helpful for your understanding.

Japanese verb conjugation - Wikipedia
Compound Sentences | Learn Japanese
Other uses of the te-form | Learn Japanese
http://www.imabi.net/l20te.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l27finalparticlete.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l29teiru.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l30tearu.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l88tegivingverbs.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l90teikutekuru.htm
http://www.imabi.net/l97teshimau.htm

Though some call the て形 the Japanese "gerund", it can't be used as a nominal phrase, ,,,
Click to expand...
http://www.imabi.net/l157theparticleteiii.htm

Hope you can realize one of your mistakes at the beginning.
 
飛べるハム太郎 said:
I have 10 posts; can't you please be more patient with me?
Click to expand...

I regret you took my words as a scolding rather than as an attempt to be informative and enlightening. If I weren't being patient, i sure as hell wouldn't have taken the time to one finger type all that just for your sole benefit. I certainly won't be doing so again. Good luck in your studies.
 

Perhaps it's a difference in the education methods between the US and Japanese, or perhaps terminology. For example, I see 朝起きて as morning waking up. It does have the additional function of a conjunction analogous to the English "and", "because", etc. but that doesn't prevent it being a gerund at the same time. Just to confirm, "waking up in the morning", "riding the train", "tiring", "did sleeping", etc. do you consider these English constituents to be gerunds?
 
You'd better not stick to the term "gerund". It's not used in Japanese grammar, and seems to be the cause of your confusion. The forms of gerund and present participle are completely the same in English, but Japanese is not so. Indeed, the -te form can have a similar function to present participle in a sentence for example "waking up in the morning, I did...", but "waking up in the morning" is not treated as a noun here, as you would know. In the same logic, 朝起きて can't work as a noun. You can't use the -te form as gerund, for instance in a sentence such like "waking up in the morning is difficult for me". You need to use a nominalizer or -masu stem of the verb in these cases (e.g. 朝起きるの/朝起きること/朝起きは難しい). Makes sense?
 

That make sense. The concept of the "gerund" is not very robust in the English case either, but I don't have a proper noun for "grammatical structure which describes changes a verb undergo for use in a nominal phrase". So would this be more correct:
お前のためにここに書いてのは訳がない?
 
飛べるハム太郎 said:
And my intent for my signature is to say "there is no way I am writing here for you" in a masculine way. In what manner is it not correct?
Click to expand...
Drop the target pronoun of "you" altogether. It makes it sound too personal, as if you (Hamtarō) are challenging the reader, when the intent (I think) is to challenge the suggestion that something (anything) should be written in the signature space. In essence, Hamtarō's signature is an ironical challenging of authority - so it trades in two commodities that often go wanting for customers here in Japan, irony and anti-authoritarianism. This makes it slightly problematic, but not impossible to translate into Japanese. However, you end up dealing with the risk of the sly irony being lost .

ここに何か書く気はサラサラねぇよ

I would remove the "お前" bit, which, as I mentioned, can be taken as a direct affront to the reader.
But I reiterate that the whole thought process of resisting authority for its own sake doesn't always translate well - the reader is inclined to think, "If you are so opposed to leaving a signature line, why not just leave it blank?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

te form of verb+kimasu
Replies
18
Views
45K
PaulTB
P
Explanation on some forms of the verb.
Replies
14
Views
22K
nice gaijin
Difference between -nakute and -naide form.
Replies
3
Views
23K
Tsurugi
Chatta form?
2
Replies
26
Views
18K
Elizabeth
"Mitai" form?
Replies
13
Views
16K
Yamatoblue
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…