Help Japanese Newspaper Translation

I am aware of the time he spends helping other people online, Majestic. As for money, I have previously offered him some as some gesture of appreciation. Just something to keep in mind. Also, not everyone do things for money, not everything needs to be a merchandise. I'd certainly hope he gets some measure of satisfaction doing what he does otherwise I don't think he should do it considering how much he does for the community.

I appreciate the help he gives. That doesn't mean all his interventions can only be flawless all the time. Since we're in the topic of reading carefully I said that if he wants to say "Be more careful please" he can but I'm respectfully saying that I don't think it's helpful since I do read replies carefully. I might not perform enough to warrant the doubt that I am doing my very best but I am.

Like you've said, there isn't just one type of pedagogic relationship and I respectfully don't share your view. I don't think saying things like: you need to do x harder is helpful (with or without please) in the sense that it doesn't bring anything which furthers understanding. When learning something, missing an explanation or misunderstanding is common and I think it's better to play it on the safe side instead of presuming: "He's not being careful enough".

I think if something has already been explained, copy/pasting the explanation is as effective as presuming on a person's methodology and intention. If the pasted explanation is still unclear, then questions can be asked. I don't personally think blaming needs to come into play. It's something I feel pretty strongly about. Mistakes happen, I find the knee jerk reaction of needing to blame someone every time futile. Maybe the explanation wasn't clear, ok, let the teacher try again. Ah e the student didn't understand because so ok, let him try again.

Just to give you example of when an assumption doesn't represent reality:
I mention that at a glance the meaning of the sentence is x, y and z. I said it wasn't my final answer because I wanted to check things out first the next morning as I was going to bed.

"However, you would be able to find the adverb 初めて(はじめて) quite easily just by looking up the word in your dictionary."

... which I did do the next morning after checking the sentence. On the night before I just checked the furigana and thought: oh this is "hajimete" and made the mistake of thinking it was はじめて. So you see, it's an honest mistake which has nothing to do with being too lazy to check the dictionary.

Anyways, I've written too long about this. It's just my opinion. I think the more comfortable students are to make mistakes the more learning takes place which is the objective of both me and I would imagine people who try to explain. When I'm told to read more carefully when I make a mistake, I don't feel like asking more questions. Feel free to reject this and wave it off.

I wI'll return on topic and won't debate this further as I've made my position clear. I stand by what I've said and if toritorieve decides to withdraw his help because of this that is his prerogative. He doesn't owe me anything but his past explanations are part of my progress in the language without any doubt.

So, Toritoribe-san asked if you could give,

Toritoribe said:

your final translation of 日本と国連は6日、オーストリアのウィーンにある国連宇宙部で署名をして、「宇宙ごみ」の問題で協力していくことを決めました。

Click to expand...

And you said you were satisfied with your translation. But the last translation you gave of the sentence was:

Zizka said:

"On the 6th of the month, representatives Japan and the United Nations were in Vienna in Austria to sign with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs...
...on how to cooperate to deal with the space debris problem."

Click to expand...

To which Toritoribe-san had earlier responded with a list of items that your translation suggests that you misunderstood, that is to say,

Toritoribe said:

オーストリアのウィーンにある modifies 国連宇宙部.
で indicates the location where the action 署名をする is done.
日本と国連 is the subject of 署名をする. は is for topicalization.
協力していくこと is the object of 決めました. こと is used to nominalize 協力していく here, since the object must be a noun. It's like "to decide cooperate" is ungrammatical also in English when "cooperate" is a verb.

Click to expand...

So...

If オーストリアのウィーンにある modifies 国連宇宙部, then ask yourself, what does the phrase オーストリアのウィーンにある国連宇宙部 mean?

If で indicates the location where the action 署名をする is done, then consider... what is で actually attached to?

If 日本と国連 is the subject of 署名をする in the first independent clause of the Japanese, how does this compare to the main subject and main verb in your first half?

When 協力していくこと is the object of 決めました, then what was the action that was done? Where is that action represented in your sentence?

Thank you for your reply. I will try my best to answer the questions and if I miss something I assure you it's not willingly.

"If オーストリアのウィーンにある modifies 国連宇宙部, then ask yourself, what does the phrase オーストリアのウィーンにある国連宇宙部 mean?"

I think it means that the United Nations office for Outer Space is located in Vienna, Austria. I'm almost certain of it because of にある which means that something exists.

"If で indicates the location where the action 署名をする is done, then consider... what is で actually attached to?"

It means that the signature was done at the United Nations Outer Space office.

"If 日本と国連 is the subject of 署名をする in the first independent clause of the Japanese, how does this compare to the main subject and main verb in your first half?"

I think it means that at the office, Japan and the United Nations signed the agreement. I'm not 100% if that is what you mean however.

"When 協力していくこと is the object of 決めました, then what was the action that was done? Where is that action represented in your sentence?"

決めました Indicates the past by its ending. きめる means to decide. The action to cooperate was decided.

As requested, I will wait to move on to the next sentences to make sure I understand what has been written so far.

So, that kind of analysis is, I think, what Toritoribe-san means by "reading carefully". My questions were simply looking at each line and asking "What is he saying that I missed? What is the actual meaning?" I think you could easily conduct such an analysis yourself if you think about it that way.

It's a useful habit to get into, not only because people correcting you will often give hints rather than complete answers, but also because you won't always be just practicing. When you talk to someone in Japanese who isn't helping you learn, the only thing you will know when you make a mistake is that they misunderstood. At times like that, being able to ask yourself these kinds of questions and find the answers will be very useful in correcting your own mistakes.

Zizka said:

I think it means that the United Nations office for Outer Space is located in Vienna, Austria. I'm almost certain of it because of にある which means that something exists.

Click to expand...

More specifically, the entire phrase is noun. It doesn't mean "the UN office for Outer Space is in Vienna, Austria" it means
"the UN office for Outer Space in Vienna Austria" ... a noun phrase, not a sentence.

Zizka said:

It means that the signature was done at the United Nations Outer Space office.

...

I think it means that at the office, Japan and the United Nations signed the agreement.

...

The action to cooperate was decided.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes.

Zizka said:

"On the 6th of the month, representatives Japan and the United Nations were in Vienna in Austria to sign with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs...
...on how to cooperate to deal with the space debris problem."

Click to expand...

Your sentence however, doesn't say "Japan and the UN signed", it says "representatives of Japan and the UN signed with the UN Office for Outer Space"

You had originally put representatives in because you didn't see how a country could be in Vienna, but now you understand that that's not what the sentence said. Also your sentence suggests the UN signed something with one of its own agencies.

Your sentence also doesn't say "the action to cooperate was decided", but rather "how to cooperate". Deciding to cooperate and deciding the methods of cooperation are two different things. Sometimes simultaneous, but not always, and "how" was not mentioned here.

I didn't interpret "read more carefully" like that at all. I did overreact a bit.

I think I've covered the previous questions now. If there are more things I should pay attention to, do let me know and I'll push my analysis further.

この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本が初めてです。
This time around, instead of just providing a translation I'll share my reasoning more.
問題: this is a noun. A problem. In the context of this article, it's the problem with space debris.
国連: the United Nations
協力: collaboration. It's a noun used with する, to collaborate
日本: Japan
が: subject marker
は: topical marker

I think that starting that part before は is affixed to 国.
"About the countries which collaborate with the United Nations to deal with this problem, for a Japan it's the first time they'll collaborate with the UN about this."
it is worded awkwardly but I think that's what it means.

I've checked 初めて in two different dictionaries. It can either be a noun adjective or an adverb. If it is a noun, it means "for the first time".

hint
1. 国 is singular, not plural.

2. See the following structure.
～する/したA（or の)は、Bが初めてです。
＝初めて～する/したA（or の)は、Bです。
＝～する/した初めてのAは、Bです。
e.g.
月に立った人間/のは、アームストロングが初めてです。
＝初めて月に立った人間/のは、アームストロングです。
＝月に立った初めての人間は、アームストロングです。

Hope this hint is helpful this time.

Zizka said:

I think I've covered the previous questions now.

Click to expand...

Well, the last translation you gave of 「日本と国連は6日、オーストリアのウィーンにある国連宇宙部で署名をして、「宇宙ごみ」の問題で協力していくことを決めました。」is still "On the 6th of the month, representatives Japan and the United Nations were in Vienna in Austria to sign with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs... ...on how to cooperate to deal with the space debris problem."

I mean, you've shown an understanding of the individual pieces, so I don't think that you would have trouble writing a translation of the whole. However, it does happen sometimes that learners understand all the pieces but not how the fit the overall structure.

Toritoribe said:

hint
1. 国 is singular, not plural.

Click to expand...

Is it?

I think it would be in my first choice of translation, but I also feel like,

この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本とドイツが初めてです

would be a valid sentence, if Germany had also signed at the same time.
Or if I'm mistaken and 初めて can only take one country then,

この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本とドイツが大事です

would, I think work and still have the same topic. That implies the clause itself is not inherently singular.


I also would think that in Zizka's textbook literal approach (treating は as "About (topic)," ) the translation would have to be plural to make sensible English. A more straightforward natural English translation would, though, certainly have a singular translation.

Regarding the examples which were given:
Armstrong is the first person to be on the moon (To stand on the moon).

I would change my translation to:
"In the context of this problem, Japan is the first country to collaborate with the UN."
So it's the first time collaborate with the UN about this problem.

I'm reading through the dictionary. At the very end, there's a short paragraph about 'Extended Sentential Unit'. The dictionary explains that the modifier precedes what is being modified. There is then a list of ESU (Extended Sentential Unit). The modifier and the modified together consists of an ESU. The author goes on to explain how being able to identify ESUs is a must. So it's something I'd like to put into practice.

In the last sentence,
この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本が初めてです
There are some ESU to be identified.

I think that 「この問題で国連と協力する」is an ESU of 国. Is this something I should concern myself with or not do you think?

Since we're talking about grammar terminology.
Would I be right to say thatこの問題で国連と協力する国 is an appositive clause since it is describing 国 which is a noun?

Are most auxiliary adjectives in Japanese written in kana?

Would the following be an auxiliary verb:
協力する
I think it is. I just want to make sure about the terminology.

Would I be right to say that
国 being the subject, the rest is the predicate, what gives you information about the subject or is it that since
この問題で国連と協力する国は is the topic of the sentence, 日本が初めてです is the predicate?

Would I would say that is a stative sentence?

SomeCallMeChris said:

Is it?

I think it would be in my first choice of translation, but I also feel like,

この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本とドイツが初めてです

would be a valid sentence, if Germany had also signed at the same time.
Or if I'm mistaken and 初めて can only take one country then,

この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本とドイツが大事です

would, I think work and still have the same topic. That implies the clause itself is not inherently singular.


I also would think that in Zizka's textbook literal approach (treating は as "About (topic)," ) the translation would have to be plural to make sensible English. A more straightforward natural English translation would, though, certainly have a singular translation.

Click to expand...

I was talking only about the example sentence. 国 is indeed plural in your case この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本とドイツが初めてです.

Zizka said:

Is this something I should concern myself with or not do you think?

Click to expand...

I've never heard the term 'extended sentential unit' and am having trouble googling up a description of it. Similar terms seem to be used in very academic linguistics papers though. So I don't think that particular term is something to worry about, but the concept probably is something to look for.

In 「この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本が初めてです」, it is important to recognize that 「この問題で国連と協力する」 is an independent clause (i.e. a clause
that could be its own sentence). Everything within the clause is grouped together and can be understood like an implied-subject sentence. That means,
for example, 問題で doesn't directly modify anything after する, it's self contained.

Japanese is very forgiving about word order in simple sentences, but in larger sentences you cannot take pieces out of one clause and move them to another clause without completely changing the meaning. That makes recognizing your clauses very important. Whether they are dependent (can't stand on their own as a sentence) or independent (can stand on their own as a sentence) is less important -- they often won't be the same in translation anyway.

It's quite likely pointless to make the 'independent' distinction since practically anything ending in a verb is a valid sentence in Japanese... it might be better to use the phrase 'verb clause' or just the word 'clause'. It matters in English because English has stricter rules about what is a sentence but often uses sentence fragments as modifying clauses.

Understanding the clause is a unit, then, the entire clause serves as an adjective to modify 国. (Even though it's a phrase ending in a verb, it's describing a noun, so its structurally an independent clause, but its role is as an adjective). That described noun then serves as the topic.

「この問題で国連と協力する国」="Countr(y/ies) cooperating with the U.N. on this problem".

The other half of the sentence reads 「日本が初めてです」= "Japan is the first".

This can be understood with the kind of textbook translation you were doing as "About countries cooperating with the U.N. on this problem, Japan is the first."

I would personally look at it as "Japan is the first" what? The topic tells us ⇒ "Japan is the first country to cooperate with the U.N. on this problem."

I've never liked the "About (topic), ..." or "As for (topic), ..." pattern of translation, personally... but as a learning aid, I have to admit it almost always gives comprehensible if awkward sounding results.

Zizka said:

Would I be right to say thatこの問題で国連と協力する国 is an appositive clause since it is describing 国 which is a noun?

Click to expand...

No. In English an appositive clause is "student" in "Bob, a student, works here." The thing that makes it 'appositive' is that it's a plain noun phrase describing Bob, stuck into the middle of the sentence.

You might translate this to 「学生であるボッブさんはここで働いている」, but I don't think you can call it appositive anymore since it's not really a noun phrase anymore.

There's a similar structure in Japanese for "Tarou is a student and a man", 「太郎は学生で男です」... but here で is a short form of the copula so again it's not exactly a lain noun phrase and I don't think you would call it appositive. I'm not sure the term really applies to Japanese at all.

Zizka said:

Would the following be an auxiliary verb:
協力する
I think it is. I just want to make sure about the terminology.

Click to expand...

No. Auxiliary verbs （助動詞）in Japanese are mostly the things we are taught as 'conjugations' or 'grammar', e.g., ます in 協力します,
or らしい in 男らしい.


Things like 協力する where you have noun+する are regular verbs. As far as I know their only specialized classification is as する verbs.

Zizka said:

国 being the subject, the rest is the predicate, what gives you information about the subject or is it that since
この問題で国連と協力する国は is the topic of the sentence, 日本が初めてです is the predicate?

Click to expand...

No, 日本 is the subject. が is the subject marker. Technically everything else is the predicate in this sentence, since nothing directly describes 日本 and predicate is simply "everything that's not the subject". この問題で国連と協力する国 is the topic, and part of the predicate.

Zizka said:

Would I would say that is a stative sentence?

Click to expand...

Hm. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not a sentence where the main verb is a stative verb, which is the only kind of stative sentence at all.
It's not a verb sentence at all, but a noun sentence.

I called 初めて an adjective earlier, but の- (and な-) adjectives are adjectives only in role (i.e., they describe nouns). Structurally speaking they are "descriptive nouns".

About the ESU, it's at the very and of the dictionary of beginner grammar. It's the very last section in case you'd like to read about it.

I'll explain what I understand from each paragraph:

"In 「この問題で国連と協力する国は、日本が初めてです」, it is important to recognize that 「この問題で国連と協力する」 is an independent clause (i.e. a clause
that could be its own sentence). Everything within the clause is grouped together and can be understood like an implied-subject sentence. That means,
for example, 問題で doesn't directly modify anything after する, it's self contained. "

So it's important to identify when an embedded clause is independent as opposed to dependent clauses. In your paragraph above, what you are saying is that I only need to concern myself with the content of the clause before 国 as this is what it essentially describes. It is an independent clause which describes a noun, in this case 国.

Japanese is very forgiving about word order in simple sentences, but in larger sentences you cannot take pieces out of one clause and move them to another clause without completely changing the meaning. That makes recognizing your clauses very important. Whether they are dependent (can't stand on their own as a sentence) or independent (can stand on their own as a sentence) is less important -- they often won't be the same in translation anyway.

Click to expand...

Whether or not a clause is independent or dependent is not important. You can't take out a clause from somewhere because it is sometimes attributive to a certain noun in particular.

Understanding the clause is a unit, then, the entire clause serves as an adjective to modify 国. (Even though it's a phrase ending in a verb, it's describing a noun, so its structurally an independent clause, but its role is as an adjective). That described noun then serves as the topic.

Click to expand...

Even though the phrase ends with a verb, it's still considered adjectival in nature because it describes the noun 国.

「この問題で国連と協力する国」="Countr(y/ies) cooperating with the U.N. on this problem".

Click to expand...

How can you tell if it's singular or plural? Or is this an example of ellipsis where whether it's plural or singular doesn't matter? Sometimes たち is suffixed to a noun but not here. I'm assuming that based on the context it's unlikely only a single country would collaborate with the UN which might be why there's no indication of plural.

I would personally look at it as "Japan is the first" what? The topic tells us ⇒ "Japan is the first country to cooperate with the U.N. on this problem."

Click to expand...

So you would sort of start by the end and then what the sentence topic is about to determine how it is affected then.

've never liked the "About (topic), ..." or "As for (topic), ..." pattern of translation, personally... but as a learning aid, I have to admit it almost always gives comprehensible if awkward sounding results.

Click to expand...

So you agree with the essence of it but not the wording.

No. In English an appositive clause is "student" in "Bob, a student, works here." The thing that makes it 'appositive' is that it's a plain noun phrase describing Bob, stuck into the middle of the sentence.

Click to expand...

I imagine using commas in that manner is something fairly rare or unheard of in Japanese.

There's a similar structure in Japanese for "Tarou is a student and a man", 「太郎は学生で男です」... but here で is a short form of the copula so again it's not exactly a lain noun phrase and I don't think you would call it appositive. I'm not sure the term really applies to Japanese at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this one 100% but I do understand that the で is short for the copula, I've read that in the dictionary.

No. Auxiliary verbs （助動詞）in Japanese are mostly the things we are taught as 'conjugations' or 'grammar', e.g., ます in 協力します,
or らしい in 男らしい.

Click to expand...

Really? I could've sworn I had seen examples of auxiliary verbs in the plan, non-conjugated form. It would've made sense to me that it'd been an auxiliary there. Oh well! I did check the link but it's all in Japanese and I wasn't motivated enough to read all of it so I'll take the blame for this one.

Things like 協力する where you have noun+する are regular verbs. As far as I know their only specialized classification is as する verbs.

Click to expand...

Is there a terminology for nouns which can be used with する? There probably is one to distinguish them from nouns for which you can't do that I suspect.

No, 日本 is the subject. が is the subject marker. Technically everything else is the predicate in this sentence, since nothing directly describes 日本 and predicate is simply "everything that's not the subject". この問題で国連と協力する国 is the topic, and part of the predicate.

Click to expand...

I'm still not a 100% about using は and が together. I'll still get confused when I come across them. But I think this is the kind of thing you acquire with more practice and exposure.

Hm. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not a sentence where the main verb is a stative verb, which is the only kind of stative sentence at all.
It's not a verb sentence at all, but a noun sentence.

Click to expand...

I thought 'stative sentences' were sentences that used the copula to state something.

I called 初めて an adjective earlier, but の- (and な-) adjectives are adjectives only in role (i.e., they describe nouns). Structurally speaking they are "descriptive nouns".

Click to expand...

So な adjectives are nouns in nature but can act as adjectives. I thought as well because my dictionary described it as a noun.

I think that covers it.

I'll leave the next sentence here:
日本は、２０２５年度ごろまでに「宇宙ごみ」の中の大きな物を片づけることができるようにしたいと考えています。

日本は、２０２５年度ごろまでに「宇宙ごみ」の中の大きな物を片づけることができるようにしたいと考えています。

日本は: the sentence is about Japan.
2025年度ごろまで: I think this means 'approximately by 2025'
「宇宙ごみ」の中の大きな物を片づけることが
This whole thing is one nominal clause as marked by ことが。
中 means inside, among the space debris...
followed by big thing, object...
and finally the verb 片付ける to clean up.
So: 'the cleaning up of the big object among the space debris'

できるようにしたい
よう indicates seems that...
できる means possible...
したい: volitional...
It is looking like that by around approximately 2015, Japan wants to proceed with the cleaning up the big objects among the space debris.

Hey, I think I got it!
と考ています。
This is probably like when you're asking for someone to explain something to you so:
"We're told that it is looking like that by around approximately 2015, Japan wants to proceed with the cleaning up the big objects among the space debris."

Final answer!

The next sentence, I won't translate it until I've gotten the ok about the previous one though:
ウィーンにある国連日本代表部の引原大使は「宇宙で活動するとき、いちばん問題になるのが宇宙ごみです。

ウィーン: Vienna
にある: something exists at Vienna
国連日本代表部: United Nations to Japan
引原大使: I don't know that this is. My dictionary doesn't come up with anything. Even if I separate it in two groups of two kanjis. Probably a technical term.

After that there's a quote so it's probably is someone talking and they're quoting him or her. Actually I checked at the end of the end and it is indeed a quote so that's out of the way.

活動: activity
するとき: time of doing...
いちばん問題: first problem, most important problem
になるのが宇宙ごみです : becoming the most important problem in space

I think I have a pretty good idea now, missing the technical jargon though.

Zizka said:

So it's important to identify when an embedded clause is independent as opposed to dependent clauses.

Click to expand...

No, dependence or independence isn't important. That it's a clause is important. Japanese is so permissive with missing
information that I'm not sure the idea of a dependent clause even applies. I only call it an independent clause
because that's what you'd call a clause that could be its own sentence in English. You can also call it a 'sentence within a sentence'
or a 'sub-sentence' if you prefer. Personally, I find it awkward to talk about anything other than the whole sentence as being a sentence.

Having read the section on ESU, I notice it starts out with "Let's call...", so this isn't standard terminology but rather terminology
they invented for the book. In any case, yes, この問題で国連と協力する国 is an ESU. In particular, it's an ESU that is a
noun phrase with a modified noun. (Their definition of ESU also includes clause+particle and clause+conjunction, and clause+nominalizer).

The important thing here is to identify the scope of the clause (or ESU). In this case that's easy because everything before 国 is part
of the clause that modifies 国. ADoBJG shows several examples of more difficult cases in the ESU section.

Zizka said:

How can you tell if it's singular or plural?

Click to expand...

Only by context. Most words in Japanese are neither singular nor plural but can be used for both. If it's important
to specify the plural, there is the word 国々 （くにぐに） but I rarely see it used. It's usually clear if you're talking about
a country or multiple countries.

Zizka said:

I could've sworn I had seen examples of auxiliary verbs in the plan, non-conjugated form.

Click to expand...

ます、られる、させる、たがる、やがる are all dictionary forms of auxiliary verbs, but by definition
they will always appear after conjugated verb.

It's possible the author you were reading meant something different from 助動詞 when they said 'auxiliary verb', but I don't know what else they would have meant.

Zizka said:

I thought 'stative sentences' were sentences that used the copula to state something.

Click to expand...

I've never heard that usage. My understanding is that sentences ending in the copula are 'noun sentences', and sentence ending in a verb are 'verb sentences'.

Zizka said:

できるようにしたい
よう indicates seems that...
できる means possible...
したい: volitional...

Click to expand...

～ように is not the same as ～ような ; ADoBJG has an entry for ~yōni and ~yōni suru.
したい isn't volitional, it's "want to" form. (I think it has a formal name, but nobody uses it.)

Zizka said:

'the cleaning up of the big objects among the space debris'

Click to expand...

This part is fine. (aside from the 's' that you fixed in your full sentence).

Zizka said:

"We're told that it is looking like that by around approximately 2015, Japan wants to proceed with the cleaning up the big objects among the space debris."

Click to expand...

There's nothing meaning "We're told" or "looking like" in the Japanese.
2015 has already come and gone.
You noted that できる means possible, but there is no expression of potential in your translation ( possible / can / could / able to, etc.)


Also, 年度 is a more specific term and not an exact synonym of 年.

I have to say to that "it is looking like that by around approximately" is redundant (around = approximately) and probably not grammatical English. I know this isn't an English learning forum, but if the English isn't clear it's hard to tell if your understanding is clear.

したい isn't volitional, it's "want to" form. (I think it has a formal name, but nobody uses it.)

Click to expand...

This is what I meant by 'volitional'. I thought 'volitional' meant to want something as in 'volition', the act of making a choice. I learned something new.

I don't have my dictionary with me at the moment but I've looked online.
According to this website:

ように・ような
(you ni / you na) is used to say things like:

• just like
• just as
• similar to something else..

Click to expand...

They don't seem to make a distinction between the two. I'll wait until I get home to read about the difference.

Also, 年度 is a more specific term and not an exact synonym of 年.

Click to expand...

年度: noun, fiscal year, academic year. (I take my definitions from jisho.org)

There's nothing meaning "We're told" or "looking like" in the Japanese.
2015 has already come and gone.

Click to expand...

You're right in being thorough. I'll try again then.

2015 has already come and gone.

Click to expand...

Lol, yes of course. It completely slipped my attention, should've been 2025.

Second Attempt:
日本は、２０２５年度ごろまでに「宇宙ごみ」の中の大きな物を片づけることができるようにしたいと考えています。

I'll start from the end like you did last time. I think と is the quotation particle here. The verb however is not 'to say' but rather 'to think', 考える conjugated in the ーて form+いる to express action 'in progress' for lack of a better word.

I'm going to write down some elements I have picked up from reading the text.
"It is thought that..." (explained above). (A)

２０２５年度ごろまでに
"until around the academic year 2025 (B)..."
I think ごろ is meant to express approximation. まで express a temporal limit. So 'by/until'

So ように doesn't mean 'seems' like I thought before. Let's check a different source then where it says it means 'in order to':

The first source and the last source vary greatly. I'll need to wait until tomorrow for that part.

I have to admit I have to think about this one a bit more. I'm sure it means that Japan wants the cleaning of the biggest objects of the space debris to take place by 2025 or something like that. I just need to word it right.

About 助動詞 and auxiliary verb;
There are two different types of grammar in Japanese, 国文法/学校文法 and 言語学文法 "linguistics in general". The former is mostly used to teach grammar for native Japanese speakers in Japanese school. Non-native learners usually use the latter one since the former one was originally made to analyze classical Japanese text, and therefore it's not effective/convenient just to learn modern Japanese. 助動詞 refers to ～れる/られる for the potential form in 国文法/学校文法, as already mentioned, but auxiliary verb is the ones that are attached to the -te form of verbs for instance ～いる, ある, いく or くる in 言語学文法. Similarly, ます is 助動詞 in 国文法/学校文法, but it's a conjugation suffix in 言語学文法. I recommend sticking to the terms used in 言語学文法 since 国文法/学校文法 is ineffective/inconvenient for modern Japanese(there is no fixed term even for "-te form") and most text books for non-native learners use those terms.

Zizka said:

So な adjectives are nouns in nature but can act as adjectives.

Click to expand...

You need to know the definition of noun before talking about whether a word is a noun or not. Actually, not all stems of na-adectives are a noun (e.g. 静か, 確か, 見事).

You need to know the definition of noun before talking about whether a word is a noun or not. Actually, not all stems of na-adectives are a noun (e.g. 静か, 確か, 見事).

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

Zizka said:

Let's check a different source then where it says it means 'in order to':

Click to expand...

It's OK to use those kinds of sites for reference, but it's sometimes risky especially for beginner learners who have come across the expression for the first time since it could be misunderstood that that's the only one usage of "verb + ように". You need to know that "verb + ように" can have two different meanings, and what the key of the difference in meaning is.

Zizka said:

と is the quotation particle here. The verb however is not 'to say' but rather 'to think', 考える
...
"It is thought that..."

Click to expand...

Yes, but the conjugation of 考える is not passive, and "it is thought" is.

Zizka said:

年度: noun, fiscal year, academic year
"until around the academic year 2025 (B)..."
I think ごろ is meant to express approximation. まで express a temporal limit. So 'by/until'

Click to expand...

Well, you are right that it is by/until around the fiscal/academic year 2025, but the English terms are not interchangeable even if they translate to the same Japanese word.


Oh, and jisho.org - or really EDICT/JMdict dictionaries generally, since they all have the same entries just different front ends - are fine as far as they go. They are quick, convenient way to get a quick idea of what a word means... it tells you pretty much all you need to know about 年度, for example. They aren't good for very thorough or nuanced definitions though, and are definitely not a good way to learn about key grammatical terms, like ように for instance.

I'm off to bed but what's considered to be the best dictionary then as I'll use that one instead.

Toritoribe said:

You need to know the definition of noun before talking about whether a word is a noun or not. Actually, not all stems of na-adectives are a noun (e.g. 静か, 確か, 見事).

Click to expand...

From "An Introduction to Modern Japanese" I was actually taught that there aren't any actual adjectives in Japanese, but rather 'descriptive verbs' and words like those you list are all called 'adjectival nouns'.

They say,
"In addition to the descriptive verbs we met in lesson 11, there is another set of words that translate into English as adjectives but that operate in a rather different manner in Japanese; these are nouns that modify other nouns by means of the link な. な is a form of the classical copula なる and so the underlying pattern is again one of 'noun which is X': きれいな花 'a flower which is pretty', hence 'a pretty flower'."

This approach to understanding Japanese 形容詞 as "descriptive verbs" and "adjectival nouns" has always worked for me, but I suppose that you disagree with this theory?


As for 助動詞・auxiliary verbs, I'll keep that in mind and try to change my terminology. I always though of the ～ていく kind of auxiliary verb as a 'compound verb', although I guess compound verb properly should refer to things like 入り込む. Hm. Confusing. I feel like there should be a set of terms that covers all these things without being ambiguous, but I guess that's just not the case.