koto & to iu in "to iu koto", "to iu imi", "to iu no wa" etc

Hello
I have problems of understanding the use of "to iu ..." and "... koto" in several sentences. I've found some threads about it, but none of them explains the point enough.
My textbook gives examples like:
「天丼」というのは何ですか。
ー てんぷらをせたご飯のことです。
「来日する」というのはどういう意味ですか。
ー 日本へ来るという意味です。
What's the difference of these questions and answers? Can I use both grammatical forms for both situations? Can I interchange the grammatical forms in answers? Can't I ask just "nan to iu imi desu ka" or "... to iu koto wa nan desu ka"?
And why do I need to use -koto when gohan is already a noun? Can't it be replaced with -mono in some situations?
Can sombody explain the use of "no" in "to iu no wa" (I mean take the phrase apart for me and explain how does it work)?
Besides I understand, that I can use -koto in several places where I want to make infinitive from some verb or verb phrase. But why I should make "-koto" phrases like:
例えば、どんなことですか。
ー ぶっかが高いことや部屋がせまいことです。
Can't I answer just something like "bukka ga takakte, heya ga semai to omotteimasu". What's the point of pushing this "-koto". Would there be a point to answer just "yasui koto desu"、or can I go just "yasui desu".
Somebody willing to give some general instructions how to assimilate this -koto (and "to iu" things) into my Japanese?
Thanks in advance...

Boamaod said:

Hello
I have problems of understanding the use of "to iu ..." and "... koto" in several sentences. I've found some threads about it, but none of them explains the point enough.
My textbook gives examples like:
「天丼」というのは何ですか。
ー てんぷらをせたご飯のことです。
「来日する」というのはどういう意味ですか。
ー 日本へ来るという意味です。
What's the difference of these questions and answers? Can I use both grammatical forms for both situations? Can I interchange the grammatical forms in answers? Can't I ask just "nan to iu imi desu ka" or "... to iu koto wa nan desu ka"?
And why do I need to use -koto when gohan is already a noun? Can't it be replaced with -mono in some situations?
Can sombody explain the use of "no" in "to iu no wa" (I mean take the phrase apart for me and explain how does it work)?
Besides I understand, that I can use -koto in several places where I want to make infinitive from some verb or verb phrase. But why I should make "-koto" phrases like:
例えば、どんなことですか。
ー ぶっかが高いことや部屋がせまいことです。
Can't I answer just something like "bukka ga takakte, heya ga semai to omotteimasu". What's the point of pushing this "-koto". Would there be a point to answer just "yasui koto desu"、or can I go just "yasui desu".
Somebody willing to give some general instructions how to assimilate this -koto (and "to iu" things) into my Japanese?
Thanks in advance...

Click to expand...

Um, I tend to write run-on-forever-sentences myself and yours is not that bad. Yet, if you can number and list questions, then it would be easier for us to understand and answer your questions.
(I bet people have had a lot more trouble reading my posts than yours though)

1)What is difference between "to iu ..." and "... koto"

I'm no linguist and not confident but:
という
a thing called ***
or that says ***(Toritoribe-san explained this part so read the post below)

の事
A thing or things about or with
Or
things that does blabla

Let's see some examples.
犬という生き物
A creature called a dog

犬の事はどうします？
What do we do with the things concerning the dog

あの人の事, どうおもいます?
what do you think about that person

そらをとぶいきもののことをどうよびます？
How do you call the living things that fly?



2)why do I need to use -koto when gohan is already a noun? Can't it be replaced with -mono in some situations?

「天丼」というのは何ですか。
ー てんぷらをせたご飯のことです。
「来日する」というのはどういう意味ですか。
ー 日本へ来るという意味です。

Click to expand...

Let try using "と言うもの"
"てんぷらをせたご飯"と言うものです。
Not completely wrong but it means "Tendon a thing that is called 'a bowl of rice with a Tenpura on top.'" (You gave tendon a new name very descriptive one...)

Whereas "てんぷらをせたご飯のことです。"
it is a thing that has tempura on top of a bowl of rice.

3)というのは
thing that people call or say

4)the meaning or function of "ということ" when they are used to form an infinitive?
Eg
ぶっかが高いこと
A state of prices being high

部屋がせまいことです。
The room being cramped that...(is the that I do not like etc)
(Bad translation but closer to how words are connected in Japanese I think)

English approximation to me seems like "a state of" or things like or thing/things that. (Somewhat similar to "a state of affairs"?)

5)What's the point of using "-koto".
For a simple sentence it is unnecessary to use it but for a longer, more complex sentence, we might have trouble associating words or concepts without a group of words like のこと. "koto" works like English "that" or like an empty box into which we can throw words or ideas to form some sort of a bunch.

Let us consider the unnecessarily long and complicated sentence below
(Omg...I had to rewrite so many times and yet it is just so wrong....):
Port-forwarding is a mode of Internet address translation that occurs at a router or gateway and provided by those physical or software devices where different address spaces -which may use the same system of addressing but terminals or network nodes that comprise a network are each uniquely identified with an address only within a network, which means an address allotted to a network component in one network may points to a different network component in a different network, thus, address translation is required for sending packets across different networks- or spaces with entirely different addressing systems intersect and exchange data packets. Port-forwarding ensures that incoming packets received at a certain port of a router or gateway(or routers or gateways) are transfer to a specific port, or to the port with the same port number as incoming packets were received, of the destination address.

Forget what it says because I intentionally wrote it badly and probably I got them wrong...I obviously do not remember a thing now.
The point that I want to make is that if we do not have any "that" or "which" as a tool to organise our thoughts, then the sentence like the above would be even harder to decipher: Also, writing something that do not leave any room for readers to misinterpret or intentionally distort its meaning would be harder too.

Boamaod said:

「天丼」というのは何ですか。
ー てんぷらをせたご飯のことです。
「来日する」というのはどういう意味ですか。
ー 日本へ来るという意味です。

Click to expand...

"○○と（いうの）は××の/（という）ことです" is the structure for explanation or definition. These example questions above are asking for the explanation, so this structure is used. When ×× is a noun, の is always needed.

「天丼」と（いうの）はてんぷらを乗せたご飯のことです。(ご飯 is a noun.)
「来日する」と（いうの）は日本へ来る（という）こと です。(日本へ来る is a clause.)

Boamaod said:

日本へ来るという意味です。

Click to expand...

As for the case that an adjectival clause is modifying a noun, when (1)the noun is about language(e.g. ニュース, 知らせ, 手紙, うそ, うわさ, ことわざ,,,) and (2)the clause is the explanation regarding the noun, という is basically needed to connect the clause and the noun.
e.g.
政権が変わったというニュース
彼が死んだといううそ
三回目は成功するということわざ

Boamaod said:

例えば、どんなことですか。
ー ぶっかが高いことや部屋がせまいことです。

Click to expand...

The questioner asked the points you are unsatisfied with(right?), so you need to answer with a noun.

（不満な点/のは）例えば、どんなことですか。

物価が高いことと部屋が狭いことです。(こと is the nominalizer.)
or
物価の高さと部屋の狭さです。(高さ/狭さ is the noun form of the adjective.)

Thank you for the answers, I will need some time to see if they make sense to me. But at least linking Japanese "koto" to "that" of English seems very meaningful at the first sight.

Boamaod said:

Thank you for the answers, I will need some time to see if they make sense to me. But at least linking Japanese "koto" to "that" of English seems very meaningful at the first sight.

Click to expand...

"That" isn't even necessary most of the time in English and nothing really connects it directly in Japanese. ということ could be anything from a quotation, to giving the meaning (interchangable with 意味), to a nominalizer. という as "says" or points to "such and such" being called/being about also connects the noun and verb phrase/explanation for the listener who might be unaware that there is such news or rumors or a proverb, etc. "That" is also frequently used in such translations.

Even with years of study under your belt, though, it is a hard relationship to follow...


政権が変わった（という）ニュースは The news that political power changed
彼が死んだ（という）うそは The rumors of his death (lie/incorrect fact that he died)
三回目は成功するということわざは The proverb that the 3rd time is a charm
「三回目は成功する」ことわざは

In the structure "noun A という noun B", B indicates the category of the noun A.

天丼という料理: the cuisine Tendon
山形という友人: my friend Yamagata (Yamagata is the name of a friend = person.)
山形という地名: the place name Yamagata (Yamagata is the name of a region.)

The pronouns (もの, こと, ところ, の) are often used as "B".

nounというもの(not only concrete things but including abstract concepts)
天丼というもの, 愛というもの

verb/adjective/clauseということ
愛するということ, 物価が高いということ

locationというところ
東京というところ, 大学というところ

の can be used for all cases.
愛というのは, 人を愛するというのは, 東京というのは



There are two types of relation between the adjectival clause and the noun in adjectival modifications.

1)彼が聞いたうそ: the lie he heard
The clause 彼が聞いた is qualifying うそ. The relation うそ and 聞いた is "object vs verb", as in 彼が/はうそを聞いた; "he heard the lie."

2)彼が死んだといううそ: the lie that he dead
As I wrote in my previous post, the clause 彼が死んだ is the explanation regarding the content of うそ. うそ is not the subject/object/target of 彼が死んだ.

A linguist 寺村秀夫 named these relations 内の関係(inside-relation), 外の関係(outside-relation) respectively. という is needed only for the case of outside-relation.

彼が死んだうそ and 三回目は成功することわざ sounds odd. 政権が変わったニュース might be acceptable in some context, but 政権が変わったというニュース is more common. Probably because they could sound as if the clause is qualifying nouns, like as 政権を変えたニュース; "the news that made happen the political power change", 彼が死ぬ原因になったうそ/彼を殺したうそ; "the lie that killed him", just in my opinion

Toritoribe said:

In the structure "noun A という noun B", B indicates the category of the noun A.
天丼という料理: the cuisine Tendon
山形という友人: my friend Yamagata (Yamagata is the name of a friend = person.)
山形という地名: the place name Yamagata (Yamagata is the name of a region.)
The pronouns (もの, こと, ところ, の) are often used as "B".
nounというもの(not only concrete things but including abstract concepts)
天丼というもの, 愛というもの
verb/adjective/clauseということ
愛するということ, 物価が高いということ
locationというところ
東京というところ, 大学というところ
の can be used for all cases.
愛というのは, 人を愛するというのは, 東京というのは
There are two types of relation between the adjectival clause and the noun in adjectival modifications.
1)彼が聞いたうそ: the lie he heard
The clause 彼が聞いた is qualifying うそ. The relation うそ and 聞いた is "object vs verb", as in 彼が/はうそを聞いた; "he heard the lie."
2)彼が死んだといううそ: the lie that he dead
As I wrote in my previous post, the clause 彼が死んだ is the explanation regarding the content of うそ. うそ is not the subject/object/target of 彼が死んだ.
A linguist 寺村秀夫 named these relations 内の関係(inside-relation), 外の関係(outside-relation) respectively. という is needed only for the case of outside-relation.
彼が死んだうそ and 三回目は成功することわざ sounds odd. 政権が変わったニュース might be acceptable in some context, but 政権が変わったというニュース is more common. Probably because they could sound as if the clause is qualifying nouns, like as 政権を変えたニュース; "the news that made happen the political power change", 彼が死ぬ原因になったうそ/彼を殺したうそ; "the lie that killed him", just in my opinion

Click to expand...

Yes, that helps. Thank you ! I have never used sentences such as these [彼が死んだ]うそ or [三回目は成功する]ことわざ. It was more a process of thinking through the possibilities when it came to a quick and dirty, not so neat casual conversation reply to "Which lie, proverbs etc (are you referring to?)"

But for the most part I get the linguists general thrust, so no worries ! The general point about untranslatable "that" still stands, though.