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

NOUN のために

H

healer

Sempai
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
687
Reaction score
10
I have learnt that there are two types of beneficiaries, recipient and deputative.
And the deputative has to go with のために.

I'm attaching two images here below.
Could you please comment on what I say?

It seems to me the top one of the above image marked wrong is still grammatically correct though it is not correct for the purpose.

To me the so-called wrong one is just meant to say Miller-san opened the door for me to get in or go through whereas the correct one says Miller-san opened the door while I was supposed to do so.

I can't figure out if the bottom wrong one could be interpreted the same way.

Likewise the first wrong one could be interpreted as Miller-san repaired the computer for Son-san whereas the correct one is meant to say Miller-san did it when Son-san was supposed to do it.

I can't work out if the second wrong one could be interpreted to get it work the same.
 
All the examples marked wrong are grammatically wrong. に can be used to indicate the recipient of the benefit only when the original verb can take に as the indirect object marker. Many causative forms belong to this group.
e.g.
彼に手紙を渡す --> 彼に手紙を渡してあげた
子供たちにおとぎ話を話す --> 子供たちにおとぎ話を話してあげた
私にやらせる --> 私にやらせてください
 
Toritoribe said:
All the examples marked wrong are grammatically wrong.
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong in all senses?

You don't think the two "wrong" examples I mentioned can be interpreted as receiving the benefit? I was asking whether they could be grammatically correct if we interpret them as receiving the benefit instead of saying the benefit being done by another person on behalf of someone else.

If not, how would one say "Miller-san opened the door for me" (to let me get in or go through) and "Miller-san repaired the computer for Son-san" (by helping do the repair not doing on someone else's behalf ?

Toritoribe said:
Many causative forms belong to this group.
Click to expand...
By the way, the three examples you gave I can only see the last one fit in with this category. You don't mind give me a few more examples. Thanks!
 
By the way, is there a fixed location URL I can find the latest newsletter?
 
The meaning is understandable, but grammatically wrong. 開けてくれたです is understandable, but wrong, isn't it?

healer said:
If not, how would one say "Miller-san opened the door for me" (to let me get in or go through) and "Miller-san repaired the computer for Son-san" (by helping do the repair not doing on someone else's behalf ?
Click to expand...
～のために, as in the textbook. The form doesn't change whether it's "while I was supposed to do so" or not.

healer said:
By the way, the three examples you gave I can only see the last one fit in with this category. You don't mind give me a few more examples. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Yes, because the rest two are examples of "verbs that can take に as the indirect object marker".
子供に落書きを描かせてあげた。
私にご飯を食べさせてくれた。
 
Toritoribe said:
開けてくれたです
Click to expand...
With my little Japanese knowledge, I suppose くれた can't be ended with です. It either ends at くれた as a plain form or くれました as a polite form. Other than that, I'm not too sure.

Toritoribe said:
The form doesn't change whether it's "while I was supposed to do so" or not.
Click to expand...
I had supposed I understood what recipient beneficiary and deputative beneficiary were. Now I realize I didn't upon your comment. I supposed the recipient beneficiary was the one directly received the benefit while the deputative beneficiary received by deputing or delegating.

The book classifies the first sentence below as an example of recipient beneficiary. So I presume it must be correct in all senses. I simply take it as Miller-san read my child a book. I tentatively modified it according to the syntax for deputative beneficiary as I have understood to have the second one to mean that Miller-san did it for me and read my child a book.
ミラーさんは私の子供に本を読んでくれました。
ミラーさんは私の子供のために本を読んでくれました。

I can see the textbook does the same with examples below. I really can't see where the problems grammatically are with those supposedly wrong, apart from being structured as for recipient beneficiary, not deputative beneficiary as intended. Could you be kind enough to help me out when you get a chance? No hurry! Thanks a lot. I will appreciate very much. いろいろお世話になりました。

With the Deputative Beneficiary, the examples I copied from the textbook are as follows.
╳ ミラーさんは私にドアを開けてくれました。
◯ ミラーさんは私のためにドアを開けてくれました。
╳ ソンさんは私に銀行へ行ってくれました。
◯ ソンさんは私のために銀行へ行ってくれました。
╳ ミラーさんはソンさんにコンピューターを直してあげました。
◯ ミラーさんはソンさんのためにコンピューターを直してあげました。
╳ 小山さんはソンさんに部屋を掃除してあげました。
◯ 小山さんはソンさんのために部屋を掃除してあげました。
 
healer said:
With my little Japanese knowledge, I suppose くれた can't be ended with です. It either ends at くれた as a plain form or くれました as a polite form.
Click to expand...
That's right. This is a typical mistake beginner learners often do.

The recipient of benefit is always the speaker in ～てくれる. In the first example, my child might not receive benefit (for instance, he/she didn't want that). In the second one, the action was done for my child (at least Mr.Miller or the speaker believed so), and it's also the speaker's benefit.

If the speaker thought that the action was not their benefit, ～てくれる can't be used. Instead, other expressions like 読んでしまった or 読みやがった are used for this case.

I already answered it.

に can be used to indicate the recipient of the benefit only when the original verb can take に as the indirect object marker.

NOUN のために

I have learnt that there are two types of beneficiaries, recipient and deputative. And the deputative has to go with のために. I’m attaching two images here below. Could you please comment on what I say? It seems to me the top one of the above image marked wrong is still grammatically correct...
jref.com

All those sentences marked wrong are grammatically wrong because 私にドアを開ける, 私に銀行へ行く, ソンさんにコンピューターを直す, ソンさんに部屋を掃除する are all grammatically wrong.


By the way, いろいろお世話になりました。 is an expression used when the questions/problems are finally solved. It shows there are no more questions/problems. It should be いろいろお世話になります when the questions/problems are not solved yet. よろしくお願いします is more common, though.
 
Isn't ～てくれる for the speaker and his or her in-group? So the benefit could be the speaker's or the child's, not very certain whose it is in this syntax though.

Toritoribe said:
The form doesn't change whether it's "while I was supposed to do so" or not.
Click to expand...
I'm not too sure what you meant as quoted above.
Below I copy from the textbook explaining when to use のために after noun to qualify the type of beneficiary referred to.
The に -marked nouns in the ～てくれる and ～てあげる constructions are called the beneficiaries because they designate the ones who receive benefit. There are two ways to be a beneficiary: one is by virtue of receiving something (recipient beneficiary), and the other by virtue of having someone do something on one's behalf (deputative beneficiary). In ～てくれる and てあげる, only the former can appear with に; the latter must be expressed with のために.

I took it that ～てくれる can appear with both に and のために. while ～てあげる only goes with のために for the purpose of deputation. If the grammar of the two sentences below is correct, does it mean even the first sentence can be interpreted as deputing the task to Miller-san, doesn't it? However, the way you said as quoted above, even the second one need not be interpreted as deputing the task. I'm getting blurred now as one can't tell whether it is recipient beneficiary or deputative beneficiary.
ミラーさんは私の子供に本を読んでくれました。
ミラーさんは私の子供のために本を読んでくれました。

With my inadequate knowledge of Japanese language I really can't fault them in terms of grammar. I have checked quite a few times and にis the only particle to mark an indirect object. Would you be kind enough to give me a correct version of these three sentences.

Toritoribe said:
いろいろお世話になりました。
Click to expand...
I meant to thank you for what you had done for me so far in the past. I wasn't so sure if I could ask for more help at the time. I did come across this in a dialogue after someone having been hosted in a homestay environment. Was it an overkill for this situation? Thanks for reminding me of よろしくお願いします .
 
healer said:
Isn't ～てくれる for the speaker and his or her in-group? So the benefit could be the speaker's or the child's, not very certain whose it is in this syntax though.
Click to expand...
Yes, the speaker's in-group member(s) can be the recipient of benefit in ～てくれる, but the speaker is also the recipient at the same time even for the case. If it's not the speaker's benefit, ～てくれる is hardly used, as I wrote in my previous post.

You seem to misinterpret the explanation. "The former" refers to "one is by virtue of receiving something (recipient beneficiary)", and
"the latter" is "the other by virtue of having someone do something on one's behalf (deputative beneficiary)".

There is no problem to use ～てあげる with に when the one receives something, as I already gave examples.
彼に手紙を渡してあげた
子供たちにおとぎ話を話してあげた

NOUN のために

I have learnt that there are two types of beneficiaries, recipient and deputative. And the deputative has to go with のために. I’m attaching two images here below. Could you please comment on what I say? It seems to me the top one of the above image marked wrong is still grammatically correct...
jref.com

healer said:
With my inadequate knowledge of Japanese language I really can't fault them in terms of grammar. I have checked quite a few times and にis the only particle to mark an indirect object.
Click to expand...
Those verbs can't have indirect objects in the first place. Not all verbs have indirect objects also in English, right?
(By the way, although I'm using the term "indirect object" for convenience sake, "dative" (与格補語) is actually more appropriate.)

healer said:
Would you be kind enough to give me a correct version of these three sentences.
Click to expand...
のために is used for the meaning "for the sake of ~" instead of に.

You clearly shows that your questions/problems haven't solve yet by saying "I really can't see where the problems grammatically are with those supposedly wrong, apart from being structured as for recipient beneficiary, not deputative beneficiary as intended." and asking "Could you be kind enough to help me out when you get a chance?". That's why いろいろお世話になりました is inappropriate there.
 
Toritoribe said:
You seem to misinterpret the explanation.
Click to expand...
You're right. I had misunderstood it as you said. We're supposed to always take the closest one that a word is to qualify. Where there is ambiguity I usually break it down and rewrite it until the best clarity is achieved.

Toritoribe said:
Those verbs can't have indirect objects in the first place. Not all verbs have indirect objects also in English, right?
Click to expand...
We didn't learn grammar as much as we should have. We just picked up the language as we went along reading books and having conversations with other people. Nowadays only linguists and language teachers would analyse the structure of sentences. You to me are more like a linguist than an ordinary Japanese native. The schools here did have a subject of English grammar in the olden days but there is not any more except schools for people learning English as a second language I suppose.. For people that English is their native language, every now and then some explanations are just given with the appropriate terminology. Do schools in Japan teach children Japanese grammar like teaching foreigners learning Japanese language? I guess not.

So I can't really answer your questions for sure off the top of my head if all verbs have indirect objects in the English language.
I have understood now with your help that のために is definitely for deputative beneficiary while に only for recipient beneficiary and that is why the book marks those sentences with に only as wrong. Please let me know if I'm still wrong. However I would still like to get to the bottom of the following sentences because my original question was to find out if those marked wrong are still grammatically correct if they are for recipient beneficiary.

Re: 私にドアを開ける, 私に銀行へ行く, ソンさんにコンピューターを直す, ソンさんに部屋を掃除する
Are you saying that 私 and ソンさん in these sentences are indirect objects which are not allowed for verbs of 開ける, 行く, 直す, 掃除する?
Please enlighten me with a few more examples of Japanese verbs and English verbs that would not take indirect objects. It could probably dawn on me after a few more examples.

Toritoribe said:
"Could you be kind enough to help me out when you get a chance?". That's why いろいろお世話になりました is inappropriate there.
Click to expand...
I apologize because I had misled you. It was not your fault definitely. I wrote いろいろお世話になりました as an additional statement, not a translation to what I just wrote in English. Anyway I appreciate very much regardless. For the meaning you mistook for I suppose I should have written in non-past tense. I''m glad you had given me a better or more appropriate choice よろしくお願いします.
 
So I can't really answer your questions for sure off the top of my head if all verbs have indirect objects in the English language.
Click to expand...

Toritoribeさん's question was rhetorical. You seem to be confusing yourself a bit, because the idea that some verbs don't take indirect objects and instead require ～のために is completely analogous to the following examples in English:

◯ He gave me a book.
◯ She taught me Japanese.
◯ I told him a story.
☓ I went him the bank. (ungrammatical, but "I went to the bank for him" is fine)
☓ He opened me the door. (ungrammatical, but "He opened the door for me" is fine)
☓ She fixed me the computer. (ungrammatical, but "She fixed the computer for me" is fine)

Just like the above examples, 彼女は私に日本語を教えてくれた is fine, but 彼は私のためにドアを開けた needs the ～のために. This isn't to say that for every verb that does/doesn't take a indirect object in English, the corresponding Japanese verb will (respectively) function the same, but hopefully this at least helps to illustrate the fundamental difference here.

(edit - originally mistyped "indirect object" as "direct object")
 
I can fully understand the example sentences of the English language.
I would take the first three written for recipient beneficiary and the last three deputative beneficiary.
By the way indeed I have heard of "He fixed me some tea.", of course not in the sense of repair.

Are you saying that we can't say 彼は私にドアを開けた, so 彼は私にドアを開けてくれた is incorrect? I know I haven't heard in English "He opened me the door" but "He opened the door for me" whether I was the recipient or I was deputing. I just don't feel natural saying that way. It just happens. However I can't do that with Japanese language because I'm still new to it. I need some guidelines to tell me under what circumstances those verbs won't be said in that way, as you say I can't take the Japanese verbs the same way I would do with corresponding English verbs. So when Toritoribe-san say the sentences are not grammatical simply because the verbs in question won't take indirect objects but the syntax or the construction could be okay with some other verbs, right? I just have to remember for 開ける be it recipient or deputative I have to say ～のためにnounを開ける. Have I got it? If there is no hard and fast rule then I shall have to find out each verb one by one whether they would take indirect objects, shan't I?
 
Generally speaking, verbs that can take indirect objects involve the recipient in its action. For instance, 渡す means "to deliver/pass/hand over something to someone", or 話す is "tell someone something". However, this rule doesn't apply to all verbs. 読む "to read" doesn't always need the recipient, but can take indirect object.

This reminds me of German class in my college days. When my teacher explained about the gender groups masculine, feminine and neuter in German nouns, he told us that we needed to remember the group of each nouns at least in the early stage of learning, and pointed out that we also had to remember irregular verbs and their past and past participle forms in English class in junior high school. I think it's similar to your case. You need to check whether a Japanese verb can take indirect object or not from examples in dictionaries, textbooks or materials like newspapers, novels or dramas until you remember it. Needless to say, it's the same also for "transitive verb vs. intrasitive verb" or "durative verb vs. punctual verb". I believe there's no shortcut to learn a foreign language, especially when it's quite different from one's mother tongue.
 
Toritoribe said:
Generally speaking, verbs that can take indirect objects involve the recipient in its action.
Click to expand...
It would have to. I always suppose the indirect objects be it animate or inanimate are the recipients of the action.
I have tentatively thought that on the safe side if I use のために with all verbs, then grammatically must be correct. Only problem is that it doesn't tell exactly whether the action is done by someone being deputed to do or someone doing spontaneously. If someone did to me and would also did for me too, aren't they?

Thanks for your reflection and advice.
I did learn French, German and Spanish before but I learnt Japanese before them. I was too ambitious and ended up achieving not much in languages. I have a pedantic attitude in learning languages. I was told to remember the nouns together with their gender. So I didn't memorize the nouns only but the nouns together with their respective articles le, la, der, and die etc. I only heard about dative in German language, the one you mentioned the other day. I had quit learning those three languages but Japanese which I had spent the most time in my younger days and I would like to focus in order to get something. I look up every word if possible in dictionaries, even words of English language. If the Japanese dictionaries provide such information, I don't mind to go straight to dictionaries at all. I guess they don't. Even dictionaries are not fully trustworthy. With the help of computers these days, they don't even bother to change the furigana 振り仮名 to "o" for the particle "を". It should be safe to do so because を is hardly used in words read as "wo".
 
I apologize!
When I talked about furigana above, I meant romaji that many Japanese language web sites use them like furigana don't correctly transliterate particles for は, へ, を.
 
healer said:
I have tentatively thought that on the safe side if I use のために with all verbs, then grammatically must be correct.
Click to expand...
Notice that the recipient of action and the recipient of benefit are not always the same person in these constructions. Think about an example 彼に手紙を渡してくれた. This sentence can be valid even if 彼 is not the speaker's in-group member, and not the recipient of benefit, either, for instance the letter is not pleasant for him. In this case, the sentence actually means 私のために彼に手紙を渡してくれた, so 彼に can't be interchangeable with 彼のために.

other examples where に and のために are not interchangeable
彼は彼女のために彼女の父親に説明してあげた。
He explained her father for the sake of her.
the recipient of the action "explaining": her father
the recipient of the benefit: her

課長は私たち部下のために社長に抗議してくれた。
Our section chief protested to the president for the sake of us, his subordinates.
the recipient of the action "protesting": the president
the recipient of the benefit: us, his subordinates
 
Thanks!
So のために is only for the positive benefit of the speaker and those in the same group otherwise に only is to be used? Do I understand correctly that のために is not necessarily for deputation even when it is used together with 〜てくれる and 〜あげる?
For instance, your example of 彼は彼女のために彼女の父親に説明してあげた, he simply did it without being asked to.

Toritoribe said:
私たち部下
Click to expand...
Both 私たち and 部下 refer to same group of people, don't they?
 
healer said:
So のために is only for the positive benefit of the speaker and those in the same group otherwise に only is to be used?
Click to expand...
As for ～てくれる and verbs that can take に, yes. Needless to say, in an example 彼は彼女のために彼女の父親を説得してあげた。, 彼女 is not necessarily in the speaker's in-group, the action is not necessarily for the speaker's benefit, either, and に can't be used instead of を.

Yes, that's right.

healer said:
Both 私たち and 部下 refer to same group of people, don't they?
Click to expand...
Exactly. 私たち and 部下 are in apposition, and it can be rephrased to 部下の私たち.
 
Toritoribe said:
部下の私たち
Click to expand...
I suppose 私たちの部下 refers to the subordinates under ourselves, our own subordinates. It is somewhat difficult to infer that 部下の私たち is the same as 私たち部下 though.
 
This の is for apposition, not for possession. The word order is "category/characteristics の specific word".
e.g.
イギリス人のジョン
a British man, John

魔法使いのガンダルフ
a wizard, Gandalf

首都の東京
the capital city Tokyo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

でたらめなしゃべり
4 5 6
Replies
131
Views
25K
iwuvvleskaylee
D
What is のは, のが, が?
Replies
8
Views
36K
nhk9
N
N
noun+teki na
Replies
8
Views
19K
Neil2
N
わかりました, what does it really mean?
2
Replies
25
Views
37K
Elizabeth
漢字のしりとり - Shiritori kanji game
5 6 7
Replies
171
Views
38K
thomas
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…