Problem with syntax.

[Kaia]

Hi. I have passed jlpt3, so I am at a lower intermediate level. or thereabouts. The following sentence didn't make sense to me, since they use some syntax I haven't encountered. It is from the KO2001 collection.
私は家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。
If someone could break it down for me, I would appreciate it. It is supposed to mean I have a family of four, with my wife and two children.

 

[undrentide]

Strictly speaking, this sentence is not really correct.
私は家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。
If the topic of this sentence is 我が家 or うち, then it sounds OK but 私 does not really fit because 私 is not equal to 家族.
It might make sense in a certain context, but as I cannot see from what context this sentence is originally from, and on its own it does not sound right...

うちは家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。

うちは sentence head (subject)
家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。 predicate

家内と子供二人＝四人家族
family of four (which consists) of my wife and two children

 

[Kaia]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes it sounded strange to me too but since I am at a low level still I thought maybe something I didn't understand was going on. I am using KO2001 with Anki to learn Kanji readings, and it's pretty good so far.

 

[Nostrum]

I must respectfully disagree with undrentide.
In Japanese, the noun marked by は is not the subject, it is the topic. This means that
"うちは sentence head (subject)
家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。 predicate"
is not correct. The reason you always hear people saying that japanese is a topic-based language and not a subject based one is exactly because of this. That is why people always translate は as "as for" not "is".
As for the sentence
私は家内と子供二人の四人家族だ。
Normally you would cut out the 私は, except here it emphasizes that "as for me" the following is true. The context this sentence would occur in is if someone just told you the size of their family, and then you said "as for me, I have..."
For the rest of the sentence:
家内と子供二人 - wife and two kids
四人家族 - four person family
so if you were to translate the sentence, you could say:
"As for me, [it is] a four person family of a wife and two kids."
The [it is] is not directly in the sentence, but it is assumed.
If you want to confirm this (about は being topic, not subject), you can check wikipedia article on topic-prominent language, or the "wa" section of Tae Kim's guide.
-
Here is the relevant part of Tae Kim's:
-
"アリス） 今日は試験だ。- Today is exam.
ボブ） ジムは？ - What about Jim?
アリス） ジムは明日。 - Jim is tomorrow. (As for Jim, the exam is tomorrow.)
We need to realize how generic the topic can really be. A topic can be referring to any action or object from anywhere even including other sentences. For example, in the last sentence of the conversation above, even though the sentence is about when the exam is for Jim, the word "exam" doesn't appear anywhere in the sentence! "
-
EDIT: to make this even longer, I'm gonna also say that just so you know there are lots of mistakes in those smart.fm sentences, but this just isn't one of them, if you assume the context.
RE-EDIT: oops you said KO2001 not smart.fm, ah well. The point is there are lots of errors in English-made works (Not sure if KO2001 is made by English people?)

 

[Toritoribe]

Nostrum-san, thanks for your detailed explanation, but undrentide-san explained it by just one sentence "it might make sense in a certain context" in the reply. As you can see in her 2,216 posts so far, undrentide-san already knows about the function of the topic marker は.

As for the OP's example sentence, it's acceptable to me as a description(e.g. a self-introduction), as the same sense as 私は兄二人の（＝兄が二人いる）三人兄弟です.

 

[Elizabeth]

It's nothing more than 私(の家族)は、4人家族だ (＝私には、4人家族がいます） at the core and 私は insert depending on the situation.

 

[undrentide]

Thank you, Toritoribe san, for follow up.

Maybe my terminology is a bit misleading.
I'd like to add that "subject" is the word I used for 主部 not 主語 (like subject of verb).
私は is the topic (which is not necessarily the subject of the verb in the sentence) 主部 which is an introduction part of the sentence while the rest of it is predicate 述部.

I still find it a bit awkward but perhaps the closest idea is what @Elizabeth san wrote.

 

[Nostrum]

Yeah I said "respectfully" because I noticed her post count, and I know she would know her stuff.

The point I was making is that you don't have to replace 私 with うち, that grammatically makes no difference.

 

[Kaia]

Thanks for all the help. I will try to think up a previous context in which a sentence will make sense before asking questions like that.

Anyway, if anyone reads this I have another question. Can you use と with 知る, 分かる etc to "quote" what you know, don't know etc.

For example. is this a correct translation of "I didn't know THAT he was a doctor"?
「彼は医者だと知らなかった。」
Does it make sense, or do we do things differently in cases like this?

 

[undrentide]

Anyway, if anyone reads this I have another question. Can you use と with 知る, 分かる etc to "quote" what you know, don't know etc.

For example. is this a correct translation of "I didn't know THAT he was a doctor"?
「彼は医者だと知らなかった。」
Does it make sense, or do we do things differently in cases like this?

Yes, it is correct. Alternatively, 彼が医者だと（は）知らなかった。

彼が医者だと知らなかった I did not know he was a doctor.
彼が医者だとわからなかった I did not realize/recognize/notice that he was a doctor.

知る to learn something
知っている to know something (to have knowledge of something)
わかる to be able to tell (the difference, etc.)
to have ability to see/notice/recognize something

 

[Elizabeth]

Thanks for all the help. I will try to think up a previous context in which a sentence will make sense before asking questions like that.

Anyway, if anyone reads this I have another question. Can you use と with 知る, 分かる etc to "quote" what you know, don't know etc.

For example. is this a correct translation of "I didn't know THAT he was a doctor"?
「彼は医者だと知らなかった。」
Does it make sense, or do we do things differently in cases like this?

I think with a sentence like this （だ） と 知る is most natural for everyday conversation, actually.

 

[Kaia]

Thanks for the information, I appreciate it.