I just got this book today and so far I like it a lot but one part has confused me. The first section は, #5, "indicates emphasis".
I am a little confused by half of the explanation and also think there's a mistake but maybe this is just my poor comprehension. The mistake being it says the "V- te wa iru" example is only the first example and the "V masu wa suru" example is the second and third example. But the "V- te wa iru" is actually the first and second examples?
But whatever, my main question is regarding the "V masu base followed by wa and suru" example and how it relates to the explanation.
Here is the example sentence:
お茶は飲みましたが、時間がなかったので食事はしませんでした。
So is the "V(erb) masu base" the 飲みました part? Cause it seems to happen all the way on the opposite end of the sentence, I guess I expected it to "follow" more closely. Second, the explanation says this particle's purpose is to indicate emphasis. What's confusing me is... unlike the first two examples here she doesn't italicize the emphasis in the English translation. Since in the explanation she relates the V masu to the wa and suru, am I right in thinking the "drank" verb is what's being emphasized here? The whole thing seems kind of weird is all. I /drank/ but I didn't eat? I'm having trouble connecting this sentence to her explanation.
If anything, this seems to be instead another example of は explanation #4, contrasting two ideas or items with two は's. I drank but I didn't eat. Also, she bolds both は's, when only one は seems to be the particle she is trying to explain, the other one being used for a different reason.
I am a little confused by half of the explanation and also think there's a mistake but maybe this is just my poor comprehension. The mistake being it says the "V- te wa iru" example is only the first example and the "V masu wa suru" example is the second and third example. But the "V- te wa iru" is actually the first and second examples?
But whatever, my main question is regarding the "V masu base followed by wa and suru" example and how it relates to the explanation.
Here is the example sentence:
お茶は飲みましたが、時間がなかったので食事はしませんでした。
So is the "V(erb) masu base" the 飲みました part? Cause it seems to happen all the way on the opposite end of the sentence, I guess I expected it to "follow" more closely. Second, the explanation says this particle's purpose is to indicate emphasis. What's confusing me is... unlike the first two examples here she doesn't italicize the emphasis in the English translation. Since in the explanation she relates the V masu to the wa and suru, am I right in thinking the "drank" verb is what's being emphasized here? The whole thing seems kind of weird is all. I /drank/ but I didn't eat? I'm having trouble connecting this sentence to her explanation.
If anything, this seems to be instead another example of は explanation #4, contrasting two ideas or items with two は's. I drank but I didn't eat. Also, she bolds both は's, when only one は seems to be the particle she is trying to explain, the other one being used for a different reason.