Hi, I have a question about the following sentence from my reader. I'll give the original and the English translation per the "key" at the back of the book [sorry for the kunrei-shiki romanisation but that's what the book uses]:

Watasi wa rokkagetu tatte kaesite moraeru no nara kasite mo ii to iimasitara, sono zyooken de karitai to no henzi desita.

Translation:

When I said that I was willing to lend some if I could have it back after six months, she replied that she would like to borrow it on that condition.

Here's my question: could you not say ". . . karitai to henzi simasita" instead of ". . . karitai to no henzi desita."? Is there a difference?

Thanks!

When you use との you are presenting results or information.

RandomQuotes Wrote:When you use との you are presenting results or information.

But what does that mean in practical terms? What's the difference in the English translation between

...to henzi simasita and

...to no henzi desita?


Or are they both to be translated "She replied that....."?

I'm guessing that the second one might be "She made the reply that...." or "Her reply was that" while the first one is "She replied that....".

Thanks.

The first is "she replied", the second is "The reply was..." Which one would be used in which contexts is a question I can't answer.

john555 Wrote:What's the difference in the English translation between

...to henzi simasita and

...to no henzi desita?


Or are they both to be translated "She replied that....."?

I'm guessing that the second one might be "She made the reply that...." or "Her reply was that" while the first one is "She replied that....".

Thanks.

The problem with translation is that they way things are structured in Japanese and English are completely different. So a lot of the time multiple transition can all be correct, however the nuance in each respective language will be different. As far as usage is concerned との is considered to be JLPT N1. Which doesn't mean all that much except, generally speaking, the higher level grammar is little bit more specific in meaning, or more common is certain situations.

When translating try to keep in mind that Japanese and English almost never actually line up with nuance or grammar.

In general, one of the most dangerous questions to ask is what the difference is between two phrases or structures that are very close in meaning. Native speakers are often unable to explain the difference, or worse, they try to explain but come up with wrong answers because they've never really thought about it before. You definitely can't figure out the difference by guessing yourself or looking at how they translate into another language.

The only reliable way to find out the difference is through research; taking samples of actual speech or writing and analyzing how the two structures are done (you can also make model sentences and ask native speakers to judge the naturalness or appropriateness). This work has already been done for a lot of structures and you can find the explanations in various grammar books and dictionaries.

But I think it's important to accept that it's OK to move on as long as you understand what the meaning of the structure is and how the grammar works, even if you're not sure how it's different from another similar structure. If you can find a reliable explanation of the difference, great, but it may not be there.

yudantaiteki Wrote:In general, one of the most dangerous questions to ask is what the difference is between two phrases or structures that are very close in meaning. Native speakers are often unable to explain the difference, or worse, they try to explain but come up with wrong answers because they've never really thought about it before.

I came across something like that today. In one of my textbooks it says that many Japanese people would make little difference between the following two ways of saying "If it rains I will not go to the park":

雨が降れば公園へ行きません。 (Ame ga hureba kooen e ikimasen).

雨が降ったら公園へ行きません。 (Ame ga huttara kooen e ikimasen).

although the book does say that the first sentence would normally refer to a particular occasion vs. the second sentence which would be more general.

Edit Admin: Fixed　え/へ

Grammar is descriptive, and not necessarily prescriptive beyond basic nuts and bolts of things like verb conjugations or whether or not a language is SVO or SOV. It's a map/territory problem. The real language is the territory, and grammar is the map. Sometimes that map is wrong or cannot possibly always be detailed enough to account for every little thing.

Grammar can be useful, and should be studied. However, the real learning of grammar happens via experience over time with the language. A textbook can teach you the meaning and a few use cases, but you need to deepen your understanding of the usage over time as you interact with native speakers/native material more.

Don't get bogged down trying to nitpick every little grammar thing right now. It's not important.

john555 Wrote:I came across something like that today. In one of my textbooks it says that many Japanese people would make little difference between the following two ways of saying "If it rains I will not go to the park":

雨が降れば公園え行きません。 (Ame ga hureba kooen e ikimasen).

雨が降ったら公園え行きません。 (Ame ga huttara kooen e ikimasen).

although the book does say that the first sentence would normally refer to a particular occasion vs. the second sentence which would be more general.

When it comes to conditionals, there are a lot of regional differences in usage too.

I remember reading about a study on this forum where they had two sentences like the ones in your post and they asked native speakers from different regions which one sounded more natural.

In some regions there was like 90% たら while in others it was 90% ば. Don't quote me on the exact numbers. But maybe someone can find that study.

john555 Wrote:雨が降れば公園え行きません。 (Ame ga hureba kooen e ikimasen).

By the way, when e is used as a particle, it's へ. (Also, wa is は and 言う (only the dictionary form) is pronounced yuu).

Vempele Wrote:

john555 Wrote:雨が降れば公園え行きません。 (Ame ga hureba kooen e ikimasen).

By the way, when e is used as a particle, it's へ. (Also, wa is は and 言う (only the dictionary form) is pronounced yuu).

Thanks for pointing this out. I missed that when I was typing the sentence on my laptop. I recently installed a Japanese font package and I've noticed that it's not that "smart" in that sometimes it's hard to make the correct kanji/kana pop up.

By the way, when posting to this forum is there any way to make the Japanese font bigger?

john555 Wrote:By the way, when posting to this forum is there any way to make the Japanese font bigger?

I would very much like to know the answer to that question, too.

codex Wrote:

john555 Wrote:By the way, when posting to this forum is there any way to make the Japanese font bigger?

I would very much like to know the answer to that question, too.

Zoom?

JimmySeal Wrote:

codex Wrote:

john555 Wrote:By the way, when posting to this forum is there any way to make the Japanese font bigger?

I would very much like to know the answer to that question, too.

Zoom?

The non-Japanese text is already large enough; but the kanji/kana are too small to easily see. That's partly why I gave romaji transcriptions in brackets after the kanji/kana.

That's the fault of your browser or OS settings, not the forum, so without knowing more about your setup we can't answer it.