.

arupan, I don't think that example with the commas helps us with this sentence. Here, we're dealing with multiple noun modifiers　and the first one ends in な. This is different from trying to determine the subject of predicates.

I don't see how
彼女の人生における『束縛』は 俺が叔父さんに恋愛を半ば強いられているような、半端なものじゃないのだ。

could give: Her life-long constraints ARE like my being pressured by my uncle to find a girlfriend.
and Her life-long constraints ARE NOT a trivial matter.

Where is the positive predicate for the first sentence? な　would have to be で　for that interpretation.
What is な　modifying? If it's modifying もの　independently, it'd still be NOT a thing like my situation.

As for commas, I don't find their use consistent. This doesn't mean that people don't know the proper usage of commas, more that comma usage in Japanese is kinda loose. I used to think that commas in this pattern
........ような、　adj Noun　
gave some indication as to whether the interpretation was independent or nested, but it's not consistent at all. If anything, people put commas after long clauses for ease of reading.

This *is* that meaning of 半端なものじゃない (= 半端ない). But the 半端なもの is the protagonist's situation, and the thing that is 半端なものじゃない is the girl's situation.

.

The comma can't change the grammar of the sentence. It's not a long and poorly written sentence like with the policeman (in which the comma was only clarifying a section that could be taken either way, not actually changing the grammar).

I'm guessing that the comma was either a stylistic choice OR it was serving to set aside the protagonist's supplimentary explanation of a 半端なもの.

彼女の人生における『束縛』は半端なものじゃないのだ。
彼女の人生における『束縛』は(俺が叔父さんに恋愛を半ば強いられているような)半端なものじゃないのだ。

Comma usage is all over the place in Japanese- despite much of it technically being incorrect.

EDIT: Not subject. That doesn't make sense. Brain fried by screaming children.

.

Ah, I don't study these things, I understand them. I'm always saying that I'm terrible at explaining grammar. 8)

.

The reason that I can't agree with you is because it's grammatically wonky. There may be a comma there, yes, but it can't change the fact that the bit coming after the protagonist's situation is "~ような."

Luckily, I'm friends with a few 国語 teachers so I'll get back to you later with an explanation that makes sense (or change of heart if I am indeed proven wrong).

Edit: Probabably should've done that from the start eh? :|
Didn't expect this to get so crazy.

Thora Wrote:

quanticism Wrote:I initially thought of it like that too. (i.e. "getting forced to get a girlfriend" was a silly thing)

But Arupan's post seems to suggest that "getting half forced to get a girlfriend" is not a silly thing. yudantaiteki also agreed with Arupan's post so I'm not sure what to think now. Any further clarification would be greatly appreciated m(_ _)m

I interpret it the same way you did. As a nested double noun-modifier. 俺が叔父さんに恋愛を半ば強いられているような modifies 半端なもの.

This seems to make more sense semantically too. (Her lifelong obligation to uphold the good family name is not a random inconvenience like his being pressured to choose between a girl and an allowance?)

ydtt was clear that it's a double modifier (without specifying whether they're independent or nested). It's possible that he may have just misread arupan's post wrt negative scope.

If I understand Arupan's interpretation correctly, it involves 2 separate clauses describing the topic. I think this would require something like a conjunctive で　rather than な. ie. Her constraints are [like mine] AND are [not trivial]. The negative copula comes after もの, so an interpretation that "her constraints ARE like mine" would assume the first clause is not modifying もの. I'm not sure that interpretation is available.

I read it like you, that the first clause is an example of a 半端 thing that her 束縛 are not.

yudantaiteki Wrote:(Re: the もの　vs. こと, even though the 束縛 here is not a physical thing, it's OK to use もの to treat it as if these were actual physical restraints.)

It's wrong to apply こと to 束縛.

If the こと was used as an equivalent to おこない (deed), then it's fine to use こと for 束縛. But in this case, it's not.

こと is phenomenon, events, acts or something that's caught in relation to involvement of the agent and the object. The effect of those (e.g. 束縛 in this case) itself belongs to もの.

viharati Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:(Re: the もの　vs. こと, even though the 束縛 here is not a physical thing, it's OK to use もの to treat it as if these were actual physical restraints.)

It's wrong to apply こと to 束縛.

I didn't mean either one was OK, sorry if that phrasing was confusing. こと is usually described as referring to abstract things, and もの with concrete objects. So it might be confusing why you use it with something like 束縛 here, which is not a tangible object.

I'm not sure if being abstract is important for distinction between もの and こと.
When we translate "basing in the morninglight is a good thing", we have (1) 朝日を浴びるのはいいことだ and (2) 朝日を浴びるのはいいものだ. (1) means "basing in the morninglight is recommended" and the "good thing" means a good action here, while (2) means "basing in the morninglight is pleasant".
It seems the key is if the "thing" means acts, events or so. Though you can, on the other hand, grasp acts or events themselves through the view of もの.

The verdict was-
The phrase about the protagonist's situation has to be modifying もの- along with 半端な. There's no other way to interpret the sentence grammatically. And the girl's situation is *not* that kind of もの.
Sooo I guess I couldn't get a better explanation.

I still kind of want the rest of the context but that's just because I'm really curious now.

My friend couldn't explain the comma either. It has nothing to do with the grammar of the sentence. We both imagine that it's a stylistic choice that makes a lot more sense if you think about it out loud.

So, long story short, quanticism's original interpretation was 100% correct.

EDIT: Is this a novel or something? Where's this line from?

Many thanks to everyone for clearing this up

seventhfonist425 found this line in a visual novel. I think all the relevant context is given in the first post. seventhfonist425 said the subsequent lines weren't related (completely changed direction in topic) since these sentences were just a quick thought that crossed the protag's mind as he compared the girl's circumstances with his own.

Yuuki"私の家、大きな病院を経営してて、他の家より立派かもしれないけど……"
Yuuki"でも、すごく厳しいの。私も一人娘として恥ずかしくないようにって、色んな勉強をさせられたんだ。バレエとか、英会話とか"
俺の答えを待たないまま、天ヶ瀬さんは語り始める。大病院を経営する院長の娘だということは、金田一から聞いていた。
授業で見せた優秀さも、英才教育の賜物だろう。しかし――
Yuuki"勉強してきたこと自体は嫌じゃなかったけど……どれもこれも、私の意志で始めたことじゃないの……"
彼女は、そんな自分を望んではいない。
俺が叔父さんに恋愛を半ば強いられているような、半端なものじゃないのだ。彼女の人生における『束縛』は。
FirstName"天ヶ瀬さんは……自分の家が嫌い？"
Yuuki"ううん、家は好きだよ。色々うるさくて厳しいけど、家族のことも嫌いじゃないかな"

There's just a few lines around the line, to satisfy any curiosity. Any other context is I thought was necessary is already given by quanticism.