I'm working on a lesson in my textbook about the causative and the passive of the causitive.

Here's a sentence from an example conversation in the textbook (in answer to the question, "My maid is going out to buy some things; do you want anything?):

はい、オレンジを買わせて貰えるでしょうか？ (Hai, orenzi o kawasete moraeru desyoo ka)

which is translated as:

"Yes, do you think I could get you to have her buy some oranges?"

So here we have the "-te morau" construction in which the -te verb is causative and morau is in the potential, combined with the "probable" form of desu.

I thought, maybe this is carrying things too far...or maybe this kind of sentence structure is not out of the ordinary. So I wondered if, for those of you living in Japan, a "complicated" sentence like this would not be unusual.

It's quite common with the "let" meaning in requests, like 拝借させていただけるでしょうか。

Maid conversations are kind of obsolete so I don't know about the "make" + receiving verb, but there may be situations where that is used.

Yeah, this could occur in real Japanese. It's just the maid thing that's weird. That kind of request pattern is not.

I can imagine real world situations. For example, say that Saitou Sensei tells me that Tanaka Sensei is going to buy poster board for the upcoming English camp. He wants to know if I need any. I could say 大きいのを3枚買わせてもらえるでしょうかな.

yudantaiteki Wrote:It's quite common with the "let" meaning in requests, like 拝借させていただけるでしょうか。

Maid conversations are kind of obsolete so I don't know about the "make" + receiving verb, but there may be situations where that is used.

I guess we could modernize the sentence like this: "My administrative assistant is going out to pick up some lunch for me; do you want anything?" "Yes, do you think I could get you to have her buy me a meatball sub on whole wheat with cheddar?"

In reality, probably what a person would say is "Yes, could you ask her to get me a meatball sub etc.?"

Tzadeck Wrote:Yeah, this could occur in real Japanese. It's just the maid thing that's weird. That kind of request pattern is not.

I can imagine real world situations. For example, say that Saitou Sensei tells me that Tanaka Sensei is going to buy poster board for the upcoming English camp. He wants to know if I need any. I could say 大きいのを3枚買わせてもらえるでしょうかな.

That seems odd to me; I would feel uncomfortable using a causative in that situation. Saitou-sensei isn't making Tanaka-sensei buy anything. My feeling is that you really need this "servant" type situation for a "make" causative + receiving verb to make any sense.

I would probably say 買ってもらってください there, but I'm not necessarily the best at this kind of thing.

EDIT: To explain more: You want to speak to A, and say （Ｂに）買わせてもらえるでしょうか. First of all, A needs to be in a position of power over B or you don't use causatives. But beyond that I feel like you also need to be in the same position of power over B or it sounds a little odd.

Make-causatives, on the whole, are fairly limited in use, and I think that's particularly true of the situations most foreigners will find themselves in.

A very common way to introduce yourself in speeches and meeting and things like that is 自己紹介[じこしょうかい]をさせて頂[いた]きます, which is する is in the the causative, and 頂く is the humble form of receiving.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That seems odd to me; I would feel uncomfortable using a causative in that situation. Saitou-sensei isn't making Tanaka-sensei buy anything. My feeling is that you really need this "servant" type situation for a "make" causative + receiving verb to make any sense.

I would probably say 買ってもらってください there, but I'm not necessarily the best at this kind of thing.

EDIT: To explain more: You want to speak to A, and say （Ｂに）買わせてもらえるでしょうか. First of all, A needs to be in a position of power over B or you don't use causatives. But beyond that I feel like you also need to be in the same position of power over B or it sounds a little odd.

Make-causatives, on the whole, are fairly limited in use, and I think that's particularly true of the situations most foreigners will find themselves in.

You could be right; I'm not 100% sure of how much a subservient role is necessary here. If you reimagine the situation with the teacher having students get materials from the club house, I imagine the example would work just fine though--just with a different verb since they're not buying anything. Especially since in Japan the relationship between teachers and students is more formalized as higher-lower.

I've been trying to think why this sentence structure seems so familiar to me and yet the people living in Japan are wondering if it's ever actually used, and I finally realised where I keep hearing it: it's how anime villians speak! XD

買わせて貰えるでしょうか　is the everyday version of 殺させて貰えるでしょうか. Psychotic murderers have to eat too... I've no clue whether it's also used irl, but perhaps the slightly odd maid situation was simply the textbook writers trying to introduce the pattern without straying from the daily life subject matter of the book?



That being said, the OP's question wasn't whether that particular sentence structure is something a Japanese person would use but rather whether a sentence as complicated as that is something they'd use. Unfortunately I think the answer is yes, and they wouldn't think twice about it. A native speaker isn't going to be thrown off by the different conjugations, and though the translation makes it seem as if the Japanese is needlessly roundabout the truth is that it's not.

I don't want to imply that the translation from the book isn't good, but in case it's contributing to your confusion I think it's worth mentioning that things that are only implied in the Japanese sentence have been made explicit in the English one, and that's what results in the weird over the top sentence. Specifically, "はい、オレンジを買わせて貰えるでしょうか" does not contain "do you think" or "get you to", so it actually makes quite a neat English sentence: "Yes, could I have her buy some oranges?"

Splatted Wrote:I've been trying to think why this sentence structure seems so familiar to me and yet the people living in Japan are wondering if it's ever actually used, and I finally realised where I keep hearing it: it's how anime villians speak! XD

買わせて貰えるでしょうか　is the everyday version of 殺させて貰えるでしょうか. Psychotic murderers have to eat too... I've no clue whether it's also used irl, but perhaps the slightly odd maid situation was simply the textbook writers trying to introduce the pattern without straying from the daily life subject matter of the book?

No, it's because the OP uses textbooks written in the 40s and 50s when people had maids.

(Your example is the "let" causative, that's of course very common.)

yudantaiteki Wrote:No, it's because the OP uses textbooks written in the 40s and 50s when people had maids.

40's and 50's rule. Sinatra, Dean, Presley etc. Plus the older textbooks don't insult my intelligence with dumbed down exercises like fill in the blanks, multiple choice, drawing lines to match up words with pictures, etc.

And people still have maids.

For a guide that *really* doesn't dumb down its exercises, try this. Note the lesson is intended for people who know nothing but the kana and some general information about kanji.

(As it says in the introduction, you're then supposed to try to work out how the particles are used in native material).

john555 Wrote:40's and 50's rule. Sinatra, Dean, Presley etc. Plus the older textbooks don't insult my intelligence with dumbed down exercises like fill in the blanks, multiple choice, drawing lines to match up words with pictures, etc.

Exercises dumbed down for beginners don't insult your intelligence, they insult your arrogance. It's your arrogance that's making you think that you don't have to do the dumb, basic things first, before you can move on to more complex stuff like the sentence you're asking about.

The sooner you do all the dumb things, the sooner you'll start learning real Japanese, and figure out the answer to your many questions. Until then, your arrogance is going to keep making you think that you can hack the Japanese language by relying on your superior intellect, and you will learn next to no real Japanese while trying.

Stansfield123 Wrote:Exercises dumbed down for beginners don't insult your intelligence, they insult your arrogance. It's your arrogance that's making you think that you don't have to do the dumb, basic things first, before you can move on to more complex stuff like the sentence you're asking about.

The sooner you do all the dumb things, the sooner you'll start learning real Japanese, and figure out the answer to your many questions. Until then, your arrogance is going to keep making you think that you can hack the Japanese language by relying on your superior intellect, and you will learn next to no real Japanese while trying.

I don't think it's that simple. My original textbook, Japanese: The Spoken Language, had long in-depth grammar explanations and usage notes for individual words. Then when I studied abroad I switched to Genki II. I didn't like the style of the book because it felt like the authors thought that explaining too much nuance would overwhelm the reader. Actually, I felt the opposite--I wasn't as confident using grammar and phrases that I felt I didn't understand fully.

Now, as a language teacher my views on it from the opposite direction are a bit more complex. But my sentiments at the time did border on "Come on, I'm not an idiot. You can throw a bit more at me."

Vempele Wrote:For a guide that *really* doesn't dumb down its exercises, try this. Note the lesson is intended for people who know nothing but the kana and some general information about kanji.

(As it says in the introduction, you're then supposed to try to work out how the particles are used in native material).

Thanks Vempele! Koohii brings me the coolest things, this is really great. Surprised that the dissected source material (Dieland is the only one readily available) doesn't have furigana, which he says is required for his method, but this is a great resource at my stage.

Found the others:
http://www.zeppan.com/book/detail/101
http://www.zeppan.com/book/detail/2101

Tzadeck Wrote:I don't think it's that simple. My original textbook, Japanese: The Spoken Language, had long in-depth grammar explanations and usage notes for individual words. Then when I studied abroad I switched to Genki II. I didn't like the style of the book because it felt like the authors thought that explaining too much nuance would overwhelm the reader. Actually, I felt the opposite--I wasn't as confident using grammar and phrases that I felt I didn't understand fully.

Now, as a language teacher my views on it from the opposite direction are a bit more complex. But my sentiments at the time did border on "Come on, I'm not an idiot. You can throw a bit more at me."

Learning is the natural state of a human being. There's no need to turn it into a challenge, and there's no need for someone trying to learn a language to exert themselves while doing so. In fact, it's counter-productive, and turning learning into hard work (in the school system) is what's killing so many people's natural curiosity and ability to learn full time and without effort, at about the age of 7.

Stansfield123 Wrote:Learning is the natural state of a human being. There's no need to turn it into a challenge, and there's no need for someone trying to learn a language to exert themselves while doing so. In fact, it's counter-productive, and turning learning into hard work (in the school system) is what's killing so many people's natural curiosity and ability to learn full time and without effort, at about the age of 7.

Hmm, I've taught K-12 and learning seems like a very natural things for humans until they're about 12 years old--somewhere around there they learn that they have usable penises and vaginae, they get the urge to rebel against all authority, etc. They finally calm down a bit at 17 or 18 and can talk to the opposite sex without freaking out; consequently, they can also start thinking about other things again.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're responding to. Learning nuances of grammar is what made it fun; learning just the bare bones was uninteresting to me. It wasn't to show off or anything... it's not like I was talking to my friends about how I was dissatisfied with my grammar study. I'm only talking about that now, since you're implying that enjoying the harder path is ludicrous. Well, it's not. Maybe most people are bored by grammar, but for me it was really what attracted me to Japanese.

The reasons kids get turned off by school are complicated. But avoiding that large topic, it's just not true that the easier path is contrary to learning effectively. Most of my mediocrity in life comes from the fact that I take the easy road a lot of the time. I've played guitar for like 14 years and I sucked at it for about ten of them because I never convinced myself it was worth it to work hard and learn the nuts and bolts of scales, chord progressions, blues and jazz improvising, as well as do exercises like minimal movement practice. Or, even, practice with a metronome. It's funner and easier to learn the equivalent of Beatles songs and sing with your friends at parties, but you never get anywhere interesting like that.

Hell, my Japanese is the same way. I KNOW my Japanese would be better if I did more structured practice. The only time my Japanese really improves is when I convince myself to do that in small bursts. But it's hard work, so I avoid it, and I stay mediocre compared to the more devoted.

Tzadeck Wrote:Hmm, I've taught K-12 and learning seems like a very natural things for humans until they're about 12 years old

I never taught, but I was a student once, and, in my class at least, 2/3 of the class fell behind pretty much from year one, and never recovered. Didn't seem to have anything to do with puberty, and they weren't mentally challenged either. In activities that weren't related to studying, most of them were just as sharp as the 1/3 of us with the good grades. They just lost interest in learning the school curriculum, because of the way they were forced to do it.

Tzadeck Wrote:Also, I'm not really sure what you're responding to. Learning nuances of grammar is what made it fun; learning just the bare bones was uninteresting to me. It wasn't to show off or anything... it's not like I was talking to my friends about how I was dissatisfied with my grammar study. I'm only talking about that now, since you're implying that enjoying the harder path is ludicrous. Well, it's not. Maybe most people are bored by grammar, but for me it was really what attracted me to Japanese.

I'm responding to you, but in the context of the thread. The issue isn't whether grammar is fun or not, or whether studying it is a good idea or not. (Of course it's a good idea. )

The issue is whether studying advanced grammar, as a beginner or even intermediate learner, is arrogant or not.

Tzadeck Wrote:The reasons kids get turned off by school are complicated. But avoiding that large topic, it's just not true that the easier path is contrary to learning effectively. Most of my mediocrity in life comes from the fact that I take the easy road a lot of the time. I've played guitar for like 14 years and I sucked at it for about ten of them because I never convinced myself it was worth it to work hard and learn the nuts and bolts of scales, chord progressions, blues and jazz improvising, as well as do exercises like minimal movement practice. Or, even, practice with a metronome. It's funner and easier to learn the equivalent of Beatles songs and sing with your friends at parties, but you never get anywhere interesting like that.

Yes, but even if you did decide to learn and practice all those things, would it have been a good idea to jump straight into trying to learn to play Rachmaninoff, for the sake of the challenge, or would you have been better served practicing something basic, getting good at it, and then slowly increasing the difficulty level?

As far as I can tell, John555 is a beginner, who doesn't even use Kana, and doesn't know the Kanji yet. But he's trying to learn advanced materials. The problem isn't the complexity of the materials he's learning (though the fact that they're in Romaji is a problem), it's that he is trying to learn them as a beginner. That's what I said is arrogant, not studying grammar.

This is not particularly difficult grammar, and whether you know kana and kanji have nothing to do with your ability to understand it. I certainly knew this grammar for a couple of years before I knew more than four or five hundred kanji.

This is also in Genki 2; JLPT N4/5 level. N3 is considerably more advanced than this, and is still only intermediate Japanese. It's just a somewhat strange example of that basic grammar.

Also, you seem to making assumptions about the OP well beyond what he actually said.

No, the issue is that he's using a book from the 1940s with outdated pedagogy that relies on translating bizarre unnatural English sentences to bizarre unnatural Japanese sentences and vice verse.

RandomQuotes Wrote:No, the issue is that he's using a book from the 1940s with outdated pedagogy that relies on translating bizarre unnatural English sentences to bizarre unnatural Japanese sentences and vice verse.

I guess I've just been learning Japanese too long to care. There's gonna be bumps in the road, many self-imposed, and choosing a silly textbook may or may not be one of them.

yudantaiteki Wrote:(Your example is the "let" causative, that's of course very common.)

Thanks, I misunderstood your earlier post and thought you were making the distinction that いただく isn't a receiving and もらえる is. Makes much more sense now.

Personally I think the strange thing about this is the need to ask the question at all.
I mean, I guess it's reasonable question, but if you've never encountered it in the wild who cares? Sitting down and learning a whole bunch of grammar without any mental model of Japanese to apply it to seems weird to me. I mean

Quote:So here we have the "-te morau" construction in which the -te verb is causative and morau is in the potential, combined with the "probable" form of desu.

... the hell is this? Who even thinks about language in those terms?

Not saying that grammar study is a bad thing (I'm even engaging in a little of it myself at the moment) - but come on. This is not how we understand language. Stop worrying about it so much. Go swallow enough Japanese that the grammar point makes sense without the kind of tortuous construction you've managed there. Questions like the one in the OP take care of themselves if you base your understanding of the language on what you actually encounter rather than what you are told by going cover-to-cover through a grammar textbook.

Aikynaro Wrote:This is not how we understand language. Stop worrying about it so much. Go swallow enough Japanese that the grammar point makes sense without the kind of tortuous construction you've managed there. Questions like the one in the OP take care of themselves if you base your understanding of the language on what you actually encounter rather than what you are told by going cover-to-cover through a grammar textbook.

Do they really take care of themselves? I'm much more comfortable with constructions I spent a lot of time analyzing.

Also, how do you know that the path to understanding is paved faster through exposure than analysis? Certainly personal experience can't be enough, because you need to choose one path or the other so you can't compare.

Tzadeck Wrote:I guess I've just been learning Japanese too long to care. There's gonna be bumps in the road, many self-imposed, and choosing a silly textbook may or may not be one of them.

The issues and the repeated questions questions that the OP is having, not only stem from poor textbook choice, but outright refusal to look at anything else, including but not limited to the new editions of the Teach Yourself series, Tae Kim's guide, Genki, Assimil, SRS algorithms, readers made post 1980 and so on.