nadiatims Wrote:except that then the sentence would magically translate to "he is clear japanese" which doesn't make sense. Here japanese should be placed after the verb in the translation because as you say it's the object.
None of this confusion would even exist if textbooks and so on would stop translating intransitive verbs into transitive or passive into active and so on. When they do so they are lying about the meaning of those words and have to then introduce all sorts of complicated explanations to explain the otherwise easy to understand mechanics of the language.

Arguing might have been the wrong word. More like, commenting about something that I commented about.

People who go by the が-necessarily-marks-the-subject school of thought (e.g., Jay Rubin [it sounds like you may have read him]) translate わかる as 'to become clear (to someone)', people who go by the が-can-mark-the-object-in-non-volitional-verbs school of thought (e.g., Eleanor Jorden) translate わかる as 'to understand.' "He understands Japanese" makes perfect sense.

I've gone around with nadiatims before on this; there's no point arguing. His/her explanation isn't supported by any textbook or reference (except maybe Rubin, I don't know), and the volitional explanation appears in JSL written by a teacher and structural linguist with 40 years of experience when she wrote the book. The idea that が always marks a subject is specifically criticized in a number of linguistic and pedagogical syntax articles and books written by specialists in Japanese linguistics, both native and non-native speakers of Japanese.

Jorden uses the volitional/non-volitional distinction to explain not only が/を, but also causative, passive, potential, つもり, ておく, てくる, volitional forms, and probably other things I don't remember. I'm not necessarily saying it's the only way to explain these things, but it's simply wrong to claim that the volitional/non-volitional distinction tells you nothing useful.

Quote:except that then the sentence would magically translate to "he is clear japanese" which doesn't make sense.

Of course you can intentionally mistranslate things and define concepts any way you want to make your point seem right, but if you say that "non-volitional verbs take objects with が" then 彼が日本語が分かる translates to "He understands Japanese".

彼が分かる can mean either "He understands" or "I understand him"; this can be explained very simply by saying that with non-volitional verbs like 分かる, が can mark both the subject and the object. If you are committed to saying that が must mark a subject, then you either have to define "subject" in a way that is unusual, or claim that these are actually separate words written the same way, which seems unnecessarily complicated.

Could someone explain what exactly 今だから means in the following sentence? I couldn't find it in my set of dictionaries.

「青豆さん」と老婦人は打ち明けるように言った。「今だから言いますが、失礼だとは承知の上で、あなたの身元調査のようなことをさせていただきました」

"Aomame" said the old woman is if she were opening up to her. "I say this now but after admitting to myself that it was an improper thing to do, I took the liberty of investigating your background."

i was reading a member of c-ute(an idol group) blog entry http://gree.jp/c_ute/blog/entry/553246786 and right at the end she write ぱぱっとお風呂入って did she just say she took a bath with her dad? am i reading this right? i find it odd if it is true cause she is 16...

Zon70 Wrote:i was reading a member of c-ute(an idol group) blog entry http://gree.jp/c_ute/blog/entry/553246786 and right at the end she write ぱぱっとお風呂入って did she just say she took a bath with her dad? am i reading this right? i find it odd if it is true cause she is 16...

No, it's one of those funky adverbs. It means to do something quickly or in a hasty manner. From Daijirin:
ぱぱっと
動作がすばやいさま。ぱっぱと。「ーかたづける」

FooSoft Wrote:Could someone explain what exactly 今だから means in the following sentence? I couldn't find it in my set of dictionaries.

「青豆さん」と老婦人は打ち明けるように言った。「今だから言いますが、失礼だとは承知の上で、あなたの身元調査のようなことをさせていただきました」

"Aomame" said the old woman is if she were opening up to her. "I say this now but after admitting to myself that it was an improper thing to do, I took the liberty of investigating your background."

今だから言いますが is like a preamble you use before telling something when, for example, it's been secret but now it's ok to tell the listener the truth, you couldn't say it because it wasn't appropriate before, it's been ages so the listener wouldn't take it personally any more, and so on. 今だから is there to kind of imply that the ban has been lifted so the speaker tells you this. For example, if your close friend says, "今だから言うけどさ," it may be a funny mistake he made when he was a kid which he couldn't tell anyone back then because it was serious business for a little kid. Or maybe it's about how your first impression was bad and how you're good friends now.

Zon70 Wrote:was reading a member of c-ute(an idol group) blog entry http://gree.jp/c_ute/blog/entry/553246786 and right at the end she write ぱぱっとお風呂入って did she just say she took a bath with her dad? am i reading this right? i find it odd if it is true cause she is 16...

ぱぱと and ぱぱっと are pronounced very differently to the extent that it's rare to confuse the two in conversation. ぱぱっと is "quickly," "briefly" or something along those lines. So, what she's saying is, "I'll take a quick bath and review for the final."

@Yudantaiteki and Tzadeck

yudantaiteki Wrote:Of course you can intentionally mistranslate things and define concepts any way you want to make your point seem right, but if you say that "non-volitional verbs take objects with が" then 彼が日本語が分かる translates to "He understands Japanese".

That wasn't a mistranslation. if Japanese is the object of the sentence 彼が日本語が分かる then putting Japanese after the verb in the translation is correct (as that's where the object goes in an English sentence), and the sentence becomes "He is clear Japanese". And the only way to make this make any sense is to change the definition of the intransitive verb わかる(be clear) to the a transitive one (understand). When わかる genuinely does mean understand, it takes an を marked object, but this is another definition of the word (and can be thought of as a different word), just as 'gather'(we gathered at the meeting place) and 'gather'(gather the remains) are two different words though they occupy the same space in an English dictionary. 彼が日本語が分かる may translate to "He understands Japanese" by implication, but they are not grammatically equivalent. A literal translation which preserves the grammar and word definitions would be something like "He(,) Japanese is clear".

yudantaiteki Wrote:彼が分かる can mean either "He understands" or "I understand him"; this can be explained very simply by saying that with non-volitional verbs like 分かる, が can mark both the subject and the object. If you are committed to saying that が must mark a subject, then you either have to define "subject" in a way that is unusual, or claim that these are actually separate words written the same way, which seems unnecessarily complicated.

Again this example means either "(it) is clear to him" (implication: he understands it), "He understands (it)" (other definition of 分かる) or
"He is clear (to me)" (implication: I understand him) but never directly "(I) understand him".
The ambiguity comes from the fact that the sentence can mean either 彼が(omissionが)わかる,　彼が(omissionを)わかる or (omission)が彼が分かる. The sentence is inherently ambiguous when taken out of context. My definition of subject only appears unusual if you alter the meaning of the Japanese word わかる. In fact objects only appear to take　が when word meanings are altered in translation. There are valid reasons why translators might do this (such as preserving flow, naturalness etc) but they are altering the grammar. You're trying to equate grammatically different sentences.

Back to volitionality...How do you decide the volitionality of verbs anyway? Is 歩く volitional? What if the subject is under hypnosis or forced in some way? Would you suddenly say 公園が歩く. How about 飲む? Would you say 毒が飲んだ if someone accidentally drank poison? As I said before verb volitionality isn't included in dictionaries. You're a teacher right? Isn't it much much easier to just explain ok folks, が is for subjects,　を is for objects. Pay some attention to transitivity and don't be sloppy with word meanings.

magamo Wrote:今だから言いますが is like a preamble you use before telling something when, for example, it's been secret but now it's ok to tell the listener the truth, you couldn't say it because it wasn't appropriate before, it's been ages so the listener wouldn't take it personally any more, and so on. 今だから is there to kind of imply that the ban has been lifted so the speaker tells you this. For example, if your close friend says, "今だから言うけどさ," it may be a funny mistake he made when he was a kid which he couldn't tell anyone back then because it was serious business for a little kid. Or maybe it's about how your first impression was bad and how you're good friends now.

Ah, that makes sense. Fits great into the context too, thanks!

nadiatims Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Of course you can intentionally mistranslate things and define concepts any way you want to make your point seem right, but if you say that "non-volitional verbs take objects with が" then 彼が日本語が分かる translates to "He understands Japanese".

That wasn't a mistranslation. if Japanese is the object of the sentence 彼が日本語が分かる then putting Japanese after the verb in the translation is correct (as that's where the object goes in an English sentence), and the sentence becomes "He is clear Japanese". And the only way to make this make any sense is to change the definition of the intransitive verb わかる(be clear) to the a transitive one (understand). When わかる genuinely does mean understand, it takes an を marked object, but this is another definition of the word (and can be thought of as a different word), just as 'gather'(we gathered at the meeting place) and 'gather'(gather the remains) are two different words though they occupy the same space in an English dictionary. 彼が日本語が分かる may translate to "He understands Japanese" by implication, but they are not grammatically equivalent. A literal translation which preserves the grammar and word definitions would be something like "He(,) Japanese is clear".

Wow! I've never seen such a straightforward example of a circular argument outside of philosophy--that's pretty crazy. I'm not like blaming you or anything, as people often make circular arguments without realizing it.

A transitive verb is one that takes an object. You just argued "が can't mark an object, therefore わかる (when used with が) is intransitive and is not an example of が marking an object, therefore が can't mark an object." The concusion is included in the premises--a textbook example of a circular argument!

Hmm...maybe I didn't word it too well. I can see that it appears to be a circular argument. Let me try to explain more clearly.

Tzadeck Wrote:A transitive verb is one that takes an object. You just argued "が can't mark an object, therefore わかる (when used with が) is intransitive, therefore が can't mark an object." The concusion is included in the premises--a textbook example of a circular argument!

I'm not using が to prove the that わかる is an intransitive verb. わかる is an intransitive verb in that sentence. This is ultimately what it comes down to. In this sentence わかる does not mean 'understand' and therefore this sentence can't be used as an example of an object taking が. Try searching on google whether わかる is transitive or intransitive. Here are a few native speakers' opinions:
link1
link2
link3
link4

If you can find one Japanese native willing to say that わかる is acting as a transitive verb in that sentence I'll eat my hat.

I just read this piece by Shibatani which both clicked with me and blew my mind: Non-canonical Constructions in Japanese (Skip down to p. 34 of .pdf for Summary and Conclusion.)

Not really sure how relevant it is, but this back and forth and the use of terms like volitional and non-volitional inadvertently glommed me onto it. (In the case of this article it's in reference to unaccusative and unergative intransitive verbs.)

Trying to understand this volition thing. Umm, let's see. If を is accusative and indicates non-volition of the direct object/patient for transitive verbs, and there is also the unaccusative, intransitive which doesn't have the を and presumably has が, which indicates the subject, and likewise with volition and ergative and unergative... then... yes. Wait. What?

Anyway, I like Shibatani's ideas on large/small subjects and whatnot.

I agree with Tzadeck -- if you want to have this volition/が/subject argument then START ANOTHER THREAD! Lets keep this one for the question-and-answer stuff, eh?

The only reason people ever say that sometimes が marks an object is in failing to reconcile the fact that sometimes the same concept is expressed in an entirely different way (using different vocabulary) in the two languages. All sorts of complications then need to be introduced to equate the two grammatically different sentences. Rather than introducing complicated exceptions, textbooks/teachers should explain these differences as the patterns are introduced, otherwise the students' heads will end up filled with all sorts of contradictions.

Examples:

林檎が好きだ。 (apple is liked)
I like apples.

"like" is a transitive verb which takes an object. the predicate 好きだ is an adjective, so it takes a subject marked by が.

お金がほしい。(money is wanted)
I want money.

"want" is a transitive verb which takes an object. ほしい is an adjective describing a subject marked by が.

ケーキが食べたい。(cake is wanting to be eaten)
I want to eat cake.

"want" is a transitive verb taking an object, "to eat cake"(to is nominalising eat). 食べたい is an adjective made by attaching たい to the stem of the verb 食べる. Hence it can be be conjugated like an い adjective. It describes the state of the subject marked by が.

ギターが弾ける。(guitar is playable)
I can play the guitar.

"can+play" is a transitive verb construction which takes an object. 引ける is an intransitive verb which describes the state of the subject marked by が.

and so on and so on...

Yeah, I see your point pm215, but now we've started we may as well finish it here. I think considering this is such a point of confusion it's useful to discuss.

wow I can't believe how my question and pm215's response triggered such a debate

I can see now what Tzadeck was saying about these ways of describing similar dynamics of control and transitivity makes sense (Shibatani goes into the varying levels of control when switching to intransitive が constructions also, as does that Making Sense of Japanese Grammar [not Rubin's] book), as well as the sense via pm215/Tzadeck of leaving this thread for a specific example/question & answer thread rather than debating ways of describing language mechanics.

And I guess I was wrong about Shibatani making up the large/small subject thing, apparently they just refined/expanded it or something. Guess I'll review what magamo was saying earlier.

Edit: And great, now I've moved on from Shibatani on double subject constructions to Sadler, et al. on emergent grammar and dative subject constructions...

I really wish I could find a full copy of this article: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-189159926.html

[removed]
Edit: I apologize for my sarcasm, nadia. It never adds any value. I'll just say - I don't think these guys are wrong or confused about the fundamentals, they just analyze it differently.

So sorry for giving examples to explain what I'm saying. I was just responding to ydtt and Tzadecks. Anyway the topic keeps popping up so some people do find it confusing. I don't quite know what I said to rub you the wrong way but if you disagree by all means show me where I'm mistaken...(with examples). Or if you're going to just claim the opinion of experts at least give me a link.

Dont mean to derail the conversation but i have a quick question regarding something i just read

私はそのたびにものすごい重装備で学校にツ通っています
Particularly the 重装備 part. I tried Jim Breens dictionary (dont know anyother) and i got that 装備 meant equipment or clothing or something of that variety. Considering the kanji before it has something to do with heavy i figured it to mean that she needed plenty of heavy clothing (for warmth) for the journey but i'm not entirely sure.

dmatsui Wrote:私はそのたびにものすごい重装備で学校にツ通っています
Particularly the 重装備 part. I tried Jim Breens dictionary (dont know anyother) and i got that 装備 meant equipment or clothing or something of that variety. Considering the kanji before it has something to do with heavy i figured it to mean that she needed plenty of heavy clothing (for warmth) for the journey but i'm not entirely sure.

There's a lot of web dictionaries you can use that are better than Jim Breen. Yahoo Jisho springs to mind because it has both J->J and J->E, for your purposes. I also like Sanseido's online J-J because the definitions are pretty concise.
Don't kill me if this link sucks, but I just found this list of online dictionaries:
http://www.cis.doshisha.ac.jp/kkitao/lib...ence-b.doc

Yeah, it seems to have a meaning of "heavy-armed" like soldiers or something. I don't know the exact context, but since they're just talking about going to school, I'd say that they're just just saying that they had so much on that it was like being "heavily-armed" so to speak.

Also, Im guessing the ツ was a typo, so I won't fret over that.

外に席が空いてないのでここに座ってもいいですか。

Just wondering with this sentence, is 空いている negated to give a meaning like "Besides, this seat isn't vacant, is it? So, would it be alright if I sit here?" ?

Or does this sentence mean: "The other seats aren't free, so is it alright if I sit here?"

Thanks for any help.

vinniram Wrote:外に席が空いてないのでここに座ってもいいですか。

Just wondering with this sentence, is 空いている negated to give a meaning like "Besides, this seat isn't vacant, is it? So, would it be alright if I sit here?" ?

Or does this sentence mean: "The other seats aren't free, so is it alright if I sit here?"

Thanks for any help.

You already asked this and got a response from Tzadeck and magamo: http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...#pid122446

you have a freakish memory. or else, you run every question through search? hehe, not sure how i forgot i had already asked about it.

Haha, when I first read it I thought, "Err, didn't someone else just ask this like two weeks ago?"

Turns out it was none other than yourself!

I should probably start taking those fish oil tablets again

dmatsui Wrote:Dont mean to derail the conversation

No, you're on topic, it's those other guys who were derailing...

Quote:I tried Jim Breens dictionary (dont know anyother)

If you're using the online (WWWJDIC) version, then every entry should have little links like [S] to the Sanseido dictionary and [A] to the AIC dictionary (and [G] for google if completely stuck :-))

Quote:i got that 装備 meant equipment or clothing or something of that variety. Considering the kanji before it has something to do with heavy i figured it to mean that she needed plenty of heavy clothing (for warmth) for the journey but i'm not entirely sure.

I'm just guessing here (based on some of Sanseido's examples), but I suspect it's something along the lines of "fully kitted out", and perhaps more likely to evoke images of an Everest expedition than heavily armoured soldiers.

(Google images suggests it might make a few people think of steam engines instead :-))