I am reading this short story but can't grasp the usage of a few particles. Here are the sentences and the particles:

腕組みをして枕元に座っていると、　仰向きに寝た女が、　静かな声でもう死にますという。　What is the meaning of と here?

自分も確かにこれは死ぬなと思った。　Here, why is これ being used and not こちら, he is talking about a woman.

そこで、　そうかね、　もう死ぬのかね、　と上から　覗き込む　ようにして　聞いてみた。　Here what is the correctr translation for そこで、　the と before 上 and the ようにする?

Finally, 輪郭の柔らかな瓜実顔を。。。　here should 'outline of oval face' be 柔らかな瓜実顔の輪郭, that is the other way around? Since 'Car of Tanaka' would be 田中の車, the other way as in English.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks

matrixofdynamism Wrote:I am reading this short story but can't grasp the usage of a few particles. Here are the sentences and the particles:

腕組みをして枕元に座っていると、　仰向きに寝た女が、　静かな声でもう死にますという。　What is the meaning of と here?

XとY, X happens, then Y happens.

Quote:自分も確かにこれは死ぬなと思った。　Here, why is これ being used and not こちら, he is talking about a woman.

This is a little hard to interpret but I think これ refers to the situation, not the woman.

Quote:そこで、　そうかね、　もう死ぬのかね、　と上から　覗き込む　ようにして　聞いてみた。　Here what is the correctr translation for そこで、　the と before 上 and the ようにする?

I think そこで means "at that point in time" but I'm not 100% sure.
と connects to 聞く, it's the normal quotative.
Xようにする - attempt to do something, I guess?

Quote:Finally, 輪郭の柔らかな瓜実顔を。。。　here should 'outline of oval face' be 柔らかな瓜実顔の輪郭, that is the other way around? Since 'Car of Tanaka' would be 田中の車, the other way as in English.

This is not the possessive の; it's the の that substitutes for が in modifying phrases. This is describing the face, not an outline.

Quote:腕組みをして枕元に座っていると、　仰向きに寝た女が、　静かな声でもう死にますという。　What is the meaning of と here?

In this case, the "Xていると..." is almost like "when xing...."
I'm not sure of any rules for it, but it's kind of like the conditional version of it, I think.
Here's a post asking about the same passage: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/forum/vie...hp?id=5110

Quote:自分も確かにこれは死ぬなと思った。　Here, why is これ being used and not こちら, he is talking about a woman.

It seems to me like it's the girl thinking, and "これ" would be referring to the situation. Sort of like "so this is death," or "this is how I die."

Quote:そこで、　そうかね、　もう死ぬのかね、　と上から　覗き込む　ようにして　聞いてみた。　Here what is the correctr translation for そこで、　the と before 上 and the ようにする?

I'm not good at translating, but そこで could probably be "and then" or something.
と -> linking そうかね、もう死ぬのかね to the 聞いてみた.

Quote:Finally, 輪郭の柔らかな瓜実顔を。。。　here should 'outline of oval face' be 柔らかな瓜実顔の輪郭, that is the other way around?

Not saying the 'outline of the oval face,' but rather the 'oval face with soft features/countours/outlines.'

edit: darn, yudan beat me

yudantaiteki Wrote:と connects to 聞く, it's the normal quotative.

No doubt you already know this, but と actually connects to the quoted part, i.e. "そうかね、　もう死ぬのかね" indicating a quote. The particles are suffixes...So it's like [blah blah]と(end quote particle) 聞いてみた ((I) asked).

It connects the quoted part to 聞く. I feel like I've explained this before; this type of expression is used in Japanese too (as Yにかかる) -- you don't have to spell out that Xと connects to X, because particles always immediately follow the words they're applying to (sometimes after other particles). In a quotation usage XとY, と will always immediately follow the quotation X, but the verb may be later in the sentence.

nadia, I really don't think you need to keep pointing this out. That particles are post-positions isn't something anyone is confused about in my experience.

Particles define a grammatical relationship b/w the NP and predicate, so it makes sense to talk about them in terms of that linkage. Features of the predicate often determine the appropriate particle which is why people often talk about pairings of particles and categories of predicates. They're not suggesting particles are verbal prefixes.

The only time location is an issue (that I can think of) is if distance from the predicate determines whether the particle can be left out or not.

Fair enough. I was just trying to explain more clearly what was meant by "normal quotative", and indicate how to tell which which part of the sentence is the quote which I think the OP missed.

Regarding particles and verbs, yeah semantically they are linked. All words in a sentence are semantically connected. All particles connect to the verb in that they define the role that each part of the sentence plays in relation to the clause ending verb. I just think it's bad to explain grammar in chunks like Xと思う or Xを食べる without properly explaining what specifically the particle is affixing to otherwise beginners may try to memorize which particle goes with which verb but this is an incorrect way of conceptualizing Japanese and will be confusing when you see other Japanese sentences in which the learned particle-verb ordering appears broken (it was never fixed) or appears to change arbitrarily then requiring memorization of more rules and exceptions to explain it in an ad-hoc manner. Particle usage questions pop up all the time here because it's generally pretty confusing to a lot of beginners.

nadiatims Wrote:I just think it's bad to explain grammar in chunks like Xと思う or Xを食べる without properly explaining what specifically the particle is affixing to otherwise beginners may try to memorize which particle goes with which verb

This makes no sense to me. I've always seen grammar explained (both in English and Japanese) as particles connecting noun phrases (or quotes, or sometimes other things) to predicates, and I don't see how that leads to incorrect understanding.

As I'm far from being an expert in Japanese, I always lookup DBJG when in doubt. On this occasion I took a peek at を and と(3).

On を DBJG has: "を marks direct object...", so clearly it's a NPをPredicate

On と(3) DBJG has: "と is used to mark content of such actions as 思う 'think; feel',　考える　'think (with the intellect)', 書く　'write', 聞く　'hear', 説明する　'explain'." Again, clear case of NPとPredicate (where the Predicate is limited to some class of actions).

Getting this things to know and use when appropriate is the point of studding grammar.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:I just think it's bad to explain grammar in chunks like Xと思う or Xを食べる without properly explaining what specifically the particle is affixing to otherwise beginners may try to memorize which particle goes with which verb

This makes no sense to me. I've always seen grammar explained (both in English and Japanese) as particles connecting noun phrases (or quotes, or sometimes other things) to predicates, and I don't see how that leads to incorrect understanding.

What confuses people about particles is that many look at them wrong. I haven't been working on grammar as much as I would like but the best advice is to understand how to break up sentences in Japanese.

Try to breakup sentences in the correct way.

私は彼を親切な人と思います。

私は　彼を　親切な人と　思います。

I don't know how particles are taught, as I am learning them a little different than normal.

nadiatims, I didn't mean to jump on you for mentioning it here. Must have seemed like an overreaction. It's just that it had come up several times.

I think it IS good for learners to also associate particles with predicates. It's both semantics and syntax. If they can anticipate the complements associated with a verb, they're actually more likely to recognize that distant particle when parsing the sentence, not less. (Even native speakers do this. With alternate or less common particle use, their brains need to go back and process meaning after seeing the final predicate.)

Yes, particles are tricky, but not their location. What makes them difficult is multiple complements, alternate particles on the same complement and subtle nuances. That stuff can't be understood without thinking about the features of specific predicates. (Sometimes subtle semantic features.) Learners start with simple associations of course (eg を　goes with transitive verbs), but they gradually progress to more complex particle use.

In other words, I don't see folks getting stuck on the idea that each verb has one fixed particle. With each new or unexpected particle use, their knowledge expands. (I still don't have a great feel for the how alternate particles affects nuance with certain verbs and adjectives. But that's inadequate knowledge about certain verb/adjs, not confusion about how particles work or rigid thinking.)

Since I'm (ranting?) on the subject, :-) I'll respond now to your similar reaction when I mentioned a study about the effectiveness of teaching L2 youngsters to associate verbs with particles. The teachers didn't write all sentences like: 「音楽 が好き」 or [音楽　　を聞く」. The presentation and activities were designed, however, to reinforce the concept that certain predicates take が　and others take を　without any explicit grammar explanation. With other approaches, kids almost always produced 「音楽を好き」. Another tricky one was motion verbs of path or manner. English kids tend to say 「学校へ歩く」. As I recall, there were fun physical activities to help them distinguish manner vs. path and associate the verbs with the appropriate particles.

I didn't respond at the time, but I remember thinking you were a bit too quick to give your lecture that particles must be taught as post noun or else learners will be confused. I mean, the whole point of the experiment was that techniques aimed at conceptually grouping particles and verbs were more effective and didn't even require explicit grammar instruction. When it comes to language, brains seem to make good use of overlaying frameworks. Postpositions and predicate/complements aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

wow...guess that was bottled up. :-)

the reason english natives might tend towards producing 音楽を好き is because they think 好き=like=verb. Regarding 学校へ歩く, I guess you're referring to the fact Japanese would usually say 歩いて行く. This again comes from translation of English, we say "walk to school" not "go to school walking" or some such. The point is to come to the point that you understand that things like 彼が好きだ can also mean "he likes (something)" and 私はウナギです doesn't necessarily mean I am an eel (although it could).
It seems unintuitive to me that you would ultimately be helping students in the long run by clumping the particles and verbs (as in your examples) even if it does help them produce correct Japanese in certain situations. If it works it works I guess, but surely the goal should be becoming able to produce them correctly because you've come to understand how they actually work right? Teaching convenient untruths will only complicate things in the long run, especially when the truth isn't actually harder to teach (ie. doesn't require explicit grammar instruction). The true test would be how well the students who have been subtly steered to make the wrong associations would respond to sentences which don't follow the simple patterns they have learned. And such sentences are everywhere in real Japanese.

For me, I'm not intending to "clump" particles and verbs. If you look at a sentence like the one in question:

そこで、　そうかね、　もう死ぬのかね、　と上から覗き込むようにして聞いてみた。

There's nothing wrong with saying that the と links or connects the quotation with 聞く. If someone reads this to mean that と is only used with 聞く or that no other particles can go with 聞く, I can't help that. But I don't think anyone does that.

Well "Clump" was in response to Thora's example of teachers deliberately writing things like 「音楽 が好き」 or 「音楽　　を聞く」. Anyway I think we can agree on the fact that the important thing is to understand that と is marking a quote, and in identifying which part is the quote, which is what I was doing with my initial response. At any rate, perhaps none of this really matters because once someone starts actually using the language, and the true acquisition occurs, any abstract conceptualisation of grammar is largely overwritten I suspect. That is everything just starts becoming automatic, and I don't think anyone truly understands how language is processed or produced at that point.

@matrixofdynamism

You should buy "All About Particles".
It goes through all the particles and their uses.

A good exercise is to highlight or underline every particle.
Then match each particle with one of the book's explanations.

I agree with Nadiatims on this. It wasn't until I read the bit in Tae kim's gude where he rearranged a sentence to show how the particles kept preserved the meaning that I really understood how they worked. It's definitely worth pointing out to begginers because it's so simple and makes things much easier to understand. If they didn't need it then it's no big deal.

nadiatims Wrote:Well "Clump" was in response to Thora's example of teachers deliberately writing things like 「音楽 が好き」 or 「音楽　　を聞く」.

Nooo... I wrote they didn't do that. ;p I was actually trying to make it clear they weren't suggesting this is the preferred syntax. [edit: b/c I had originally written it that way to explain their idea of presenting language such that young kids would associate a predicate (group) with its particle.]

The broader message is just that particles being postpositions isn't that important compared to the semantic interplay b/w particles and predicates. We can observe this stuff without jeopardizing our knowledge of where particles are located. ;p

So I'm afraid I can't understand trying to stop people from recognizing this basic aspect of Japanese. Telling people it's wrong to think of it that way? And now suggesting that it's an "convenient untruth" or "not real language" or "wrong associations"? How can correct particles be wrong?

[A more useful topic might be to look at how particles alternations affect meaning without affecting syntax.]

@Splatted, indeed everyone should know that particles follow what they mark. It's hard for me to imagine getting very far along without learning that, though. (TaeKim mentions it in one of the first lessons (on Topic), but it's a few more lesson before he tackles more particles.) Or did you mean the idea of "scrambling" - arguments can shift around b/c the order of Japanese is more free than English?

I'm now curious if many self-studiers are unaware particles mark the preceding word.

[edits]

Indeed I appear to have misread your post, sorry.

I think it might surprise you how non-obvious it is that particles are postpositions to beginners (especially first time language learners), though I'm sure it's explained in decent Japanese courses. A lot of beginner textbooks and courses rely on the this is how you say X in Y approach, sentence X = sentence Y, now do some exercise where you sub in different vocab into the same pattern. Actually this might eventually be sufficient to just figure it out by intuition, if it weren't for the extremely limited language employed in beginner textbooks. Unless there is exposure to (break from the mould) fragmented sentences, modified ordering, sentences without predicates etc (ie. real Japanese) it's really not all that obvious. Hence all the authentic sentences that get posted on this board (often with high level vocabulary) and accompanying questions about particle use. Usually the explanations are quite elementary but people apparently haven't heard them before or intuited it yet.

In my experience people are generally aware that particles follow the words they...link to (or whatever), but they don't pay enough attention to the grammatical restrictions that help see which usage of a particle is being used. For instance, と often causes confusion because of the multiple uses, but in this case, it has to be the quotative と because that's the only one that can follow a sentence-ending particle like ね. If the preceding word had been (for instance) 先生だ, then you would need more of the sentence to know whether it was quotative or the "When X happens, Y happens" meaning.

Yeah, I have trouble believing learners aren't aware that particles follow their "host". (Incidentally, I've actually had case and binding particles in mind more than conjunctive or sentence ending particles, but it's the same idea wrt location.)

Most (all?) basic learning materials use topicは, subjectが, objectを,　etc. It's usually explicitly mentioned that particles appear after their host, but it'd be apparent even without such explanation (as nadiatims mentioned.) Those substitution/transformation drills actually further reinforce the NP+particle unit. Anyone using TaeKim or Core would know it. Anyone mining sentences in the wild and looking things up in a dictionary would figure it out. Rikaichan and edict seem to recognize particles.

Accurate use of all the different particles is a different issue than knowing they exist and where they're located. If anyone here is unaware of the existence and location of particles, maybe we should inform folks of a gap in that particular self-study method. :-) It just seems unlikely to me.

The only situation I can imagine which might result in particle obliviousness would be picking up very basic casual spoken Japanese (which omits many particles) without any reading of or about Japanese. But that's even a stretch as one-word utterances will often include a particle for clarity or as an alternative to prosodic emphasis.

As someone mentioned, questions involving particles are often parsing questions. How to break up the sentence, particle identification, many uses of a given particle, identifying the linked predicates (main/sub clause), irregular particle use, passivization changes, etc. A variety of knowledge is required to sort this stuff out, but particle location doesn't seem like the problem. (Identifying particle-marked clauses in more complex sentences is difficult for learners who are at the NPはOBJをV　level, but as ydtt pointed out, that's often a matter of general grammar knowledge.)

Sorry about the double post - I'm being long-winded, so I though I should at least use separate posts.

@nadiatims, to wrap this up, here's what I'd propose.

If you like to help beginners by pointing out that particles mark their host, usually indicate grammatical role in the sentence and that host+particle's placement in the sentence is relatively flexible, that's fantastic. Very useful information.

But this is what I often observe: someone answers a particle or parsing question with this type of answer:

-identify which predicate a certain particle was associated with
- explain that a particular verb can take different particles for the same syntactic element to different effect (eg.　 [人」と会う　vs [人]に会う)
- frame the answer as ～を聞く/を言う...　vs ～と聞く/と言う....
- explain that certain verb conjugations take particle X.

....then you chime in with the "correction" that particles are not associated with verbs, they simply mark their hosts. Your opinion has been that it's wrong and damaging to conceive of grammar as 「～と言う」　「～を読む」　or 「～が[を]飲みたい」. Basically, if someone uses an expression like "X verbs take the Y particle", you correct them.

If I understand correctly, you assume that teaching techniques which use visual presentation such as:
[quote complement] と聞く
　　　　　　　　　　 と言う
　　　　　　　　　　 と思う
will interfere with a student's ability to understand ～を聞く　～を言う. In my experience, those fears are unfounded. Students often learn ~と言う　very early and sometimes are a bit surprised the first time they encounter ~を言う. (The particles aren't necessarily adjacent; there may be intervening words.) That presents a learning opportunity, not a cognitive crisis. They already knew Sが言う, so there was no misconception that と言う　is an unbreakable bond.

You're generous with your help, so these kinds of corrections occur relatively frequently. Your confident tone suggests that opposing views are silly. Well....to my mind, your corrections are misplaced and risk creating in learners an obstacle to deeper comprehension.

Understanding how predicates can be grouped semantically and how that explains particles and syntax makes a big difference. Knowing which verbs/adj can have alternate particles on the same argument is the only way to comprehend and produce the nuance that native speakers understand more intuitively. The rigid and incomplete syntactic approach to grammar you recommend would interfere with both types of understanding ...and these are just 2 examples.

I can only ask you to reconsider whether those kinds of corrections are needed or helpful. Or, I suppose I can make more of an effort to post a different opinion each time. :-) (If you're interested, I probably have some papers to pass on. Mostly on は、が and　を. Nerdy reading, though.)
[fixes]

you all have been immensely helpful. I can only thankyou for it. Thankyou very very much.