There's nothing subtle or complicated at all about this usage of に; it's basic grammar.

For me, there was never a time when things "stuck"; after using the "ignore grammar" method for 5 years I had to go back and relearn a lot of stuff from the beginning, and it vastly improved both my reading comprehension and spoken Japanese when I did so.  (And this was after I had passed JLPT 1 -- if you had asked me then, I probably would have said that I understood Japanese grammar pretty well, but I was wrong.)

Last edited by yudantaiteki (2010 January 24, 8:36 am)

mr_hans_moleman wrote:

yudantaiteki wrote:

What do you mean "accept it the way it is"?  How can you understand the sentence if you don't know what's modifying what?

For example, take the sentence:
「彼女は国際的に有名な歌手です。」

I think in this case, what's hard to understand for the poster is the subtle use of に.
By accept it as it is, I mean accept that in this case after "国際的” there will be a に.
Get it, and then move on. It's not really essential to worry about small things like this. In long run, as you read more and more, if you still don't get it(which I doubt) come again and ask. Is it really important to know now? For sure there will be a time when it will naturally stick in through repeated exposure.

But there is not always a に after 的, or 国際的... If you don't understand what the に is doing, then you won't understand how the meaning differs when, say, な is used. The use of に is not subtle, and lacking an understanding of how its used is not a "small thing". It's central to the understanding of the vast majority of Japanese sentences. It's a very basic grammar term that, especially as its used in this case, is so simple that one would find it hard pressed to mix up with any other particle.

You don't have to learn grammar in order to learn a language, but why waste 20 years of your life eschewing grammar terms when you can just take the easy route, study it, and learn a language faster? I can absolutely promise you, Khatz or whoever he is, didn't learn Japanese by completely avoiding reading about grammar. He didn't just learn it by osmosis. I don't care what he says on his site, unless he's some kind of savant, he studied grammar.

There are all these claims going around that you simply don't need grammar whatsoever to learn a language; you can just learn via enough exposure. Has anyone who is actually saying that ever learned, to native fluency, a language without ever studying a grammar term once? In less than 10 years? Because unless you can tell me, "Yes I learned Japanese to native fluency without ever reading about は or が, or に or で or anything like that" and are actually telling me the truth, what you're saying about just "picking it up naturally" is your assumption; it's not grounded in fact.

FooSoft wrote:

IceCream wrote:

um... i'm not sure, but i think Tae Kim does cover this use of に. I know i read it somewhere, anyway. It's roughly equivalent to the -ly ending in english. Of course, its a rough translation, but it can get you pretty far.
So, 彼女は国際的に有名な歌手です。 = she is an internationally famous singer.
These kind of modifications work in the same way as english, so it's pretty ok once you've seen a few of them... ^_^

That makes sense. Is there a corresponding rule for い adjectives? Would it just be く form?

Yes.  i.e. すごく有名な歌手.

In addition, verbs can sometimes act as "adverbs" (or at least go in places where we would use adverbs in English) via the -te form.  For instance, 遅れて来ました means "I came late".

mirina wrote:

As stated, yes. What's even more confusing are adverbial phrases that are basically groups of words.. Like 都合よく, which doesn't translate well ("goodly of circumstances", maybe), but basically infers that the conditions are suitable. It was very confusing the first time I saw it; I couldn't understand why there was a noun, followed by an adverb, followed by a verb (like 都合よく使う) with no particle anywhere to be seen.

Hmm, that's an interesting example. I can kind of see 「都合よく使う」 as "circumstances well used", which is different from "good circumstances used" in such that 「よく使う」 is kind of a noun phrase. I'm probably totally wrong though

mirina wrote:

I always read it as a verb, because to me it was just easier to interpret, especially since some verbs don't translate as smoothly into adverbs. For example, I would read 遅れて来ました as "I was late and I came." Whatever works for people, though.

That's kind of how I've looked at it too. 遅れて sets the context/state, and in that state you 来ました. But come think of it, that's basically same as the definition for an adverb isn't it -- that's an interesting way of looking at it.

Last edited by FooSoft (2010 January 24, 4:10 pm)

mirina wrote:

For example, I would read 遅れて来ました as "I was late and I came." Whatever works for people, though.

...better than coming early I suppose. </obligatory>

春が近ずいてるなぁと思うよ。

Well, spring is coming, yes, this seems obvious.  But what is this ずいてる?  I cannot find this in any of the resources I have available to me.

Thanks much!

Now that you point it out, it seems so obvious...  近づいてる.  Thank you.  I think I need to train myself to check for mistyping, づ and ず, when one or the other isn't making any sense.  Thanks again!

FooSoft wrote:

Got another quick question:

「作業するにはもっと広いスペースが必要だ。」

Why isn't there a の after 作業する to noun-ify that expression? Is it just dropped because のには would be too long? Is using の in that place awkward and/or ungrammatical?

Verb+のには is better when a sentence/clause carries a comparative sense while verb+には is more common when it doesn't. For example, you can say この部屋は作業するのには向いていないが、住むには快適だ。(This isn't a good workroom, but it's a comfortable studio to live in.) In this case, the first half "Granted that this isn't a good workroom, but..." is a little emotional. You can say この部屋は作業するには向いていないが、住むのには快適だ。This version emphasizes the latter part "It's comfortable to live here nonetheless." If you say, "この部屋は作業するには向いていないが、住むには快適だ。," it's just stating a fact and might sound like a dry sentence.

In short, the verb+のにはXだ structure implies "The fact that verb action is X is an exceptional case" or "I know the verb action is X, but..."

It's kind of difficult to use のには in conjunction with もっと広いスペースが必要だ, though it's possible depending on context. If it were もっと広いスペースは必要だ, you'd use のには in usual context: 作業するのにはもっと広いスペースは必要だ。because it implies "I know it's too small to work in, but it's large enough for another purpose." Anyway, if I were to say these kinds of thing, I'd rephrase them so the meanings are clear, e.g., 作業するのには狭すぎる。もっと広いスペースが必要だ。(for the のには+が必要だ sentence. Also, に in には is pronounced in very high pitch and the following は in lower pitch to place an accent.) and これ以上広いスペースは必要ない。作業すると言うのであれば話しは別だが。(for the のには+は必要だ sentence). The original sentence in question is ok because it doesn't imply anything.

This doesn't apply to cases where には is nominalizing a word/phrase that isn't a verb, e.g., 〜できないのには and 美しいのには. An example where you don't use の in this kind of case is には in a set phrase 〜には関わらず such as できるできないには関わらず (regardless of whether you can do it or not).

Last edited by magamo (2010 January 30, 7:30 am)

FooSoft wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, that helps out a lot. I was familiar with the "despite" usage of のに but didn't realize that adding it here would add that kind of a meaning.

Is this usage an exception for には or is it possible for other particles as well? Up until now I thought you would always either have to use の our a generic noun like よう or こと to create noun phrases so that you can use particles on verbs like this.

I guess you could say の can nominalize a verb to connect a particle that should be attached to a noun, e.g.,

作業をするのは嫌いだ。
休憩するのが好きだ。
作業を続けるのと休憩するの、どっちにする？

I believe any decent textbook explains these. Grammatically speaking, you can swap の with こと in these three examples. But you might sound a little too stiff, especially when you say the こと versions in conversation. I don't think you should worry about this too much. I'm sure you'll come across の before a particle in real life so often you don't think it's strange.

Yes, that's exactly what I was curious about in that last post. I'll keep in mind that it is sort of an exception, thanks

Thanks for the examples magamo, they help. And yes, I'm not sure about the "average" grammar book, but I was going off the Tae Kim guide exclusively (I look stuff up in other guides, but it's the only one I've read straight through).

From http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/surunaru it kind of sounded like there was no way for this grammar to work:

"You may be wondering how to use 「なる」 and 「する」 with verbs since there's no way to directly modify a verb with another verb. The simple solution is to add a generic noun such as a generic event: こと （事） or an appearance/manner: よう （様）."

So basically in the sentence I was asking about I expected something like:
「作業するのにもっと広いスペースが必要だ。」 or
「作業することにはもっと広いスペースが必要だ。」
and was thrown off by the に usage directly on the verb.

Last edited by FooSoft (2010 January 30, 11:26 pm)

FooSoft wrote:

Is this usage an exception for には or is it possible for other particles as well? Up until now I thought you would always either have to use の […]

Foosoft. Here’s stuff on the compound particle には lifted straight from Dict. of Int. Jap. Grammar:

Compound particles consist of two or more words and function as single particles in that they are interpreted as a unit rather than word by word. Many compound particles mark only nouns; some mark verbs or sentences as well. にはmarks V and Ns.

fyi DIJG lists about 70 compound particles. 11 of them can follow Verbs - 7 of which start with に.  Many of the N-following ones also start with に. So I guess it’s just a matter of learning their usage. For the N only ones, if it makes sense semantically, のcan still be used to nominalize the verbs. 

Back to には which means:    for; to; in order to
   そこへ行くには地下鉄が一番便利です。
    (The subway is the most convenient way to get there.)

1.  Vinf.nonpast ＋には is used to indicate a purpose for doing s.t. The predicate often expresses the necessity for or importance of using a specific means.

2.  Vinf.nonpast may be nominalized by no. There is no difference in meaning between ni wa and no ni wa.
        人の性格を見抜くのには深い洞察力が必要だ。

3. When にはfollows a noun it must be a noun of action which can take the verb
する. If not a noun of action, the sentence does not express a purpose. [It would be just a regular に＋は as in  東京には]

Other similar 'purpose' expressions: (ni, tame ni, noni)

a.  　　私は二本語の勉強に日本へ行った。
　　　 (I went to Japan for the study of Japanese.)
b. 　　 私は二本語を勉強しに日本へ行った。
　　　 (I went to Japan to study Japanese.)
c.   　　私は二本語を勉強するために日本へ行った。
　　　(I went to Japan in order to study Japanese.)
d.   　　私は二本語を勉強する｛のに/notに｝日本へ行った。
　　　(I went to Japan for the purpose of studying Japanese.)

[a] means practically the same as [b]. However, [b] has a restriction on the main verb; that is, only the verb of motion can be used. The difference between [a] and [c] is that the latter has the stronger meaning of purpose.  [a] sounds more casual than [c]. [a] is different from [d] in that the latter puts more weight on the way the speaker learned Japanese. In other words, [d] implies seriousness of the purpose.

hey Magamo. I'm afraid I don't really understand you point. Are you saying that の　and こと must be interchangeable? The book mentions only の.

The book's "no difference in meaning" doesn't rule out some difference in nuance, I suppose. I'll trust you that they seem different.  My spidey senses simply don't extend that far.

btw, aren't your に...慣れていない　and に...長けている　examples different than the には　to indicate "purpose" ?  The にs　there indicate what someone's getting used to or getting good at, rather than the purpose. The の　is needed, I assume: not 人の性格を見抜くには長けている.

Whereas with 「そこへ行くには地下鉄が一番便利です」, the subway is the best means to achieve the goal of going somewhere. And, similarly, FooSoft's line was something about needing more space in order to work.

Foosoft, I'm glad you asked. This is exactly the kind of detail that's easy to gloss over when reading, then bungle up when writing. I might check whether using の with the other 7 is also optional.