Passive Form
kir...@gmail.com
sentence:
HOWAITO-san wa SUMISU-san ni KOOHII wo nomaremashita.
Does that mean Mr. White was made to drink coffee by Mr. Smith? But
that would be the causative... Help?
Paul Blay
This is an example of what's sometimes called the 'suffering passive'.
Mr White had his coffee drunk by Mr Smith.
John R. Yamamoto-Wilson
> This is an example of what's sometimes called the 'suffering
> passive'.
So called, I presume, because of the sufferings endured by EFL teachers
in Japan when their students produce sentences like "He was drunk his
coffee" and "I was stolen my wallet".
John
Kevin Wayne Williams
One of my students requested the other to eat on a hamburger today. The
lessons on に and を bore repetition.
KWW
Ben Finney
You've correctly identified White-san as the subject of the passive
verb; he was identified as the topic of the whole statement. But since
it's the passive form of the verb, White-san is the *receiver* of
someone else's action.
White-san didn't "nomu", that was done by the other party; Smith-san
is identified as that other party with "Smisu-san ni". (If this was a
statement using "nomu", it might simply be "Smisu-san ga koohii wo
nomimashita".)
So, this is a statement *about* White-san ("Howaito-san ha"),
regarding what happened when Smith-san drank the coffee: the verb is
"nomareru", the *receiving* or *suffering* of a drinking action done
by another party.
A possible translation is:
Mr. White had (his) coffee drunk by Mr. Smith.
... which correctly has Mr. White as the subject of the verb "to have
(object) drunk (by someone)", but omits the sense from the original
that this was to Mr. White's detriment, in contrast to another use of
the same verb form, such as "to have (one's hair) cut (by a
barber)". This is because English has no such verb form as "-rareru",
and we have to make do with the ambiguity.
I'll take this as an opportunity to once again praise Jay Rubin's
little volume "Making Sense of Japanese", a collection of essays on
troublesome topics for NSoE learners of Japanese. He illustrates the
lack in English of a clear equivalent for this precise Japanese verb
form, the "suffering passive":
... a form that can be used with both transitive and intransitive
verbs, and thus one that is very different from the English
passive. The subject is the one who gets *rareru*'ed whether the
passive Japanese verb is transitive or intransitive. ... The
subject remains *you* (or whoever else the context has established
as the subject), so you get *rareru*'ed by somebody, but you don't
get stolen.
"Pardon me, officer, but I've just been *rareru*'ed" you say to
the policeman.
"Oh, sorry to hear that, sir, but what were you *rareru*'ed?"
"I was *rareru*'ed somebody's having stolen my suitcase."
"How's that again?"
"I was stolen my suitcase!"
"What an odd way to put it!"
"Of course it's odd. I'm Japanese, and that's how we phrase these
things when our English is a little shaky!"
As the officer says, your expression may be odd, but it's
perfectly clear. From it, he knows that you are the victim, that
someone did the stealing, and that the someone stole your
suitcase. *Kaban wo nusumareta*, then, is a clear statement
involving you, the robber, and the suitcase, though only the
suitcase is mentioned.
I really do recommend this book, published by Kodansha (also published
earlier under the title "Gone Fishin'"), for anyone who has grasped
the basics of Japanese grammar but finds there are some points that
seem intractible.
--
\ "The best mind-altering drug is truth." -- Jane Wagner, via |
`\ Lily Tomlin |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
dareka
I doubt this explanation. I think what is された/られた is
nothing but the 鞄 "syntactically".
By the way, the OP's example sentence, if it is a example
sentence of some kind of textbook, sounds awful. I had to read
at least three times to understand what it means. It doesn't
sounds like a bookish sentence. And if it were a colloquial
sentence, it would be usually 飲まれてしまいました or
something like that.
>
> I really do recommend this book, published by Kodansha (also published
> earlier under the title "Gone Fishin'"), for anyone who has grasped
> the basics of Japanese grammar but finds there are some points that
> seem intractible.
>
--
dareka dar...@inter7NS.jp
Lawson English
"Chomp on" is OK in English. "Eat on" isn't.
Bart Mathias
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>I'll take this as an opportunity to once again praise Jay Rubin's
>>little volume "Making Sense of Japanese", a collection of essays on
>>troublesome topics for NSoE learners of Japanese. He illustrates the
>>lack in English of a clear equivalent for this precise Japanese verb
>>form, the "suffering passive":
>>
>> "Pardon me, officer, but [...] I was stolen my suitcase!"
>>
>> "What an odd way to put it!"
>>
>> "Of course it's odd. I'm Japanese, and that's how we phrase these
>> things when our English is a little shaky!"
>>
>> As the officer says, your expression may be odd, but it's
>> perfectly clear. From it, he knows that you are the victim, that
>> someone did the stealing, and that the someone stole your
>> suitcase. *Kaban wo nusumareta*, then, is a clear statement
>> involving you, the robber, and the suitcase, though only the
>> suitcase is mentioned.
>
>
> I doubt this explanation. I think what is された/られた is
> nothing but the 鞄 "syntactically".
But it's not proper to say something like that and not go into the
difference between 鞄を盗まれた and 鞄がぬすまれた、"syntactically."
Bart
dareka
As I have said before I think the function を、が and others
have is rather *semantical* one than syntactical. And I think
を gives the word or phrase to which it is tacked an
semantically objective, in senses of both 目的語 and/or 客観
的, position in the sentence or discourse in relation to the
verb in the sentence or an action or state that the speaker
tries to explain or convey. は gives a subjective, in senses
of both 主語 and/or 主観的, position. が gives, I think at
least in this case, mixed subjective and objective position.
鞄は盗まれた and 鞄が盗まれた kind of sound like a title of a
story or a subject of discussion following the theft in that
you explain or discuss what you do after the loss of the 鞄.
鞄を盗まれた sounds like, in this case, an objective statement
of fact.
--
dareka dar...@inter7NS.jp
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>>dareka wrote:
>>
>
>>>I doubt this explanation. I think what is された/られた is
>>>nothing but the 鞄 "syntactically".
>>
>>But it's not proper to say something like that and not go into the
>>difference between 鞄を盗まれた and 鞄がぬすまれた、"syntactically."
>
>
> As I have said before I think the function を、が and others
> have is rather *semantical* one than syntactical. And I think
> を gives the word or phrase to which it is tacked an
> semantically objective, in senses of both 目的語 and/or 客観
> 的, position in the sentence or discourse in relation to the
> verb in the sentence or an action or state that the speaker
> tries to explain or convey. は gives a subjective, in senses
> of both 主語 and/or 主観的, position. が gives, I think at
> least in this case, mixed subjective and objective position.
> 鞄は盗まれた and 鞄が盗まれた kind of sound like a title of a
> story or a subject of discussion following the theft in that
> you explain or discuss what you do after the loss of the 鞄.
> 鞄を盗まれた sounds like, in this case, an objective statement
> of fact.
I'm almost sorry I said anything. :-)
If I ever believe syntax isn't "semantical" I won't be interested in
syntax anymore.
My interpretation is similar to, but slightly different from, yours.
鞄が盗まれた is something that happened, a dispassionate statement of fact.
鞄を盗まれた is something that happened *to someone.*
From what you say, I think you'll have to agree that この人はだれかに鞄が
盗まれた is a bit odd. But you would hold that the sentence structure itself
is normal?
Bart
dareka
I meant by my usage of "semantical" that the word tacked by a
particle and the particle are not necessarily or solely linked
with the verb in the sentence but linked to what you is trying
to say. On the other hand, as for "syntactical", as in
"/usr/bin/rm -rf ~", ~ has to be the first argument and is
necessarily and solely linked with "/usr/bin/rm" and it is a
syntactical object.
>
> My interpretation is similar to, but slightly different from, yours.
>
> 鞄が盗まれた is something that happened, a dispassionate statement of fact.
>
> 鞄を盗まれた is something that happened *to someone.*
I think the particles in themselves have no meaning and you
can get no meaning from them other than what the
functionalities they have imply when there is no context. So I
think there could be multiple possible interpretations. But I
think when I go to a police station and report the crime I
would say 鞄を盗まれました because saying 鞄が盗まれました
without being asked to say what happened might be taken as an
indicative of next or unspoken words that are what I really
want to say, which is of course さっさと鞄を探せ.
>
> From what you say, I think you'll have to agree that この人はだれかに鞄が
> 盗まれた is a bit odd. But you would hold that the sentence structure itself
> is normal?
Exactly, yes. But if the context is like 財布も一緒に盗まれた
ので家までの電車賃を貸してください, it is not even a bit odd
at all because apparently the point which you want to get
across to the police officer is what *is* stolen because it
links to the next request of 電車賃を貸してください.
--
dareka dar...@inter7NS.jp