From: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>)
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan
Subject: Re: Cases in Japanese (Was: Re: THE QUICK AND DIRTY ...)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:49:33 GMT
Organization: U.S. Naval Academy

In article <1993Jan11.124944.25230@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
># Sorry for the late reply.
>
>First I have to clarify (and correct) myself on some points.
>I was not talking about the function of "wa" itself,
>but how (and whether) it can be literally transferred to another language
>(English, that is).
>In that, I made a sloppy use of the word "case".  It was more in a
>semantic sense, about the "case roles" (as in case grammar) a noun
>(or rather, noun+particle) serves in the sentence (against the main verb).
>The reference to case categories like nominative was admittedly misleading.
>As for "wa", it is standardly classified as a kakari-joshi and not
>as one of the "case" particles (kaku-joshi); although it is possible to 
>think of the semantic role it conveys.
>
>In article <2594@usna.NAVY.MIL> wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>) writes:
>>1.  I suggest a better sentence to play with than `Boku wa unagi da' is
>>`Sakana wa unagi ga ii.'  For this one, it's difficult to see any other
>>particle that could replace `wa'....
>
>Assuming "you" addresses me --
>your conclusion, actually, is supportive of my claim (that literal
>translation is difficult/impossible).

I'm not sure I want to challenge your claim.  But first we'd better make sure
what we mean by "literal" translation.  I usually think of literal translation
as meaning translating a sentence or phrase part-by-part, whether or not
the overall meaning is translated correctly, and certainly does not require
that the translated sentence sound smooth or natural.  For example, "Onaka
ga hetta", translated really literally into English, would be "Stomach
decreased," rather than "I'm hungry."

>And although I have claimed that "wa" generally carries the nominative
>case (in the above sense: of which I find nothing wrong), I have never
>claimed that it is exclusively so, and even put in a caveat to that effect.

There was just one particular remark you made about "For me, eel"
(I forget exactly what) is not a literal translation of "Boku wa unagi da"
because "me" is not in the nominative case.  Probably I misinterpreted
what you said.

>Also, I don't see the point (or significance) of replacing the sentence
>to deal with the issue at hand.

The advantage of the sentence I suggested  over "Boku wa unagi da" IMHO is
that in the latter "wa" can be replaced by "ni", keeping the meaning much
the same (although, as you say, there are different connotations), but it
seems difficult to replace "wa" in "Sakana wa tai ga ii" easily by any
other particle.

>>2.  `Wa' differs from `ga', `o', `ni', `e', etc., in that it need not follow
>>a noun.  `Waruku wa nai.'  Same for `mo'.

>This, however, is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>(And btw, this is why "wa" is not classified as a case particle.)

Actually I cited this to support my claim that "wa" is not a marker of
nominative case.  Apparently you agree with this.  The same goes for my
point #3 below.

>>3.  The topic specified by `wa'  can have its case specified by including
>>another particle: `niwa', `ewa', etc.  The catch:  `gawa' and `owa' always
>>contract back to just `wa.'  Same for `mo.'
>
>I don't get the point (or rather, the relevance) of this.
>And can you provide an example that can be characterized as "owa"?

"Ringo wa boku ga tabeta."  This means the same (denotatively, but not
connotatively) as "Ringo o boku ga tabeta."  My way of looking at this
sentence is that it is a compulsory contraction of "Ringo owa boku ga tabeta."
Also you could perhaps use the advertisements "Boonasu wa nantoka-ginkoo e".

>To succinctly focus on the issue, I'll claim that "boku wa unagi da"
>and "boku niwa unagi da" are different sentences, i.e. have different
>connotations.

Agreed.  But they have the same denotation, don't they?

>>4.  I don't find sentences with `wa' difficult to translate literally into
>>English.  `Boku wa unagi da.' = `As for me, it's eel.'  `Sakana wa unagi
>>ga ii.' = `As for fish, eel is good.'
>
>I may be a bit stringent on what counts as a "literal" translation.
>And it is the kind of intuitive "guts" feeling of a native speaker
>that's troubling me, so it's difficult to explain.
>Let's see.  I'll have less trouble admitting "As for me, [it's] eel" as
>a literal translation for "boku niwa unagi da".
>The "as for" construct, on the other hand, is not a universal means
>for translating "wa".  For example, translating "boku wa kimi ga suki da"
>as "As for me, I like you" is not at all becoming -- a plain "I like you"
>is more fitting.

Actually, if I were to translate "suki" literally, I would not use "like";
it's the wrong part of speech.  A  l i t e r a l  translation of
"Boku wa kimi ga suki da" would be "As for me, you are liked."  This is
completely unnatural, but that's not the point with literal translation.

BTW, one of the pitfalls for English students of Japanese is that "like"
seems to be a poor equivalent for "suki".  "Boku wa kimi ga suki da" seems
to be a more personal and special declaration of affection than "I like you."
On the other hand, for inanimate objects, the euqivalence works.  "Boku
wa ebi ga suki da" is the same as "I like shrimp."

>Seen from the other side, the use of "it" as an impersonal subject
>as in "it is raining" is difficult or impossible to literally translate
>into Japanese.  I sense a similar situation in our present sentence
>as well, as suggested in my previous article.

If your main concern is that sometimes it's difficult to translate
precisely into English the nuances of meaning expressed by "wa", then
I quite agree with you.  Here's a pair of sentences where it's rather
difficult to explain in English the difference in meaning caused by "wa":

"Takaku nai."
"Takaku wa nai."

But here's a try:

"It's not expensive."
"Expensive, it's not."

>BTW: does "As for fish, eel is good." count as a proper or good
>English sentence?

It actually doesn't sound too bad to me.  Offhand I can't think a smoother
way to express this idea.



-- 
Els Withers                   email: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.mil
Department of Mathematics     phone: (410)267-3192 / fax: (410)267-4883
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD  21402-5002     Senri no tabi mo ippo yori...
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan