Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top



Is sentence 2 the same as sentence 3?


share|improve this question
Not quite sure what you're asking. Can you elaborate? – istrasci May 23 '14 at 14:54
If memory serves, this is your second or third question with a variation on the concepts of page 6, book, read, and particles. It might help if you told us what you're trying to say in English and then tell us what you think would express that in Japanese and why. It would at least be faster than question whack-a-mole. – virmaior May 24 '14 at 2:43
I have added a new comment to your original question but have considered the chat room? I know you were advised to ask a new question or revise the existing question but possibly you do not understand the existing answer and just need to clarify. – Tim May 24 '14 at 3:05
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think the 2nd sentence is not grammatical, it lacks the particle を of the 3rd sentence. However, in speech people might use the 2nd one over the 3rd one.

The first sentence has a different meaning than the 2nd/3rd one.

1) I read six pages of (this) book
2/3) I read the sixth page of the book. 
share|improve this answer
I think you're using a meaning of "grammatical" that a lot of people wouldn't agree with. – Darius Jahandarie May 24 '14 at 20:41
It misses the particle を?! Grammatical correct and conforming to everyday language use of native speakers is not the same. In English you have "I was" vs "I were". The latter is quite common among (at lest US) native speaker, but it is not grammatical. – user1091534 May 25 '14 at 8:40
@user1091534 Missing a を is not grammatically incorrect in this case. It is only normative not "correct", to always use を in written Japanese. This is from Meiji era to imitate languages like Latin where the case suffix cannot be separated from the noun. In fact, を was historically only used when particular emphasis on the direct object is needed. Also, "I were" is not "common". It's just a random brain fart or "speech typo", and any US speaker will feel weird listening to it clearly said. Missing を is like "I have" vs "I've". – user54609 May 27 '14 at 8:26
Thanks, I didn't know that. My teacher would just mark these cases as incorrect. – user1091534 May 28 '14 at 7:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.