that

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

14 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jun 4, 2016 at 17:09	comment	added	Display Name		There are 2 additional cautions I want to add here. First,「彼が好きな女性はタバコを吸わない」can mean either "The woman whom he likes does not smoke" or "The woman who likes him does not smoke". Second, the gapless relative clause この話が事実に基づいている in「この話が事実に基づいているという証」needs という before 証 but という is optional for こと, もの, and の.
Feb 21, 2014 at 2:27	comment	added	user1478		@execjosh Updated phrasing :-)
Feb 21, 2014 at 2:27	history	edited	user1478	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 26 characters in body
Feb 20, 2014 at 23:41	comment	added	execjosh		This is a great answer! I would like to say I feel that 9b is grammatical, but that the meaning just changes from 9a (i.e., "the store that bought John's book" instead of "the store where John bought the book"). Wouldn't you agree?
Feb 20, 2014 at 23:29	comment	added	rewolf		Yeah you're right. I guess it just seems scary and ambiguous because my brain is doing so much processing of all the basics still - inferring the role on-the-fly seems impossible. But it just takes time :) Thanks again!
Feb 20, 2014 at 22:53	comment	added	user1478		@rewolf It's true that English often has more information than Japanese does as to where the gap is. I really just want to point out that there are times when English gives no information about the gap, as in "a place [ Ø you can relax ____ ]". Here, you could optionally have where, which does indicate the role of the head noun (in this case indicating that a locative adjunct is gapped), but you can understand it just as easily without that pronoun. It's not entirely analogous to で, of course; it's different syntactically. But in any case, I'm glad the answer was helpful :-)
Feb 20, 2014 at 21:57	vote	accept	rewolf
Feb 20, 2014 at 21:55	comment	added	rewolf		Yes. My post was actually supposed to be asking about "with" and "in". That's what I meant by "linking words". Japanese completely drops the "で" when relativising, whereas english doesn't. Nevertheless, this is an awesome, awesome answer. So thanks!
Feb 20, 2014 at 5:57	comment	added	user1478		@Hyperworm I tried to gloss over this in my answer by saying "in some situations" repeatedly... :-) I realize it's not perfect. If I can think of a good way to improve the answer without getting too off-topic, I will come back and edit it.
Feb 20, 2014 at 5:50	comment	added	Hyperworm		Interesting. I hadn't noticed that "where" can be deleted in some cases -- but as you say, that seems to be getting slightly off-topic... Thanks for expanding :)
Feb 20, 2014 at 5:30	comment	added	user1478		@Hyperworm That's true, it's not a perfect analogy. Thank you for pointing that out! I also wanted to avoid presenting the precise rules in English because they're quite complicated and I hoped the details weren't necessary here--e.g., where cannot be replaced with that or omitted (as you say) unless the head NP strongly suggests a place ("a place where/that/∅ you can relax" but "the web page where/that/∅ the claim was first made")--and also because I didn't want to reproduce a reference grammar of English on a site dedicated to Japanese :-)
Feb 20, 2014 at 5:27	comment	added	Hyperworm		+1. But: `4a through 4d [...a]re just like 7a through 7d—there aren't any words specifying the role the head noun plays in the relative clause` -- I see what you're trying to do, but IMO this is a bit unconvincing since you used `wrote 'with'` and `played 'in'` in two of those sentences. I think it certainly is easy enough to infer the role, but I don't think English gives you enough evidence/analogy for this since it requires those words "with" and "in" to be present for a grammatical sentence. Put another way, you cannot delete e.g. "where" from `the building 'where' I played`.
Feb 20, 2014 at 3:35	history	edited	user1478	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 98 characters in body
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:53	history	answered	user1478	CC BY-SA 3.0