2

1。本を六ページ読んだ。

2。本の六ページ読んだ。

Is sentence 2 the same as sentence 3？

3。本の六ページを読んだ。

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    Not quite sure what you're asking. Can you elaborate?
    – istrasci
    Commented May 23, 2014 at 14:54
  • 2
    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
    Commented May 24, 2014 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
    Commented May 24, 2014 at 3:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

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.
Improve this answer
4
  • 2
    I think you're using a meaning of "grammatical" that a lot of people wouldn't agree with.
    – Darius Jahandarie
    Commented May 24, 2014 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
    Commented May 25, 2014 at 8:40
  • 1
    @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".
    – ithisa
    Commented May 27, 2014 at 8:26
  • Thanks, I didn't know that. My teacher would just mark these cases as incorrect.
    – user1091534
    Commented May 28, 2014 at 7:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .