In this thread on japan-guide.com, we find two seemingly contradictory statements concerning the conditional particle .

One poster states:

If A & B are the same subject, B must be non-volitional. Otherwise, B can be volitional, e.g.:

[日本]{にほん}へ[行]{い}けば, [富士山]{ふじさん}がみられます

Another poster states that were used in expressions which reflect the speaker's will,judgment, permission, view, order or request, e.g.:

[早]{はや}く起(お)きられれば、 [電話]{でんわ}をかけます/します

How do we reconcile these two statements?

Both do seem correct on their own.

  • 2
    "An opinion"? "Another"? What are your sources? – user1478 Nov 13 '14 at 9:17
  • 2
    Google never ceases to surprise me. Just search that thread for "reflect the speaker's will," and "If A & B are the same subject" to locate the relevant posts. – blutorange Nov 13 '14 at 12:03

Gramatically there is no restriction on volatility. Practically, however, the first presenter’s rule is partially correct.

If you say:

× 早く起きれば、電話します。

Japanese listener thinks:

It is you that decides whether to wake up early or not. Thus, you must know whether you will make a call or not.

On the other hand:

⚪︎ 早く起きられれば、電話します。

is acceptable, because you don't know yet whether you can wake up early or not.

  • So,would '早く起くなら,電話します' be better - turning the driving clause to be an assumption rather than a condition? – IUnknown Nov 14 '14 at 2:35
  • @IUnknown “起きるなら” will arise same feeling as “起きれば”. – a user Nov 14 '14 at 4:46
  • So that would be incorrect too. – IUnknown Nov 14 '14 at 4:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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