For a research project in artificial intelligence, I investigated parsing Japanese. There was major problems with ambiguity in the mentioned type of sentence; in most cases the ambiguity is obvious to resolve, but I kinda need the opinion of a native speaker in this case.

My theory is that the 、 is enough to disambiguate between:


I believe that I would be able to [meet you without hearing your voice]. (Perhaps meet while bound and gagged in a prison?)



Even without hearing your voice, I believe that I am able to meet you. (not hearing goes with believe, not meet)

Or maybe both sentences are wrong...they feel awkward to me :/

Am I correct in assuming the comma is crucial there?

  • 1
    What if there's context where like, two people are on the phone and someone's silence implies that they will be able to meet, so it becomes "because I can't hear your voice, I believe we will meet"?
    – ssb
    Nov 28 '14 at 4:29
  • 5
    With or without a comma, that sentence makes no sense if you want an honest comment. Nov 28 '14 at 7:20

These two examples sound kind of weird, so let me add a particle も to make them sound natural and understandable.

A. 君の声が聞こえなくても逢えると信じる。
B. 君の声が聞こえなくても、逢えると信じる。

Now the two meanings:

  1. (I believe) I can meet you without hearing your voice.
  2. I believe without hearing your voice (that I can meet you).

I think in most cases B means 2. But I can't say for sure that B never means 1. Punctuation is sometimes arbitrary.

As for A, it seems completely ambiguous to me. In fact, I find this sentence somewhat hard to understand.

In order to make it mean 1, inserting a comma like 君の声が聞こえなくても逢える、と信じる may also be possible.

  • Would using brackets like "I believe [I can meet you without hearing your voice]" help with what you were trying to show in meanings 1 and 2? Nov 28 '14 at 8:08

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.