3

An exchange goes like this 「from 第三夢」:

A「どうも盲目は不自由でいけないね」と云った。

B「だから負おぶってやるからいいじゃないか」

A「負ぶって貰もらってすまないが、どうも人に馬鹿にされていけない。親にまで馬鹿にされるからいけない

I thought the first [subordinate] clause ended at 馬鹿にされる, so compound particle にまで (?) would apply to 馬鹿にされる to mean "even my father makes a fool of me", before the sub.conjunction から followed by いけない [main clause] to show speaker's discontent at 親にまで馬鹿にされる.

Something like

I don't like that even my father looks down on me.

However, the English translation goes:

And I particularly do not like being looked down on by my own father.

This means 親にまで applies to いけない instead of 馬鹿にされる, leading to a totally different translation. This implies から here must be a particle (??) instead of a conjunction.

What's going on here?

In simple terms, do I look at it as

[親にまで馬鹿にされる]からいけない

or [親にまで馬鹿にされるからいけない]

And why?

1

「どうも[人]{ひと}に[馬鹿]{ばか}にされていけない。[親]{おや}にまで馬鹿にされるからいけない

The translation that your book gives you for the last half is:

"And I particularly do not like being looked down on by my own father."

In this case, the "particularly" part of the translation is NOT literal. It is, however, contextually clearly implied.

The first half tells us that the speaker is looked down on by people in general -- 「人に馬鹿にされる」. Then he talks about being looked down on by his own father.

He is implying "Of all people, why your own father?" and that would be what this translator wanted to convey by using the word "particularly" IMHO.

The use of 「から」 here is quite normal. It is a conjunctive particle expressing a reason or cause. 「から」 is not a conjunction; It is a particle. You may be thinking of 「だから」.

0

Edit: How about reading it this way:
「[親にまで馬鹿にされるから]いけない。」 = 「親にまで馬鹿にされるからいやだ・馬鹿にされるのがいけない・いやだ。」 (Lit. It's no good since you're made a fool of even by your own parent. I hate it that I'm made a fool of even by my own parent.)


It's saying 「[親にまで馬鹿にされるから](盲目は)いけない。」(Lit. I am looked down on even by my own parent, so being blind is not good.)

1
  • I thought so as well but the translation is supposed to be mostly "literal" or at least not incorrect (and so far it has been, to a fault)...
    – user9771
    Apr 16 '15 at 13:49

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.