1

In a text related to norms and regulations I read this phrase:

材料メーカーにおける試験値のミルシートへの記載誤りであり、製造者の受け入れ検査不備による。

I don't understand this へ particle here. Is really necessary? I think it can be omitted, so what's the difference between への and just の?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    へ typically tells you the "direction of travel" or "intended medium" for something. Since in this case it says ミルシートへの~ it is "~pertaining to the meal[mill?] sheet" If it were just the particle の then one can assume that the sheet is already filled out, whereas in this case it talks about items yet to be filled out, as far as I can understand.
    – sova
    Nov 14, 2016 at 20:16
  • 「へ」はあった方が分かりやすいと思います・・「材料メーカーが試験値をミルシートへ/に記載するときに間違ったものであって、製造者の受け入れ検査に不備があったのがいけない。」ってことなんで・・
    – chocolate ♦
    Nov 15, 2016 at 0:44
  • ありがとう。勉強になりました。
    – dabisu
    Nov 15, 2016 at 16:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It should not be omitted because to say ミルシートの記載誤り would imply that the 記載 is an attribute of or is owned by or done by the ミルシート which is not the case because the 記載 was done to the ミルシート. The literal translation "mention" is misleading because documents can "mention" things but documents cannot perform the action 記載. 記載 refers to something that is done to some document by an actor.

In this case the ミルシート did not mistakenly "mention" anything. Something was mistakenly "entered" into or "documented" on the ミルシート.

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

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