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?

  • 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 '16 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 '16 at 0:44
  • ありがとう。勉強になりました。 – dabisu Nov 15 '16 at 16:41
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.

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.