5

In an article, I was reading:

子どもが学校へ行く途中や帰る途中に犯罪の被害に遭う事件が毎年なくなりません。警察庁によると、おととしは644の事件がありました。去年は新潟市で7歳の女の子が殺されました。

警察庁によると、事件の前には、歩いている子どもの近くに怪しい人がずっといたり、子どもに話しかけたりしていることがあります

I'm a little bit confused about the meaning of なくなりません in the first sentence first paragraph, as well as the meaning of 子どもに話しかけたりしていることがあります in the second paragraph.

Does なくなりません imply that these crimes have not stopped every year? Also does 子どもに話しかけたりしていることがあります simply mean that the suspicious people were making conversation / talking to children?

My translation:

Crimes that children have fallen victim to have not stopped every year while children have been going to and from school. According to the police department, there were 644 incidents two years ago. This year in Niigata-shi, a seven year old girl was killed.

According to the police department, Before these incidents, there were suspicious individuals hanging around and talking to kids.

1

Yes, なくなりません means that crimes have not stopped, i.e. continued to happen. It is the polite negation of なくなる.

As for your second question, it's part of a grammar pattern of ~たり~たりする. It basically lists various actions/states. You can see it in action in this NHK article as 歩いている子どもの近くに怪しい人がずっといたり、子どもに話しかけたりしている. Note that in this case している is the て-form of する + いる.

For this sentence, the first action/state is いたり, which is the verb to be. So this means that there were suspicious people near the kids for long periods of time. The second action/state is 話しかけたり. The base verb 話しかける means to talk to/begin a conversation. So this means those suspicious people were talking to the kids.

  • Ah yes forgot about the たりstructure. Is the article thus implying that first the suspicious people hang around the kids, and then start conversing with them ( almost kind of listing their strategy to luring in kids?) – bobbin Jan 2 at 21:29
  • @bobbin There's no ordering of the action/states when using たり. But presumably, the people need to be in the area to talk to the kids. – Ringil Jan 2 at 21:43
  • 3
    there were always ~~ ← But the original does not say that. – l'électeur Jan 3 at 1:48
  • @l'électeur is my interpretation thus correct, or did I miss out on anything? – bobbin Jan 3 at 2:36
  • Your interpretation was correct. – l'électeur Jan 3 at 8:38

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.