I asked a Japanese friend of mine whether I can rephrase the following two sentences with the bold words:





榊さんの飼っている犬がどんなにかわいい犬ったって、もしかしたらかみつくかもよ? (original)



Why the sentence with "椅子だったって" sounds natural while the last sentence doesn't?

  • 3
    I don't think the XXったって in your two original sentences can be rephrased as either XXだって or XXだったって. They wouldn't have the same meaning, at least (cos XXったって is a colloquial, shortened way of saying XXって言ったって).
    – Chocolate
    Apr 14, 2019 at 2:09
  • @Chocolate Would you enlighten me how XXったって, XXだって, and XXだったって differ (in the two sentences)? I know they are 逆接助詞 used in low register but am not quite sure their difference.
    – NoNames
    Apr 15, 2019 at 3:00
  • 1
    そおですね。。。 「マリー・アントワネットが座った椅子ったって」は「~~が座った椅子だと言ったって/と言っても 、」 Even though (you say / it's true) it is the very chair.. って感じで、「マリー・アントワネットが座った椅子だったって」は「~~が座った椅子だったとしても 、」 Even if it were the chair... (← hypothetical) って感じですかね・・
    – Chocolate
    Apr 16, 2019 at 13:40

1 Answer 1


The difference is what follows in the second clause. To quote from the 大辞林 entry for って

活用語の終止形、接続助詞「から」などに接続する。前件が後件の正当な理由にならなかったり、後件が前件の予想に反する結果になるような場合の逆接条件を表す。といっても。としても。 「いくら反対した-、だめです」 「いまさら頼むと言ったから-、もうおそい」

The important thing is that the clause that follows is contrastive to the clause that ends with って.

In the first example, the first clause tells us that Marie Antoinette used to sit on the chair.

これがかの有名なマリー・アントワネットが座った椅子だ This is the chair that the famous Marie Antoinette sat on.

これがかの有名なマリー・アントワネットが座った椅子だった This was the chair that the famous Marie Antoinette sat on. (maybe it's only the remnants of the chair now)

And the second clause according then contrasts the fact that she used to sit on that chair with the fact that now (今) she cannot possible be sitting there. The fact that the chair could not be fully functioning doesn't matter

But in the second example, the implication in the second clause is that even a cute dog could bite you. However, depending on だ and だった, the implication about the current state of the dog is different.

榊さんの飼っている犬がかわいい犬だ The dog that Sakaki-san owns is a cute dog.

榊さんの飼っている犬がかわいい犬だった The dog that Sakaki owns was a cute dog (but isn't anymore)

If we use だった, the implication is that the dog that Sakaki-san owns is already no longer cute (maybe he was a cute puppey or something), so then it wouldn't be unexpected at all for a mean dog to bite you. Thus the second clause isn't contrastive compared to the first clause.

You must log in to answer this question.

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