Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I asked a Japanese friend of mine whether I can rephrase the following two sentences with the bold words:
これがかの有名なマリー・アントワネットが座った椅子ったって、今見て彼女がいるわけじゃないのにね。(original)
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て、今見て彼女がいるわけじゃないのにね。(〇)
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って、今見て彼女がいるわけじゃないのにね。(〇)
whereas
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)
榊さんの飼っている犬がどんなにかわいい犬だって、もしかしたらかみつくかもよ(〇)
榊さんの飼っている犬がどんなにかわいい犬だったって、もしかしたらかみつくかもよ(✕)
Why the sentence with "椅子だったって" sounds natural while the last sentence doesn't?
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.
