3

Would the で in というわけで be analyzed as the te-form of da or the de particle? Both of them seem like they would fit, as the de particle can indicate cause/reason (as alluded to in this similar question) but another question states that ので can be interpreted as "て form of the explanatory particle の with だ..." and indeed というわけだ is by itself a valid phrase.

2
  • I feel skeptical that those are really clearly different things. Do you have a good reference to explain the difference? I think you would be on firmer ground just asking somebody to clarify the meaning instead of try to explain it with such categorization. Jan 19 at 3:32
  • 1
    @TimLovell-Smith The de particle seems to come from nite which seems to be historically distinct from the te-form of the da copula the japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11357/… I don't have formal literature to cite for this, but multiple online sources seem to accord with there being a distinction between the two (at least historically)
    – 1110101001
    Jan 19 at 3:35
4

というわけで in the middle of a sentence is NOT interchangeable with というわけであって, というわけであり or というわけでして, so I think this type of で is a particle that marks a condition/scope.

1
  • Ah nice that seems like a good general test (pretty obvious in retrospect) to distinguish between the te-form of the copula vs the particle.
    – 1110101001
    Jan 18 at 3:38

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.