9

I'd say it's not a double-headed relative clause, because it's actually 誰か[[[行きたい]人]いる]? That is to say, 誰か is modifying the full predicate of 「行きたい人いる?」. You can scramble to 「行きたい人誰かいる?」, which supports that 誰か is not in the relative clause. However, even with this analysis, it is a somewhat confusing grammatical structure, since 行きたい人 and 誰か could ...


9

あれは魔術師に与えられた祝福(だ) is ambiguous. That is a blessing given to a sorcerer. (the same as あれは魔術師へ与えられた祝福だ, which is unambiguous) That is a blessing given by a sorcerer. (the same as あれは魔術師{から/より}与えられた祝福だ, which is unambiguous) (Replace "blessing" to "blessed item" if you like.) In this case, both seem equally possible, so you have to decide the more plausible ...


6

This sentence can either mean "The one I want to protect is you" or it can mean "the one who wants to protect (someone else) is you". Yes, it can mean both. Any way to distinguish besides context? No, there is no way to distinguish besides context. But when you write a sentence like this, you can simply add a が-/を-phrase to disambiguate. When a が-marked ...


6

Your sentence: 値段{ねだん}が高{たか}いレストランはあまり好{す}きじゃない。 Have you come across the concept of a relative clause yet? Look this up. In English nouns are modified by adjectives. In Japanese nouns can also be modified by entire clauses. In this case 値段が高い is a sentence/clause in its own right with the meaning "the price is high". This is the relative clause here ...


6

Anyway, is this right? Unfortunately, no. The particle you need is を, not に. 下に would mean downwards. Making sense of transitive usage of 行く and 来る - 「を行く」 and 「を来る」 この道をまっすぐ行ってください。 Why を and not で? 下を走った橋 should be understandable if there's enough context, but if you worry about ambiguity, it may be better to explicitly add the subject of 走る and say ...


5

Without the だけ and だから, you have a long noun phrase, which you could parse... [〈(身の危険が迫った)時に〉発現する]能力 身の危険が迫った modifies 時. [身の危険が迫った]時に = lit. "at times [when physical danger is approaching]" 身の危険が迫った時に発現する modifies 能力. [(身の危険が迫った)時に発現する]能力 = lit. "ability [that appears at times (when physical danger is approaching)] Adding だけ: 「~~時に...」 = ...


5

This 'の' should most naturally be regarded as an apposition, rather than possession. So it refers to a 姉さん, who is your 親戚. Looking up a dictionary, the definition of the word 姉さん usually starts with these two: older sister (広辞苑: >「あね」の軽い尊敬語…) young lady (広辞苑: > 若い女性を呼ぶ称。) In the phrase 親戚の姉さん, it falls somewhat in between. I think "a female, comparative ...


4

Your translation is correct, and どんな意味が込められているのか考えるもの(=形) is a completely natural Japanese phrase at the same time. Grammatically speaking, I think this is something called a gapless relative clause explained here. Other similar examples include: 英語を学ぶ楽しみ the joy of learning English (not "the joy which is learning English") カエルが水に飛び込む音 the sound of a frog ...


4

Your translation is 100% spot on. However, this usage of 考える is neither colloquial nor poor use of the language. Following your same logic, パッと見て何を模したかわかる形 would imply that the 形 is the thing doing the looking and the understanding, but we know that to not be the case. We know that the thing doing the looking and understanding is a general person, the '...


4

変な奴だって思う子 is ambiguous, and grammatically it could mean either of the following: a child who thinks "he/she is weird" (子 is the subject of 思う, and 変な奴 themself can be an adult) a child who you think is weird (子 is the 変な奴, and the subject of 思う is "you", who may be an adult) Perhaps the first interpretation is straightforward to anyone who knows Japanese ...


4

You can use 戦士が隠した王の宝を奪った. Technically, it is indeed ambiguous: 戦士が隠した王の宝を奪った。 I stole the treasure of the king which the warrior hid. I stole the treasure of the king who the warrior hid. Practically, however, the verb 隠す tends to be connected with a noun which is usually hidden, which is 宝 in this sentence. Almost everyone would take this ...


3

I think (1) is best. (2) is unnatural. If you want to place 新しい at (2), you need to change 新しい to the continuative form of it, which is 新しく, because the adjective modifies a verb 買う. You can place 新しい or 新しく at (3), but If 新しい is placed at (3), a comma is necessary between 新しい and お母さん because it can mean 新しいお母さん(new mother).


3

You can say 私が手紙を送ったのは彼だった. This 私が is more or less important. If you omitted 私が, the sentence would become ambiguous: 手紙を送ったのは彼だった。 He is the one who sent a letter (to someone). He is the one I sent a letter to. The use of あげる cannot solve this type of ambiguity (手紙を送ってあげたのは彼だった is still ambiguous the same way). And even the following ...


3

This ため in 生きるため is a purpose marker, not a reason marker. The closest English noun is "sake" as in "for safety's sake", but you can choose to use other expressions that can express a purpose. 英語を勉強するため(に)学校に行く to go to school in order to study English 安全のため(に)ヘルメットを被る to wear an helmet for safety's sake Therefore this 生きるためよ is translated as ...


2

Yes, it would be grammatically incorrect. たかい[値段]{ねだん} の レストラン would be the grammatically correct equivalent (notice the の particle). First look at [値段]{ねだん}がたかい separately : it means "The price(s) is/are high". が marks the subject of a sentence in Japanese. By the way yes, [値段]{ねだん}がたかい is a sentence, even though you may notice there isn't any verb per se : ...


2

好き is an adjectival noun. It is that, whether you see the な or not. The correct way to connect an adjectival noun to a noun it's modifying, is with a な. The correct way to connect other kinds of nouns is most often with a の (or else である). You can say 猫が好きあの女の人は私の友達です, but if you do so you've inserted the additional word あの ("that woman"), which may not be ...


2

I feel like the third case, without something like 一緒に, would be more like "whom I will eat and drink" (cannibalism), and that the second example is the natural interpretation of the sentence, because a comma/pause would definitely be inserted before 飲む, for the first one. ...But it'd still come across awkwardly, and I feel like 私が食べる、そして[...] would express ...


1

If it were to be parsed, this is what it would look like: (a) この法律に違反する可能性がある\ (b) 政治の \ 団体が活動をやめています。 The one in boldface is the core of the sentence. (a) and (b) modifies 団体. Now, you mentioned this: The first が: 違反する可能性がある政治の団体  lit. government groups that possibly oppose? The second が: 政治の団体が活動 lit. activities by government groups? (in retrospect, the ...


1

I know that relative clauses are generally made with the following format. sentence/verb/adjective + noun Strictly speaking, a relative clause refers only to the part before the modified noun. 本をよんでいる学生 is not a relative clause although it has a relative clause. The grammatically correct way to explain this phrase is "本を読んでいる is a relative ...


1

I am almost positive the sentence means "That is a blessing, bestowed by a sorcerer." The 魔術師に与えられた expands the word "祝福". The sentence could just be あれは祝福 - "that is a blessing", but there is extra information in that it was bestowed by a sorcerer, the 与えられる is passive form of 与える.


1

変な奴だって思う子がいたら. This is a fragment of text taken out of context. Viewed as it is, it looks like it says "If there is a child/girl who thinks that (someone) is weird". The meaning is: If you see a girl that makes you think... "It's a weirdo!" That could be the meaning as well, but it's a fragment of text which you've taken out of context. So, my ...


1

does verb "忘れる" have the function of an adjective - You usually call it an embedded clause, or a relative clause (in English grammar). The meaning is: the night that I cannot forget. But you are right, technically it serves as an adjective, is this case as an i-adjective. is there any way to make Verbs have a Japanese adjective function? - Every clause in ...


1

I think that here 誰か doesn’t mean who but somebody. Moreover , it has an adjectival function. If you regard 誰か as an adjective i.e. translate it as “any” instead of “anybody”, then the structure becomes obvious. “ Is there (いるか) any (誰か) person who wants to go (行きたい人)? “


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible