9

This is actually an interesting little story. Old Japanese, as far as we can tell, didn't have a dedicated subject marker - if you wanted a subject that wasn't the topic also, you just left it unmarked. It had two genitive particles, though, *nə and *ŋga (modern の and が); which varied according to a kind of animacy hierarchy - *ŋga with personal pronouns ...


8

僕が好きな動物 actually can mean both, the animal that I like and the animal that likes me. But to mean the former it often becomes 僕の好きな動物, and to mean the latter it often becomes 僕のことが好きな動物 or 僕を好きな動物. In reality, you wouldn't run into such ambiguous phrases frequently. But when you do encounter phrases like 僕が好きな動物, its interpretation purely depends on the ...


6

This か is the same as the particle we see all the time at the end of an interrogative sentence. It's also used in a noun clause like so: いつ車を売りますか? When do they sell the cars? いつ車を売るか (noun clause) when they sell the cars 今日は日曜日ですか? Is it Sunday today? 今日は日曜日か (noun clause) whether it is Sunday today Therefore, "車の会社がいつごろこのような自動運転の車を売り始めるか" ...


6

The only reason が is used here is because 彼女 is the subject of a relative clause. Relative clauses don't have topics, so が is used instead of は. In a main clause, the が in 彼女が would likely be exhaustive rather than neutral (because it would be weird to have a neutral が attached to something already in the "universe of discourse"), but here in a relative ...


6

しかし彼が 常日頃吐き出す思想について 認める者は誰一人いなかった。 The portuguese translation is like "people doesn't agree with his ideas" The translation is correct. I translated like "he doens't care about people ideas" It's しかし[《彼が {常日頃} 吐き出す》思想について]認める 者は {誰一人} いなかった。 The main clause is 認めるものは誰一人いなかった。 彼が常日頃吐き出す思想について is an adverbial phrase to 認める; and this 認める ...


5

No, you don't need it unless the sentence has どうして or なぜ. (Incidentally, わからない is better rather than 知らない here.)


5

自らを「豊作を司る神、ホロ」と名乗った。 豊作を司る modifies 神 as a relative clause ("God who presides over fertility"). 豊作を司る神 is in apposition to ホロ. 自らを~と名乗る sounds natural to my ears, and according to BCCWJ, it's roughly as common as 自ら~と名乗る (without を). The difference between the two is small, but 自ら (without を) may have the feeling of "voluntarily" or "on one's own ...


5

Do you know the と particle (aka the quotative particle)? When you quote someone's statement, you need to use と instead of を or こと. This sentence should at least be: 皆さん彼女はきれいだから賢くないと話した。 This still sounds unnatural because 皆さん is a fairly polite and formal word, whereas 話した is not polite and the content of the talk itself is not polite. This is a problem ...


5

は serves as the topic marker of the main clause. In subordinate clauses, basically you cannot use は. You have to use が to mark a subject in subordinate clauses. (There are exceptions, which I will mention later, but all your examples are simple ones that can be explained without knowing the exceptions.) It appears to me that you are confused because you don'...


5

Your explanation is right. The speaker is not quite sure if that's the right explanation (something like, "The blood has hardened, perhaps because a lot of time has passed"). The grammar you are looking for is defined in this page, which says: 疑いの気持ちで推定する意を表す


5

You can say: もう(あまり)時間がないとわかった。(She realized that...) or もう(あまり)時間がないとわかっていた。(She was aware that...) using the quotative particle と. Or: もう(あまり)時間がないことがわかった。(She realized...) or もう(あまり)時間がないことがわかっていた。(She was aware that...) using the case particle が: 「~~が+わかる」 If you use 理解する, add the particle を: もう(あまり)時間がないことを理解した。(She realized...) or ...


4

My thinking is that "私" is always in the "universe of discussion". Yes, and that's why you should always say, for example, 「私は本を買った」, but not 「私が本を買った」in simple sentences, unless "exhaustive listing" is clearly intended. But in relative clauses modifying a noun, we have to use が or の. は is the "topic marker", and a relative clause does not serve as the ...


4

To say "think that (some sentence here)", 思う always takes the quotative particle, と. So 映画館に行ったか思いました is ungrammatical. The following two sentences are grammatical: 映画館に行ったと思いました。 I thought (someone) went to the cinema. 映画館に行ったかと思いました。 I thought (someone) perhaps went to the cinema. / I wondered if (someone) went to the cinema. The か in the ...


4

(First, 起きるとき means when someone is about to get up from bed, not just when someone gets up.) All the combinations are possible and each of them changes the meaning or the structure of the sentence. What's important is that topic phrases and conditional clauses are independent from each other and both of them functions as topic parts in a sentence. 私は ...


4

I would say the sense of this 分 usage is to indicate a kind of "proportional increase" - the 分 indicates that whatever comes after it is increasing in proportion to what comes before it. In the first sentence, Momo may or may not be a particularly つかみ所のないやつ aside from this, but the fact that s/he is always smiling adds a certain amount of つかみ所のなさ. The 分 ...


4

(Disclaimer: I am a native Japanese speaker, but not an expert of language) (a) 太郎は自分が癌だと知っていた (b) 太郎は自分が癌だったと知っていた I feel there is a slight difference in meaning between (a) and (b). Sentence (a) is the natural choice in most cases because of the relative-tense rule you have described. But (b) may be used to describe certain situations: Other people ...


3

In your example, "私は" sounds unnatural because it gives too much emphasis on "私", while actually it's so much unimportant that most of native Japanese speakers would omit it at all. You have also to note that the verb "歌う" is only used when talking about human beings. When talking about birds, you have to use "鳴く" instead. And as you're talking about a ...


3

Subordinate clauses can, as mentioned by rhyaeris, be put inside parentheses. This is useful if you want to allow the reader to be able to skip the information within the parentheses. However, there are many ways to structure a sentence in Japanese, and depending on media, some might be more suitable than others (think: some media call for more formal ...


3

In Japanese, the tenses don't need to agree, and in fact, tense mismatches can serve an important purpose. In English, we have a wide variety of verb tenses, i.e., 3 (past present future) x 4 (simple progressive perfect perfect-progressive) = 12 basic time tenses. Japanese learners of English sometimes wonder why we have so many. However, consider the ...


3

No, tense doesn't need to agree beyond clauses. The original sentence refers to smith's memory, rather than a permanent fact. That's why it adopts past tense.


3

Yes, you can do that. 「彼女の美しい目」 is a grammatically correct phrase. In fact, there is even an example sentence on Weblio with that exact phrase.


3

No, because it's not an action that you or the listener does. If anything, the action is done by mankind and you don't need to respect mankind ;) Similarly for e.g. 関西でよく食べられる明石焼をご存知ですか?. Here, the verb know is changed to show respect, but not the verb eat. If the action is performed by a group you need to show respect, that's a different story. E.g. ...


3

過去のことを話す場合は、埋め込み表現は主節の動詞の時点を基準にして、 「た」を使ったら、過去の過去 「する」や「しようとする」などだったら、同じ過去の時点のことや過去から見た未来のこと っていうことですよね? そうです。 埋め込み表現のテンスは主節の動詞によって変化するでしょう?(いわゆる相対テンス?) そうです。 -「相対テンス(Relative Tense)」-> The time of main sentence -「絶対テンス(Absolute Tense)」-> The time of speech 埋め込み表現のテンスは、主節(main clause)/主文{しゅぶん}(main sentence)の出来事が起こった時点(at the ...


3

This explanation is tautological but I just have to say it's because から follows a terminal form, which of the copula is だ while の is a kind of noun, which needs an attributive form to be modified, which of the copula is な. Their etymology has nothing to do with this issue.


3

彼らが住む modifies 惑星, so 彼らが住む惑星 means "the planet they lived on." The suffix ごと means "as well as," "together with," "along with," or "and all" (as リンゴを皮ごと食べる – "eat an apple, peel and all"). Here, ごと is used to stress that this character "Freezer" didn't just destroy the Saiyan people, but their whole planet.


2

Actually, there is no definite way of "parsing" a sentence, i.e. distinguishing the components : it depends on the context. See for example this very funny twitter thread about the sentence, where native speakers try to find all possible interpretations : 頭{あたま}が赤{あか}い魚{さかな}を食{た}べた猫{ねこ} However, it should be obvious that in a given context, only one ...


2

This の is not the nominalizing の, it's the explanatory の, as in 「ちょっと話{はな}したいことがあるのですが。」"There is something I would like to talk to you about (explanatory tone)." When used in a question, it takes the reverse nuance of seeking an explanation, as in 「どこにいたの?」"Where were you? (seeking explanation)." In your example sentences, the の is technically unnecessary, ...


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