Challenge: Attempt a simple sentence

Most animals that aren’t native to Japan are known by loanwords. I don’t know why 獅子 specifically fell out of use, but I could try to find out.

You may have missed that I also made the verb passive, as in “I wasn’t eaten” rather than “it didn’t eat.”

1 Like

I haven’t learned the passive yet :caught_durtling: (My Dictionary of Basic Japanese grammar will be arriving soon, though, so, I can change that :wink: ). But, I wanted to say, the lion didn’t eat me, so I think I should be OK

That was an interesting bit of info. Thanks! :slight_smile:

I would also recommend the verb 出会う rather than 見る.

見る tends to be used for just seeing, rather than “meeting” or “encountering” the way we use it sometimes in English.

You of course can grammatically say this, but you’d probably want to put 私 in there somewhere to make it clear.

However, this is not a natural way to make a sentence for a Japanese person, because if something concerns yourself you should be the subject of the sentence. That’s more natural.

But if you haven’t learned it yet, then yeah.

But yeah, my sentence would be, ライオンに出会いましたけれども、食べられませんでした。

3 Likes

…I haven’t learned this verb yet either.

Okay, using just what you knew, this is grammatically correct and clearer.

今日、ライオンを見ましたけれども、私を食べませんでした。

1 Like

I would think, 私はライオンが見ました or ライオンは私を見ました for the first half, to be more true to the original English? I mean, I saw a lion makes sense the same as a lion saw me, but if the distinction matters in context… maybe I didn’t know the lion saw me; someone told me later. Using ライオンは up front kind of makes the next half more clear to me too without needing the passive. Does the topic carry over in compound sentences like that?

As you can see, level 6, so this is more of a question than a statement.

I just left both subjects as unwritten in my updated sentence, which as I stated before is an unnatural one, but that’s working with the constraints of keeping it simple.

But I think anyone would interpret it as (私が)ライオンを見ましたけれども、(ライオンが) 私を食べませんでした.

Right but my main point was the translated sentence is saying “I saw a lion” but the original English was “a lion saw me”. May or may not be same difference, in context.

Edit: which is why your verb was better in the first place :slight_smile:

Ah, you’re right, I didn’t notice he wrote the English that way. I didn’t really look at it.

Here’s one I tried to write for Renshuu and Google translate isn’t agreeing with me (I know, but when I’m not sure myself…)

The question is, 「すきな食べものは何です?」

My answer:
食べ物はハンバーガーがすきなけど、サラダを食べてもいいです。

By which I mean “For foods, I like hamburgers, but salad is ok too.” Google interprets the second part as “but YOU can eat salad”. Do I need to be more specific about putting me as the subject in the second half? (And did I use もいい correctly anyway?)

Yeah, the てもいい grammar point generally means “it is okay (for someone) to (do something)” so when you use it as a statement you are almost always giving someone else permission to do that thing.

Is there any reason you don’t want to use すき again in the second half?

I would go with

ハンバーガーがすきだけど、サラダもすきです。

(also notice すきだ, not すきな)

That works. (I was just noticing the な・だ error - that kind of thing is driving me nuts, especially when to and when not to use の)

But I was hoping to imply that salad is not as good. Just, ok, not a favorite. Something like, Hamburgers are my favorite, but I could live with a salad. も seems to me like I’m saying oh yeah, and salad is also my favorite.

I realize this is getting a bit beyond “attempt a simple sentence” but I have a talent for over-complicating everything.

Edit: I guess I could say 大好き in the first part, then merely 好き in the second.

Okay, how about

ハンバーガーがすきだけど、ときどきサラダもいいかな

That’s probably not “simple” but it gives the impression that you’re just okay with salads.

EDIT: I took out the んじゃない to simplify it since it doesn’t lose too much from taking it out.

1 Like

That does sound more natural, less textbook-y. :slight_smile:

You could also say

ハンバーガーがすきだけど、サラダでもいいです。

1 Like

ホルモンたちは人を牛に化けません。

Hormones do not turn a person into a cow

There must be a dad joke in there somewhere

I’m not sure if it’s related to the joke part, but たち isn’t needed to pluralize hormones, I’d say.

And you don’t have to change it, but just as an FYI, it’s unusual for Japanese sentences to involve inanimate objects acting as subjects doing things like they have a will. It’ll be understood, and I know beginner grammar knowledge might put difficult constraints on it, but I thought it might be interesting to know.

1 Like

So, were one insane enough to actually want to spell out such a thing, how would one say it?

It’d be “People won’t turn into cows if they eat hormones.”

(still trying to use simple words and grammar)
人はホルモンを食べたら牛にならない。

And yeah, at least in the part of Japan I live in, ホルモン also means intestines and is a popular thing to eat at yakiniku, so it has a double meaning.

That was the point :>. I was amused by the double meaning, and wanted to make a sentence involving it

Still, I’d rather refer to the body’s internal hormones, since external hormones or hormone-like substances actually can wreck havoc with your body, even if they won’t turn you into a cow