Grammar: why not in -て form?

I thought that when linking verbs, the -て form helps with that function.

So for “please be careful not to lose it,” why is it:


Rather than


Do these two constructions say different things?

Where did you find the example sentence?

could it be a relative clause? i.e. the なくさない is an adjective describing 要注意

or alternatively could it be something like なくさないよう(に)注意してください? Feels a bit weird but…

It’s a relative clause. Think of it literally as "please show special attention that it is not lost. " The 無くさない is modifying 要注意 to make "special attention that to not lose. " The second sentence is “Please don’t lose it and please pay special attention” which is different.

Also, if you have a grammar question, either use the forum’s furigana function or just give the kanji. It’s confusing to see the kanji in parentheses.

1 Like

ように is a grammatical word. Verbs connect to it in the plain form; it would be incorrect to attach a verb to it with the てform. The て form is used to link verbs together in a simple “and (then)” pattern, such as 日本へ行って勉強した. “I went to Japan and studied (there).”

1 Like

Yes but that isn’t used here. It’s hard to tell because of how they wrote it, but the sentence is 無くさない要注意してください。There is no ように at all.

It is being used here, just without the に. The use of that 要 is incorrect. 要注意 isn’t a thing, it’s なくさないよう、注意してください.

Edit: welp, it turns out 要注意 is a word so I guess I was wrong about that. But I wonder if that was the intended reading. Would help if OP would provide the source for the example sentence.


It appears 要注意 is a valid word. But yeah, I was relying on OP to be giving proper Kanji

Yes, I was indeed wrong about that. However, the sentence doesn’t make much sense that way to me, which is why I was reading it the way I did. Thanks for pointing that out, I’m sorry I jumped to conclusions there.

1 Like

It’s fine. Now we just need to OP to give context to see the source if it was meant as 無くさないように注意してください or 無くさない要注意してください.

1 Like

This is why I asked where they got the sentence from. I feel like it should be a ように construct, and I wanted to make sure the kanji was included in the original source (since just because 要注意 is a valid word doesn’t mean that that’s the word that was intended).


The original sentence is a wanikani context sentence:


They’re important documents, so please be careful not to lose them."

@MegaZeroX it’s funny that you ask me to include either kanji only or furigana only. I have had people ask that i include kanji because the furigana alone makes it ambiguous at times. I have also seen posts where people include the kanji to make it less ambiguous.

As a learner, when I see posts that have kanji only it can be difficult to follow if it is a kanji that I don’t yet know. In such a large community, i think we’re all doing our best to convey what we are trying to say. I’ll include furigana and kanji in separate sentences next time to make it easier on both novices are more advanced individuals. But at the end of the day, its a community; its nice when requests come off as requests and not demands. Not to mention I don’t know where to find the furigana function, which i’ve looked for several times.

****Thank you for clarifying though! I was getting confused because I thought that the relative clause was modifying 要注意する because of the “してください” that is attached to it. But it seems that 要注意 is a in fact a noun, as you pointed out. So if it is a noun that is being modified by the relative clause, why is the noun not being followed by a particle prior to being followed by してください?

For instance, one can say 勉強をする, or 勉強する. In the former, it is the object of doing, and in the latter it is a verb. Since relative clauses can only modify nouns or nominalized verbs (at least that was my understanding), why wouldn’t 要注意 not be followed by a particle?

Thank you everyone!

Now that I see the full thing written out, I feel like it should be なくさないよう(に)注意してください :thinking:

If you’re copying a sentence someone has written, I’d copy the full sentence as is, without adding or removing kanji and say where it came from (and any additional relevant context also helps)…you’d be amazed at the confusing sentences that come up, only for someone to randomly come along and say “oh yeah, I’ve read that…this happens on the page before so it means this” :slight_smile:

Unfortunately there’s nothing native…


will do the job though, and if you don’t mind userscripts, there’s one kicking about that does it more automatically.

Also this page is useful for learning all the clever formatting tricks:


I’ll write to wanikani and see if they did intend it the way you said. Last time i came across a sentence that caused confusion, when i brought it up on the forum someone suggested that they may have made a typo, and when we asked they had, in fact, made an omission! I’ll let you know what they say.


Given its a WK sentence, my guess it is よう(に) with the に omitted. It is unnatural to have kana for most of the words, but it being a WK sentence explains that. Particularly since while 要注意 isn’t exactly obscure (jisho calls it a common word), it still is used far less often than 注意, doesn’t appear on WK at all, and isn’t a word typically found in beginner/intermediate textbooks.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by furigana. I wasn’t saying to use kana only (which is very hard to read), but to use furigana like this:


@theghostofdenzo mentioned how to do it.

At any rate, don’t modify the source material like you did here, as whether a word is written as kanji/kana can effect its meaning. And also give some context of where you got it from, and perhaps the sentence before/after if there is one. If you said the sentence came from WK in the first place I wouldn’t have answered like I did.


@MegaZeroX Again with the lack of suggestion. I’ll be more forward since the meaning in my previous message was lost: Your requests come off as demands, and they do not make for a pleasant reading experience.

@theghostofdenzo, you were right! That is exactly what they meant. They said they would fix it to make it more clear. Is it common practice to omit the “ni?”

1 Like

I don’t think so but I’m not 100%…if it is it’s probably in very informal speech

I didn’t see your comment as I only skimmed your comment. I’ll note to be very polite in my suggestions to you from now on.

1 Like

I suggest you give people the benefit of the doubt. Obviously none of us can make demands of another forum user. People are obviously just making suggestions, even if they don’t wrap their requests in flowery, roundabout language.


よう with no に is more formal than ように…