Please help me create Japanese _sentence_ diagrams for beginners

[Rrwrex]

Ah!

There’s the misunderstanding.

There are no experts in this weird format. It doesn’t exist yet! We are trying to figure out how to create it.

There are experts in English sentence diagramming, but I’m not even close to be being one, much less grammar/linguistics in general.

I just have fond, vague memories of doing sentence diagramming in English classes when I was a kid and wondered if it was possible in Japanese.

Believe me, there were plenty of kids who hated sentence diagramming then, too.

[pm215]

Yeah, from my pov that makes you an expert

[rfindley]

@Rrwrex

My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the grammatical term “topic” is that it’s basically context. The over-simplified English loose-equivalent might be “as for ◯, …” where the circle marks a topic.

I think the ‘contrast marker’ is just a more specific use-case of ‘topic marker’.

Regarding “As for ◯”…
To me, “as for…” somewhat implies prior conversation. Like: “I love pickles on my hamburger. As for hotdogs, onions are best.” I think it’s because ‘as’ is a comparison word.

So, I think of は as “Regarding ◯, …”
So you can say, for example, “Regarding your grade in my class, you’re going to need an ‘A’ on this test to pass.” It seems a more pure English equivalent of a topic marker.

(Just sharing a thought that has come up in my mind quite often over the last few years)

[doncr]

I had a go with something similar a while back and I ended up with a tree format with the particles close by the things they modify (not just at the end, e.g. の being between other things). I’m not sure it’s any more or less understandable though!

Another project on the unfinished pile…

[Rrwrex]

@rfindley

‘contrast marker’ is just a more specific use-case of ‘topic marker’.

That all makes perfect sense to me. Thanks!

I also understand the distinction you’re making between “as for” and “regarding”. As usual, what substituted English word works best depends on the specific example.

<tarzan>language hard</tarzan>

[rfindley]

By the way, @Rrwrex, I saw a woodworking tool review on rockler.com from someone named Rex. It sounded like something you would write. (I can’t remember the specifics at the moment, though).

[theghostofdenzo]

@Rrwrex

I was only really talking about this example (I didn’t actually read the rest until now ):

I wasn’t trying to imply that, just commenting on all of them in the topic context of your comment

@Rrwrex

My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the grammatical term “topic” is that it’s basically context. The over-simplified English loose-equivalent might be “as for ◯, …” where the circle marks a topic.

the structure is “topic-comment”. the topic is what the sentence is about, or its theme and the comment is what you have to say about it.

you can find topics in english sentences as well. for instance, if you translated it to natural(ish) english, “my principle is to never use dirty money”. the sentence is about “my principle” and “is to never use dirty money” is the comment on that. in japanese the topic just happens to be “I” instead of “my principle”

also I’d be very careful thinking of は as context. you can’t use it to establish context or introduce new information. it’s used to draw attention to existing context

@Rrwrex

So I’m not sure I agree that all your examples aren’t topics as I understand them:

in general, you can only have one topic and it’s the first は. everything that comes afterwards is contrastive rather than thematic…there’s some weird edge cases though, I guess, like

おじいさんは山へ柴刈りに、おばあさんは川へ洗濯に行きました。

I think you could reasonably say that both are topics in this case, but structurally it’s almost like two independent sentences are being predicated by the same verb

---

anyway, the two points I wanted to make are more along the lines of

1. the first は is special because it’s what the sentence is about, which is why I like alo’s notation. in a sense I don’t really care if we call the following はs topics or not. it’s the “specialness” of the first one that’s important because everything else in the sentence relates back to it.
2. the same hiragana can be used for multiple functions (and some can be replaced with others).

[Rrwrex]

@doncr

I’m not sure it’s any more or less understandable though!

Nice.

I think the biggest payoff with diagrams in general (regardless of form) is creating one for a sentence you’re trying to understand.

Simply viewing an existing diagram can help if you’re completely lost, but creating one forces you to make decisions about how to break down the constituent parts. It clarifies your thinking in my experience.

The other big payoff is in communicating differences in interpretation. One, possibly mistaken, diagram contrasted with another. They aid discussion of a very complex topic.

[Rrwrex]

Heh. Possible I suppose, but I don’t remember reviewing anything.

What was it for?

Edit:

Likely not me. I see some comments from a guy named Rex Wells.

[Rrwrex]

@theghostofdenzo

I’d be very careful thinking of は as context. you can’t use it to establish context or introduce new information

I’ll ponder your comments further.

But distinguishing topics from subjects is confusing for sure.

I’m using simplistic Tarzan-logic for the moment to say that The particle は always introduces a topic and が always introduces a subject. Both provide context. Yes, が can also be the other particle meaning “but”, but for subject/topic-like usage I think this distinction still works. I’ve not seen an example yet of は being used for something other than context/topic.

The confusion is that with this logic, a topic can also be a subject: これは赤い鉛筆です. Subject is これ, predicate is the copula that it’s a red pencil (I think I’ve got that right).

Also, a topic under this definition can definitely introduce new things and establish context:

まだ生まれてない子は歯がない

[theghostofdenzo]

hmmm…it’s a bit like definite/indefinite articles in english.

if I randomly said “the person robbed the bank” you’d be a bit lost because if I use “the”, you expect to know which person and which bank I’m talking about.

if I say “a person robbed a bank”, there’s no confusion.

@Rrwrex

まだ生まれてない子は歯がない

the idea of “children who aren’t born yet” is something you can reasonably assume people know, so it doesn’t count

if I say 子供は歯がない, without context, you assume I’m making a general statement about children (because you know about children in general). you don’t assume it’s about a specific child, because that doesn’t exist in the context I’ve given you.

On the other hand, if I say 子供がいる。子供は歯がない, you think “ah, he’s talking about that child”, because I’ve introduced the idea of a specific child

it’s definitely one of the more confusing things in japanese

@Rrwrex

The confusion is that with this logic, a topic can also be a subject: これは赤い鉛筆です. Subject is これ, predicate is the copula that it’s a red pencil (I think I’ve got that right).

it’s better to treat topic and subject as entirely separate entities and treat the sentence as これは（これが）赤い鉛筆です, with the bit in brackets being implicit.

you’ll save yourself a lot of confusion.

[Rrwrex]

@theghostofdenzo

On the other hand, if I say 子供がある。子供は歯がない, you think “ah, he’s talking about that child”, because I’ve introduced the idea of a specific child

Sorry? I’m not following.

子供がいる without context/topic means “children exist” in general. Children is the subject, exist is the predicate.

松本(まつもと)さんは子供(こども)がいる means specific children (or a specific child — Matsumoto-san’s children) because of the topic, Matsumoto-san.

EDIT: Oh! I think I get your point

If I have two consecutivve sentences, each with their own subject:

松本(まつもと)さんの子供(こども)はそこにいる。

彼(かれ)らが遊(あそ)んでいる。

Then I agree that the topic of the second sentence is definitely Matsumoto-san’s children.

In this case there is an implied topic from the prior sentence. The second sentence on its own would be something like “those guys are playing”. You could include the topic with 松本さんの子は, though, then it would be included in the diagram for that sentence.

If I were diagramming these two sentences individually, I might include the implied topic in the second one, showing it as implied by putting it in brackets, but the simplest version doesn’t have a topic, just a subject.

@theghostofdenzo

it’s better to treat topic and subject as entirely separate entities and treat the sentence as これは（これが）赤い鉛筆です, with the bit in brackets being implicit.

I agree. But I was attempting to say the same thing: the topic is also the subject.

[theghostofdenzo]

@Rrwrex

子供がいる without context/topic means “children exist” in general. Children is the subject, exist is the predicate.

well…most people are going to understand it as meaning you’re talking about a specific child, or group of children rather than as a general statement about all children. it’s more like “there is a child/are children” rather than “children exist”

@Rrwrex

the topic is also the subject.

I know what you mean, but I’m saying it’s less confusing if you split them and think of it as “the pencil is the topic. the pencil is implicitly the subject” rather than “the pencil is the topic which is also the subject”

[theghostofdenzo]

sorry, I feel like I’ve completely derailed you from your diagrams

[Rrwrex]

@theghostofdenzo

[regarding 子供がいる] most people are going to understand it as meaning you’re talking about a specific child

Respectfully, I disagree.

Without a topic there is nothing at all specific about “children”. If a stranger walked up to me on the street and said 子供がいる out of the blue, I might look around wonderingly to see if there were any particular children he might be talking about, but nothing in the sentence gives me a clue.

Re: derailment

No worries! I live for derailments! (Witness all my other threads)

[Rrwrex]

@theghostofdenzo

it’s more like “there is a child/are children” rather than “children exist”

This is an interesting point relevant to diagraming.

The sentence 子供がいる does mean “there are children” in English. But the verb いる in Japanese doesn’t have an exact equivalent in English.

To diagram that super-simple statement you’d put 子供 on the left and いる on the right, with a が separator between them.

If I wanted to think about the meaning of that diagram, it would be: The subject is 子供 (child/children) , the predicate is いる.

Unfortunately, that common verb has LOTS of English equivalents, and precisely which one is appropriate is impossible to guess. Since it’s most similar to “to be” a state of existence, I tend to substitute the word “exists” when thinking in English without any other context. “Is” or “Be” also work but don’t sound grammatical in English: “child is”/“child be” vs. “child exists”.

Note that, depending on context/topic, words like “want”, “need” etc. might be far better. (Which makes the stranger that approached me in my earlier reply even more terrifying.)

[pm215]

@Rrwrex

Without a topic there is nothing at all specific about “children”. If a stranger walked up to me on the street and said 子供がいる out of the blue, I might look around wonderingly to see if there were any particular children he might be talking about, but nothing in the sentence gives me a clue.

Non-sequiturs are always tricky to reason about, but I might assume “I have children” (ie “(私は)子供がいる” – in conversation, if there’s no explicit topic stated it’s often the speaker or the listener. An implied topic of “here” is also common, which gives us your interpretation: “(ここには)子供がいる”.

Either way, notice that whether it’s “my child” as in my interpretation or “the child/children in this location” as in your idea, these are both specific, specified children (the one I say I have, the one I say is here), not children in general (as in sentences like “children grow up quickly”). I think that’s what @theghostofdenzo is getting at.

[theghostofdenzo]

this is a bit of a tedious read (sorry jona), and probably not immediately obvious how to apply in this case, but it’s probably our most authoritative english resource on は vs が on the forums (I think this was the original source)

Is this use of です correct? りょくちゃは いい におい です

Here’s my translation attempt. I honestly can’t believe I finally decided to do this, but here we go. For once, I’ll be making allowances so the translation will sound more natural, even if some literal meaning is lost. I’ve also been forced to change some grammatical features (e.g. swapping passive and active voices) in order to maintain a similar word order and style: [Preliminary note: the more I read, the more irritated I get by the use of 主格 in this article, and the more certain I am tha…

this is also quite a deep dive

The Ultimate Guide To: は vs が (The ONLY lesson you need!)

@pm215

I think that’s what @denzo is getting at.

exactly. and yeah, “i have a child” is probably a more natural interpretation…

@Rrwrex

(Which makes the stranger that approached me in my earlier reply even more terrifying.)

it’s ok, they’re talking about existence. if they wanted a child they’d use something like ほしい instead. and in that case they’re probably saying they want to make/adopt a child

that aside, 居る (to exist) is the only common ichidan いる so in context with conjugation, it’s still not likely to cause confusion. not that I’ve every heard 要る being used unless it’s negated, and 入いる is only really ever used as part of compounds ayway

[theghostofdenzo]

ah, going back to the multiple topics, this is from the japanese wikipedia on topics in linguistics:

日本語の「は」

日本語の「は」は、純粋の話題マーカーとしての用法のほか、対比（「リンゴは好きだが、梨は嫌いだ」）や限定（「惜しくはない」）にもよく用いられる。

in addition to its use as a pure topic marker, は is also often used for contrast or restriction (not sure how to translate 限定 nicely here…something like reducing the scope of what you’re talking about).

また、文中に複数の「は」が現れることも可能である。例えば「私はその話は詳しくは知らない」では「私」が文全体の話題であり、そのあとの「その話」と「詳しく」は対比・限定性が強い。「は」の用法はこのほかにもあり、

furthermore, it may be used several times in a sentence. for example, in 「私はその話は詳しくは知らない」, 「私」is the topic and 「その話」and「詳しく」are contrastive/restrictive. は has other usages as well [more details I can’t be bothered to translate]

「は」で示される話題は、特に断らない限り、その節だけでなく、文全体にかかる（“「は」の句読点越え”）。
例（料理を食べ終わって、感想を言っている文脈で）

• 「肉は固かったけど、おいしかった」：肉（話題）もおいしかった意味にとれる。
• 「肉が固かったけど、おいしかった」：肉はおいしくなかったが、料理全体（明示されない話題）としてはおいしかった意味にとれる。
• 「肉は固かったけど、魚はおいしかった」：肉料理はおいしくなかったが、魚料理はおいしかった（対比）意味にとれる。

some example sentences showing how は functions across clauses

[Rrwrex]

@theghostofdenzo

「私はその話は詳しくは知らない」, 「私」is the topic and 「その話」and「詳しく」are contrastive/restrictive.

Is there an equivalent to Godwin’s Law that all discussions about Japanese devolve to arguments about は and が?

Thanks for the concrete example sentence. I’ve added it to my menagerie. More importantly, I’ve learned something and may even have finally understood your point.

Appeals-to-authority (especially wikipedia links ) don’t move me much. I’ll also admit to usually ignoring requests to “go read these long treatises on grammar”.

But I’m a sucker for evidence-based reasoning!

That sentence is grammatically quite interesting, though, particularly 詳しくは (the third は connected modifier).

Yes, I strongly agree you can have multiple は connected modifiers/constrainers/“thingies” attached to the same sentence. Yes, each of these further constrain/restrict the topic.

But in the example you provide, I’d say they are all still は connected topic markers.

In combination, they define a topic (context) of “As for me, that conversation in detail”. [Edited]

If I were to diagram it, however I would break out each ”topic” (私, 話, 詳しく) individually because they are each は connected. I’m still mulling over how exactly to visually represent this nesting relationship but the topic of this sentence is not any one of those three things individually, its all of them in combination. Are you arguing that the topic of this sentence is 私?

The final は in this sentence is extremely interesting, though:

1. It still identifies a topic marker (or at least @rfindley and I so believe). More specifically, its a constraining sub-topic.

2. It’s an adjective not a noun. I think this is the first example of a は connected adjective that we’ve had so far in this thread.

   • Note that without the は,「詳しく知らない」 means “I don’t know in detail”. It’s an adverb modifying 知らない.

   • With the は, though, I think it becomes an adjective modifying the implied subject, 話！The overall meaning of the entire sentence remains nearly identical, but the grammatical usage (and diagram) changes significantly.

I hope these eventual sentence diagrams will make this quite clear visually.

The best I’ve been able to come up with representing my (likely flawed) understanding of the difference is something like this: