I think the て implies a reason, not a “but”,
so the meaning is something like “He wanted to buy a PC, and therefore worked even weekends (so that he could afford it)”
I think the て implies a reason, not a “but”,
Thank you three, I get it now!
So I take it from your kind responses that であろう behaves like でしょう and だろう (maybe it’s the most formal of the 3?). And the が is similar to when people say ですけど and end the sentence.
であろう／でしょう／だろう do express likelihood, but also presumptions. When you see them paired with something like ない, it carries the connotation that the speaker is pointing something out and looking for (anticipated) agreement–like, “Hey, it’s this way, right?”. I think it might just the way it’s translated that’s throwing you off. You could just as easily go with “But going to school by goat isn’t in violation, right?”, but the tone from the combination of both であろう and が make it feel a bit stronger (contextually I’m imagining someone arguing against receiving a demerit for arriving by goat by pointing out that it’s technically not banned). So, I think the way they have it worded is probably the better contextual translation even if it might be more confusing for someone using it to parse the original grammar.
(This is kind of the danger in using translations for learning grammar, also. Unless they actually come from a grammar-learning resource, you never know what they’re actually privileging. If they’re privileging being good contextual translations, they’ll often be nearly useless for people looking to understand the original grammar because Japanese and English are so dissimilar. (And conversely if they’re trying to be good instructional grammar translations, they often won’t be very good contextual ones.) Wanikani’s own example sentence translations are a mix, but a lot of them have fairly loose approaches, which is fair in that they’re trying to show off contextual usage more than teach you any grammar.)
EDIT – Oh, also: Sometimes a が or けど that would be more natural to put at the beginning of a sentence in English will still come at the end of a phrase in Japanese. Maybe that’s already totally locked in for you, but just in case it seems strange, you can think of it like this: “Going to school by goat isn’t a violation, but (implicit: you’re scolding me for it anyway!)” Which is basically the same thing as saying, “But going to school by goat isn’t a violation!” (Or–I have no idea what the context here is–if they’re talking about it with someone else later, I guess it could be like “Even though going to school by goat isn’t a violation,” etc.)
And the が is similar to when people say ですけど and end the sentence.
Yes, but also bear in mind that it doesn’t always mean there’s an implied new thought afterward. The thing it’s “but”-ing may just be what’s already been said or established.
No problem. You can also think of だろう and its other forms as acting like “should.” (Not the prescriptive, advice-giving “should,” but the presumptive one.)
“But going to school by goat shouldn’t be a violation!” (As in, I’m pretty sure it’s not technically a violation.)
I wouldn’t actually translate it that way because it’s not quite a good match for tone and can be confused with the prescriptive “should” in English, but it’s a bit of a closer match to what’s happening grammatically in Japanese.
Could someone explain how that bolded part fits into the sentence.
My take is that the kaichou looked at MC even more like he was garbage, implying he was already looking at him like he was garbage. But thats a half guess.
Just a guess without the context but would “the chairman’s expression changed all the more after seeing the filth” make any sense?
Yeah this is what i was thinking too.
For context, the chairman is talking to MC and he finds MC to be a pretty bad individual and doesn’t really like him. MC just said something pretty questionable and it seems like kaichou went on to think even less of him.
Im just not used to the それに coming right after a verb.
Yeah, the placement feels a little weird to me too…not sure why it would be there.
Right, I’ve looked at prolly around 100+ sentences now for それに and none are like that. The only time it follows a verb is when its either in the te form or renyoukei.
Very spoopy indeed
Could someone help me out with this partial sentence:
“The thing that was written” (or “what was written”, in better sounding English)
Awesome, thanks for the quick response. So 書かれる is it’s own verb form?
The literal translation would be something like ‘to write’ -> ‘to write down’ -> ‘to be writing down’ -> ‘to have written down’ or something, I guess?
Yep. Passive voice.
I was gonna try to answer, but grammar scares me and Belthazar seems like they have it covered so I will leave it to a pro.
TAMA! Hi hello, glad to see you around
@Belthazar Awesome, thank you! So would you say my rough translations work?
Aye. We use the passive form of “write” similarly in English - “All this has come to pass as was written in the Durthlic Prophecies.” Sort of thing.
The thing here is ている has two different uses in Japanese. One of them is the traditional -ing of english, but the other is “an ongoing state resulting from the action”, as Tae Kim defines it.
So it says more or less that it was “on the state of having been written” (?)
I can’t make sense of this unholy sentence, the bolded parts in particular…
I believe they’re saying something like “even kids know this, it’s common sense”. But 少し前の時代なら makes it seem like whatever they’re talking about only applies in the past. And I’m assuming 一つや二つは必ず言える is a phrase…