to say “around when will you know results” it’s なんごろけっかはわかりますか。 but is “around when will the results be known”
なんごろけっかをわかりますか?
わかる never gets an object, so no を. So only the first sentence would be correct, except なんごろ doesn’t seem to be a word. Did you mean いつごろ？
oh yeah i meant いつごろ sorry. oh so both the sentences would be translated to the first one? also, if we were using しる instead of わかる would the を be used?
I encountered this structure in Tae Kim’s guide and I’m not sure I understand it correctly:
教科書を使って日本語を勉強する (To study Japanese by using a textbook.)
Can the preceding て verb form be also used in contexts like the one below?
アニメを見てでマンガを読んで日本語を習う (To learn Japanese by watching anime and reading manga)
In principal, I think so, but that’s not how you connect multiple verbs. I think you want something like the following instead:
アニメを見たりマンガを読んだりして日本語を勉強する
1 Like
Ah, right! The “doing things like A, B, etc.” clause! That’s actually a very nice use of both clauses. I’m writing it down. Thank you! 
1 Like
You also have an unnecessary で, after 見て. But maybe you just switched your verbs around and forgot to delete it?
Also, 習う means someone is teaching you. 学ぶ is the more general verb for learning something (and obviously there’s 勉強する if you’re studying using anime/manga)
That was my misuse of で to link verb clauses, apologies.
I had a previous statement with 勉強する and wanted to do this one differently. Thanks for 学ぶ! I added a note to my Verbs list
2 Likes
Sure it can. “That’s a solid plan, but…” implies a main clause without actually going ahead and saying it. “It’ll cost too much” or “Bob’s plan is better”.
“I’d love to say you’re correct here, but…”
I assumed what was posted was not two sentences but one. Also, I dealt with the possibility of the ‘but’ translation in my next post, explaining why I thought – if those two lines really were just one sentence – it was less likely to be what the sentence meant, even if it does seem possible:
Separately, I don’t intend to nitpick, but while I get your point (which I completely agree with if 「その具体策ですが」is a single sentence or an unfinished sentence not connected to the next line), I don’t think ‘that’s a solid plan’ is an accurate translation for 「その具体策です」. 具体 means ‘concrete’, as opposed to ‘abstract’, and 具体策 is therefore a ‘concrete plan’ envisioned as a monolithic concept, most likely with practical steps, which is possible even if the plan is shaky or inadequate. However, I don’t know if you intended to translate the sentence or if you just wanted to give me an example, and perhaps I misinterpreted ‘solid’, so I’m not going to harp on this.
Finally, even if I’m wrong and ‘but’ is actually a perfectly good translation even in the case that both lines form one sentence, I thought it might be helpful for OP to know that there are cases in which ‘but’ is not the best translation for が and けれども, and that this might be one of them. If we’re looking at a single sentence in this case, the ‘non-but’ interpretation is definitely possible, although I acknowledge that the ‘but’ interpretation also seems possible, albeit awkward in my opinion for the reasons discussed in my 2nd post on this question, which I linked to above. I think it’s important to be aware of the existence of this other interpretation, because not knowing about it can render certain sentences incomprehensible. It’s a point that Tobira devoted an entire page in English to, even if the examples chosen were not the best since for most of them, ‘but’ could still be forced into place.
PS: @zdennis Sorry for the trouble, but could you clarify if those two lines were a single sentence, and perhaps tell us where you saw them?
1 Like
I did some extra reading on the structure I used and I think I was incorrect in my original translation, since at least to my understanding the sentence structure in Japanese works forwards and not backwards so things like this wouldn’t work:
太ってたくさん食べる (Gain weight and eat a lot)
but below does work:
たくさん食べて太っている (Eat a lot and gain weight)
This was clarified by a further example from Tae Kim’s guide:
一緒に頑張って勉強しましょう (Let’s do our best/work hard together and/to study.)
nah I think your original translation was good. the 〜て form is used in a lot of different ways
-
たくさん食べて太っている is structured as an action and a consequence (as a consequence of eating a lot, you got fat)
-
太ってたくさん食べる feels a bit weird but grammatically, it’s the same as (1) - you’re eating a lot as a consequence of becoming fat
-
教科書を使って日本語を勉強する tells you how you study (with a text book). it’s a bit like (1) and (2) in that you can almost think of it as “you use a textbook and as a consequence you study”.
-
一緒に頑張って勉強しましょう is pretty much the same structure as (3) - 一緒に頑張って is how you’re studying (doing your best together)
the thing described by the 〜て clause just has to lead into the main clause in some way e.g. it happens first or it causes the main clause etc.
it’s a lot like “and” in that sense - “I used a textbook and studied” vs “I studied and used a textbook”, “I ate a lot and got fat” vs “I got fat and ate a lot”
It’s really flexible so don’t worry too much about not getting it at first. it’ll make sense once you’ve encountered it a lot…
2 Likes
Often, the topic and omitted subject of a Japanese sentence are the same. Is it allowed / natural to have a sentence where instead, the topic and omitted object of the sentence are the same?
For example: 富士山は見ました。 About Mt. Fuji, (I) saw (it).
instead of 富士山は見えました。 About Mt. Fuji, (it) was visible (to me).
If both sentences are okay, is there any difference in the nuance / meaning?
1 Like
Both sentences are fine. There are inherent differences between 見る and 見える. There’s a change of focus and the sense of volition is different, even if the event is the same.
Though in the second sentence, I don’t really see why “it” being omitted is something you need to propose. 富士山が見える is a complete sentence with nothing omitted, and は can replace が. It’s not really like the first sentence in the idea that something obvious is being omitted.
3 Likes
When you replace が with は, doesn’t the new sentence technically have a zero pronoun as its subject? I was trying to get at “topic referenced by subject that is zero pronoun” vs. “topic referenced by object that is zero pronoun.”
When we topicalize things marked by に, で or と, the は is plugged directly after the corresponding particle:
ここではたばこを吸わないでください
田中さんとはよく会います。
この町には大学が二つある
So it seems reasonable to me to also think of the topicalization of が and を as がは and をは but for some reason が and を get dropped, maybe just because it sounds better ?
2 Likes
I’m guessing you’re referring to some resource you’re using that describes it that way? I was taught that something marked by は can be both the topic and the subject of the sentence. Of course, something marked by は can also not be the subject, but yeah.
I have never read anything about zero pronouns or whatnot.
2 Likes
It’s just a way some books explain away “missing” information that would be mentioned in English via pronouns.
I don’t particularly agree with this explanation. The zero pronoun explanation is closer to how I’d think about it too. That is, Aは(Aが), rather than your Aがは idea. Compound particles feels like a different thing to me. Though I’d say that while I agree with the original examples’ translations, they are very forced.
@est_fills_cando, I think you’re too focused on the zero pronoun thing. It’s good to remember that information is often left unstated/implied in Japanese where pronouns would normally be used in English, but don’t worry about it so much in your translations. You don’t have to always translate Aは as “about A”. 富士山は見えました can simply be “Mt. Fuji was visible”. As long as you understand that in this situation 富士山 is both the topic and subject, you don’t need to worry about specifying both aspects separately in your translation.
6 Likes
If memory serves, Jay Rubin (and, taking after him, Cure Dolly) use this concept of zero-pronoun subject.