Verb with two direct objects: 絵を and 私を

Got interested in the topic and wanted to skip work, so checked my monolingual grammar and it had quite a nice material on the topic, so felt like sharing it.




tl;dr
They mainly divide the uses in ① possession, either concrete or abstract, ② physical condition, ③ reason or goal, and ④ role or qualification, while giving several example sentences.
While they do give a couple examples that don’t allow for that, they acknowledge that most use cases could also be expressed with a して or 持って. And that even for the 持って cases, して is not actually impossible, finally suggesting that the very few cases that do not allow for the して thing could also be interpreted as becoming fixed expressions themselves, not necessarily depending on the grammar pattern itself.

stl;dr
Pretty much what everyone said so far. And there is a shit load of examples. Everybody loves examples, right?

5 Likes

I didn’t get this or think about it from the quote, which is made up in the first place, I think, so there’s no context.

When it comes to conversation, I get that it’s not the ideal way to refer to your family as お父さん、お姉さん、etc., but I find the alternative of changing the way they refer to them to something they don’t normally use to not be ideal as well.

What Ena does (in Yotsubato) is call them Asagi onee-chan and Fuuka onee-chan, I think.

What would be the compromise here in case you have to be formal and specify a sister?

1 Like

That’s great, thanks!
What’s the name of your monolingual grammar book by the way?

1 Like

The above four pages are from the 中上級 volume of 日本語文法ハンドブック:

I remember that what made me buy this book was exactly the obi stating 「表現文型ではない中上級の文法。」 and yup, it never failed me. Actual grammar explanations that aren’t just repeating sentence patterns with “This means that. When used with an adjective you are supposed to put a な.”

As you can see in the full title, it’s actually meant for people teaching Japanese. I think, however, that it places the two books right in the sweet spot between processing Japanese grammar as a foreign language (日本語 instead of 国語) and the native perception on the topics.
And in general it’s a very good book, quoting actual articles and research, not just throwing language patterns at you.

image

2 Likes

This is actually a topic I would like the opinion of other members who live in Japan.
I’ve learned in Japanese language school exactly as you say. When talking with family members you say お父さん、お母さん、お兄さん、お姉さん but when talking about them with someone else you say 父、母、兄、姉、弟、妹.

But honestly, in my experience in Japan I hardly ever see Japanese people using those. I had a classmate that would always says 母ちゃん, several people I know say it like うちのお父さん, many others just say お父さん、お母さん as in the original sentence… Sure, I’ve seen the textbook terms being used, but definitely on the lower side.

It could be a regional/age/whatever thing, of course. That’s why I would like people’s experience on that.

4 Likes

For what it’s worth, I’ve definitely heard 母さん or 母ちゃん being used by a streamer who was talking about her mother (and she told most of the story in 丁寧語, so it was still polite speech even if it felt quite casual). I have a feeling the only place you need to use the textbook form is in some very stiff business/otherwise impersonal setting. If not, well, anything goes, as long as you use phrases like 私の or うちの. I’m curious to know as well though.

If I wanted to include a name, I would go with stuff like
姉の[name]
私の[name]ねえ
うちの[name]ねえ
私のうちの[name]ねえ (can be shortened to 私んちの if the situation isn’t that stiff)

2 Likes

I was going to ask whether the common practice of omitting the unnecessary information couldn’t be applied here, as if you’re the one telling a story, and you start talking about a sister, and maybe even the listener doesn’t have a sister, then it’d be implied you’re talking about your own, but I guess that’s what makes it informal.

1 Like

Hm… I guess you could omit 私の or うちの, actually, but the reason I included them was to avoid confusion and ambiguity. If the listener knows your family, then yes, you could just leave those out. I don’t think that would affect the level of politeness or formality (in the sense of ‘correctness relative to protocol/etiquette’). However, if the listener doesn’t know that you have a sister (hypothetically speaking, at any rate), then it helps to include those ‘possessive’ indicators (i.e. my sister) in order to avoid confusion with, say, another older woman with the same name that you both know.

1 Like

Wow, yeah, I hadn’t noticed the references section. I don’t need another grammar reference in my life right now, but if I did this would be pretty tempting.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.