I think Japanese just likes to be explicit about the movement that is going on whereas it’s often implicit in English.
In particular 来る and 行く are often added to be explicit about whether the person talked about is moving towards or away from the speaker.
So forms like 走ってきた emphasize someone ran towards the speakers (cf. “came running”!).
I think it often might also correspond to cases where English might use prepositions (e.g. “he ran away” for the opposite case).
Here つれて only carries the “take someone along” part and いった clarifies that she “left, taking her along”.
I also think that often this kind of stuff is just idiomatic usage that sounds nice.
A common pattern in language is “A and B” where A and B are (near) synonyms.
“Null and void”, “simple and plain”, “neat and tidy”, “pick and choose”, etc.
(The technical term I learned for this is “hendiadys”. Unfortunately Wikipedia is a bit useless on this one and has latched onto a subset and doesn’t really have what I was thinking about.)
Note that a lot of kanji words are formed using similar ideas, combining two kanji with identical meaning to give a word with basically the same meaning.
(I think these words are often borrowings from Chinese where it had the added benefit of being easier to understand because of homophones).
EDIT: An amusing and topical example is “kittycat”
So おいてあった meaning the empty can was placed on purpose next to the genkan and we see the resultant state. In the other, はってある meaning the cat food label was pasted/affixed on purpose and we see the resultant state.
So why is one past tense and the other is not?
I say it’s a silly question because maybe for our purposes it doesn’t really matter. Or does it?
I know very little about grammar and so shouldn’t even be attempting to answer this question. So apologies in advance for muddying the waters, but your question is such a good one and got me thinking.
カポネが - Capone + が particle
玄関のよこに - besides the entrance + direction particle
おいてあった - 置く, to place, in て-form with ある, to indicate a resultant state.
Your question if I understand correctly, is why this is in the past tense.
あきかんに - 空缶 - empty can + direction particle
とびついた - 飛び付いた - jumped at
キャットフードのラベルが はってある - there are cat food wrappers stuck inside!
while this is in the present tense.
I have two thoughts
Is the first one in the past tense because it modifies “空缶”? Or am I getting mixed up with English?!
Or, the can WAS placed there, and now there ARE cat-food wrappers in it?!
My question is not so much why おいてあった is past tense but why is one past tense while the other はってある is not past tense. In other words, why aren’t they both either past tense or both non-past tense. But like I said before, maybe it really doesn’t matter if they are different tenses.
Edit: By the way, you’ll see the word “CAT” as a label on the cans on p76.
Isn’t カポネが 玄関のよこに おい てあった a relative clause of あきかん?
Past tense is used in relative clauses to modify nouns just like @marcusp says.
It’s like
私が食べた果物 = the fruit that I ate.
The only thing is that there it combines てある form with past tense to make a relative clause.
In constrast,
はっ てある is simply the verb は in てある.
In any case, I see also a difference in tense in between both sentences. Just look at the conjugations of the verbs at the end of each (びついた in past, てある in not-past). This did not make a problem in my head because I got the main sense and people already talked in this thread about “the poetic license” that japanese writers take…
That said, if I have to write in japanese, I wouldn’t take that decision :P, and I would write everything in the same tense… I need more training!
But maybe, @trout, I missunderstood your question?
Tense in Japanese is really tricky.
I think in general you can understand it by thinking of it being relative not to the current time (as English tense usually is), but to to some implicit reference point.
For instance, in a relative clause the reference point is the main verb and you use present tense for things that occur at the same time as the main verb, unlike English where both use the past tense.
Unfortunately, this is still an oversimplified explanation that doesn’t explain everything…
I looked it up in Kuno and it mentions that, as a special case, in relative clause ている and ていた (and presumably te aru/te atta) are nearly synonymous, but past tense has the added connotation that it was noticed beforehand.
So here Hanae is telling us about the empty can that may have caught her eye before, even though she didn’t pay much mind to it (I think).
This one is a bit easier I think.
I think the sudden switch to present tense is something like a “historical present” that’s used because it is a sudden discovery and to add a sense of liveliness.
Note that その時だ is in the wrong place for your interpretation and it looks like a relative clause to me.
I think what’s going on here is that Hanae is fixing a particular point in time with その時だ which is the starting point for what comes next.
Literally “It was the time of me thinking that”.
I can’t think of any way to make this work in English other than by rearranging things a bit.
“Ahh, how bizarre! [While] I was thinking that, Capone had been fascinated by an empty can left next to the entrance. It has a cat food label attached to it!”
(The use of historical present here sounds a bit odd to me in English, I have to admit)
In my native language (Greek) we use the ”understand” verb the same way as in the Japanese language (present tense for continuous knowledge of something/empathy and past tense for marking a point of going from not understanding to understanding) so it never seemed weird to me that Japanese uses the past tense 分かりました
But I was wondering if the same goes for using ありがとうがざいました vs ありがとうございます
It appears past is used when thanking for a finished action and present when the action you are thanking for is not yet completed
This is starting to make a lot more sense, thank you!
“Just as I was thinking [that the room is too small for a cat] Capone jumped at the bin!”
Surely, though, the cat food labels are not attached to the bin! Because (a) it makes no sense! (b) Hanae would have seen them {c} the picture of the bin on page 75 shows the bin full of rubbish (which must be the labels) and nothing on the outside other than the flowery design.
I know 張る is listed in Jisho as to stick; to paste; to affix, but either the verb is a different one, or they are just stuck on the inside.
Hmmm I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Unfortunately I don’t have the book with me right now.
In the sentence ‘akikan’ was used which translates as “empty can”.
This is can as in “canned food”, not bin.
I thought she was saying that there was a catfood label attached to the can.
I can imagine that she might have seen the can but didn’t see the label or didn’t notice it was a catfood label.
I’m an idiot!
You are absolutely right, and I was barking up the wrong tree entirely! I was so distracted by the picture on p.75, which shows Capone and a litter bin, that I totally overlooked the meaning of あきかん, even despite @trout earlier pointing out the picture of the can on p.76! My apologies, and thank you for setting me straight!
Although it probably makes more sense to make the relative clause past tense especially to English speakers, I don’t think in this case it necessarily has to be past tense. In other words, I think おいてある could work here (but maybe my thinking is not right).
@aiju has shed some light on this but it’s still something I’m having difficulty comprehending.
No, past tense isn’t always used in a relative clause. You’re thinking of English
In English relative clauses use past tense if the main tense used past tense.
In Japanese you find both present and past tense in relative clauses.
When the relative clause describes something that happens at the same time as the main clause, you use present tense, usually, even if the main clause uses past tense (though there are some confusing exceptions).
The basic idea: (using some sentences from a paper)
Mary-wa naiteiru otoko-o mita.
Mary saw a man who was crying.
Here the crying happens at the same time as she sees him, so present tense is used.
Hanako-wa nooberu-shoo o totta hito-ni atta.
Hanako met a man who had won a Nobel prize.
Here the Nobel prize was awarded before the meeting with Hanako, so past tense is used.
But in some contexts you see past tense used even in the first case… it is quite confusing…
If the relative clause is a verb expressing a state (via te iru etc.), either tense can be used with little to no change in meaning.
John wa Mary ga yonda iru/ita hon o toriageta.
John took away the book that Mary was reading.
Otherwise (with action verbs, adjectives, etc.), present/past tense makes a difference:
John wa kau hon o yonda.
John read the book that he was (about) to buy.
(The buying happened after the reading)
John wa katta hon o yonda.
John read the book that he had bought.
(The buying happened before the reading)
John wa baka datta onna to kekkonsita.
John married a woman that used to be stupid.
(She was no longer stupid by the time he married her)
(Yes this is a real example from the book)
If the relative clause has an explicit past time expression, past tense must be used.
John wa Mary ga sono toki yonde ita hon o toriageta.
John took away the book that Mary was reading at that time.
Generally, if the main clause is an adjective or copular predicate (i.e. something with da/desu/…), past tense must be used if the main clause is past tense.
John ga yonde ita hon wa Shakespeare datta.
The book that John was reading was Shakespeare.
But note that here the main clause (da/datta) can be either tense with little change in meaning… (just like English)
John ga yonde ita hon wa Shakespeare da.
The book that John was reading is Shakespeare.
As a caveat to the first point, te ita can imply that the speaker has noticed something beforehand.
John wa densya no naka de kasa o motte ita hito ni hanasikaketa.
On the train, John struck up a conversation with a man [who I noticed to have] an umbrella.
