Re: QUERY: No transitive verb in Japanese?

muchan wrote:
dareka wrote:

Yes, but sometimes obviously not even a syntactic object
marker in a clause like 猫を幸福だ in 猫を幸福だと思う.
Sticking to を being a syntactic object marker would need
clumsy explanation for this which might be explaining this を
and other を are different words.


I don't see a real problem there. I one considers 思う to be basically
a "他動詞" with a very general and deletable を-argument, then 猫を is
just a narrower case. And the と in 幸福だと is the same as the one in
堂々と, etc., making a manner adverb.


Maybe I picked not a good example. But I think that the と
here is making 猫を幸福だ into a clause and that this clause
is the object of 思う like in a construction "I think
that..."; and I think in this case を is simply substituting
は or other subject marker and shifting focus or something
from 猫 to 思う by not using は or が.



I think you are a little confused with this 猫を things.
You used the phrase without context, and I don't know whom you assume
the subject of 思う. The subject is clearly not 猫.

Of course, the subject of 思う is someone who is observing the
cat. Anyway, I made up a story for the cat's context.

とても可愛がられていた猫がいました。餌にはいつも上等な刺身や小
魚を与えられ、快適な家で老衰で死ぬまで暮してました。でも子猫の
時から一度も外を自由に歩く事はできませんでした。

野生の猫と比べて、貴方はこの猫を幸福だったと思いますか？


if the original sentense was
私はこの猫を幸福だと思う。
It's
私は この猫を 「幸福だ」と　思う。
猫 is the object of 思う, and 「幸福だ」と is complement.
equivalent of SVOC sentense in English.

Sorry, but I think it sounds far-fetched explanation:
forcefully applying the notion of complement in English. And I
further think the notion of complement in English only exists
conceptually and has a lot of room to interpret loosely and
doesn't suit to explain syntactical grammars of other
languages. Anyway if 幸福だ is simply a complement why you
have to tack だ part to it? As I said in the other post 猫を猫
は幸福だと思う construction sounds terrible to the degree that
I can't understand the meaning of it.


When this object 猫を is topicalized,
私はこの猫は幸福だと思う。
This can be viewed 2 ways,
私は この猫は(object) 「幸福だ」と 思う。
私は 「この猫は 幸福だ」と 思う。
In second intrepretation, 私は is the subject of 思う, and 猫は is
the subject of 幸福だ.

So you are saying that the first and the second は are
syntactically different words; one is object marker and the
other is subject marker? (whether they are etymologically same
words or not) If so, I disagree. The whole point I'm making in
this thread is that they are same word and は (and/or other 助
詞s) has a different syntactical functions or roles from the
English equivalent instead, not necessarily corresponding to
the syntactical verb in the actual sentence or clause. That
makes a simpler and more consistent explanation for Japanese
grammar.


--

dareka dareka@xxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: QUERY: No transitive verb in Japanese?
    ... You used the phrase without context, and I don't know whom you assume ... I made up a story for the cat's context. ... forcefully applying the notion of complement in English. ... is never subject marker nor object marker. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: QUERY: No transitive verb in Japanese?
    ... You used the phrase without context, and I don't know whom you assume ... I made up a story for the cat's context. ... forcefully applying the notion of complement in English. ... is never subject marker nor object marker. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
Quantcast