Re: experts, come in, please!


B. Ito wrote:
"Ray" <raymondaliasapollyon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147274859.932853.236640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

B. Ito wrote:
"Ray" <raymondaliasapollyon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147271734.207225.204210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

B. Ito wrote:
"Bart Mathias" <mathias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q9GdnVxWOOWVyfzZRVn-rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
B. Ito wrote:

"Bart Mathias" <mathias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote [about:]
John-ga Bill-ga Mike-ni zibun/kare-zisin/zibun-zisin-no
koto-o hanasita to itta.

[...]
Could the 自身 (jishin) versions refer to the speaker (so that the
sentence could mean "John said Bill told Mike about me")? I can
get
that with 自分 (jibun) only; certainly it is impossible with 彼自身

(kare-jishin). But yes, now that you mention it, I can get three
possible antecedents for 自分--I had only considered the ones Ray
noted,
previously.

I still think it is an awful sentence, and, speaking as a
linguist,
if
Japanese say things like that they should have their mouths washed
out
with soap.

Bart

---------------------------------------------------------------
Very sorry I find my typo in one of your names.

Don't be surprised, but even 彼自身 has the same effect.

No kidding? 彼自身のこと can really mean わたし(すなわち、話し手)のこと?

Now that *is* discouraging!

Bart
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Someboby must have said "John ga Bill ga Mike ni jibun no koto wo
hanashita
to itta."

The last speaker was the "Somebody." So the "jibun" could be "the
speaker himself." That's "I, myself."

The second speaker was "John." So the "jibun" could be "John
himself."

The first speaker was "Bill." So the "jibun" coulld be "Bill
himself."


To restrict the set of antecedents of "zibun" to the set of speakers
seems intuitively appealing, albeit not without counterexamples.

If we try to say "John heard that Bill hurt zibun" in Japanese, John
seems qualified as the antecedent of zibun, but it is not a "speaker".
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
As you know I'm not a specialista
in this field. So at the moment I don't
know
how to handle the important matters of direct/indirect narrations and
logical/
illogical nuances example sentences such as you presented here now.

Logically and basically, the pronoun "jibun" covers the speaker
himself.

I think in case of "hearers" or "listers", "jibun" could be used.
In such cases, however, you have to make the sentence like, "John heard
that
Bill hurt zibun." have a logical meaning even with some assumption or
supposition,
for example, John may be a robot and can't feel even he has a physical
damage.
Under such a condition, theoretically "jibun" could be either Bill or
John,
I think.


I seem good at writing strange sentences, don't I?
Maybe to replace "hurt" with some other verb like "cheated" would be
more natural.

Ray
------------------------------------------------------------
What do you want to mean this time by replacing "hurt" with "cheated"?


I said that because you think the reading needs some (special)
assumption.
Since people usually don't need others to tell them who hurt them, I
thought you might not find the sentence natural-sounding. That's why I
suggested replacing "hurt" with "cheated".


Ray



However illogical the verb may be, not only "speaker" but also "listener" is
theoretically qualified as "jibun."

In addition "thought" and "doubted" in place of "heard" would be the
same thing.



---------------------
B. Ito



---------------------
B. Ito


Ray


------------------------
B. Ito



.

Quantcast