Subordinate Clauses and Sentence Order

Posted by Tae Kim

Treating verbs and state-of-being like adjectives

Have you noticed how, many forms of verbs and the state-of-being conjugate in a similar manner to i-adjectives? Well, that is because, in a sense, they are adjectives. For example, consider the sentence: "The person who did not eat went to bank." The "did not eat" describes the person and in Japanese, you can directly modify the noun 'person' with the clause 'did not eat' just like a regular adjective. This very simple realization will allow us to modify a noun with any arbitrary verb phrase!

Using state-of-being subclauses as adjectives

The negative, past, and negative past conjugations of verbs can be used just like adjectives to directly modify nouns. However, we cannot do this with the plain non-past state-of-being using 「だ」. (I told you this was a pain in the butt.) The language has particles for this purpose, which will be covered in the next section.

You cannot use 「だ」 to directly modify a noun with a noun
like you can with 「だった」、「じゃない」、and 「じゃなかった」.

You can, however, have a string of nouns placed together when they're not meant to modify each other. For example, in a phrase such as "International Education Center" you can see that it is just a string of nouns without any grammatical modifications between them. It's not an "Education Center that is International" or a "Center for International Education", etc., it's just "International Education Center". In Japanese, you can express this as simply 「国際教育センタ」 (or 「センター」). You will see this chaining of nouns in many combinations. Sometimes a certain combination is so commonly used that it has almost become a separate word and is even listed as a separate entry in some dictionaries. Some examples include: 「登場人物」、「立入禁止」、or 「通勤手当」. If you have difficulties in figuring out where to separate the words, you can paste them into the WWWJDICs Translate Words in Japanese Text function and it'll parse the words for you (most of the time).

Examples

Here are some examples of direct noun modifications with a conjugated noun clause. The noun clause has been highlighted.
(1) 学生じゃないは、学校行かない
- Person who is not student do not go to school.

(2) 子供だったアリスが立派大人なった
- The Alice that was a child became a fine adult.

(3) 友達じゃなかったアリスは、いい友達なった
- Alice who was not a friend, became a good friend.

(4) 先週医者だったボブは、仕事辞めた
- Bob who was a doctor last week quit his job.

Using subordinate verb clauses as adjectives

Verbs clauses can also be used just like adjectives to modify nouns. The following examples show us how this will allow us to make quite detailed and complicated sentences. The verb clause is highlighted.

Examples

(1) 先週映画見た
- Who is person who watched movie last week?

(2) ボブは、いつも勉強するだ。
- Bob is a person who always studies.

(3) 赤いズボン買う友達はボブだ。
- Friend who buy red pants is Bob.

(4) 晩ご飯食べなかったは、映画見た銀行行った
- Person who did not eat dinner went to the bank she saw at movie.

Japanese Sentence Order

Now that we've learned the concept of subordinate clauses and how they are used as building blocks to make sentences, I can go over how Japanese sentence ordering works. There's this myth that keeps floating around about Japanese sentence order that continues to plague many hapless beginners to Japanese. Here's how it goes.

The most basic sentence structure in English can be described as consisting of the following elements in this specific order: [Subject] [Verb] [Object]. A sentence is not grammatically correct if any of those elements are missing or out of order.

Japanese students will tell you that Japanese, on the other hand, while frothing at the mouth, is completely backwards!! Even some Japanese teacher might tell you that the basic Japanese sentence order is [Subject] [Object] [Verb]. This is a classic example of trying to fit Japanese into an English-based type of thinking. Of course, we all know (right?) that the real order of the fundamental Japanese sentence is: [Verb]. Anything else that comes before the verb doesn't have to come in any particular order and nothing more than the verb is required to make a complete sentence. In addition, the verb must always come at the end. That's the whole point of even having particles so that they can identify what grammatical function a word serves no matter where it is in the sentence. In fact, nothing will stop us from making a sentence with [Object] [Subject] [Verb] or just [Object] [Verb]. The following sentences are all complete and correct because the verb is at the end of the sentence.

Grammatically complete and correctly ordered sentences

(1) 公園お弁当食べた
(2) 公園お弁当食べた
(3) お弁当公園食べた
(4) 弁当食べた
(5) 食べた

So don't sweat over whether your sentence is in the correct order. Just remember the following rules.

Japanese sentence order
  1. A complete sentence requires a main verb that must come at the end. This also includes the implied state-of-being.
    例) 食べた
    例) 学生(だ)
  2. Complete sentences (subordinate clauses) can be used to modify nouns to make sentences with nested subordinate clauses. (Except for one exception, see above)
    例) お弁当食べた学生公園行った

There's one sentence I can't

There's one sentence I can't make any sense out of:

晩ご飯を食べなかった人は、映画で見た銀行に行った。

Why isn't it ...映画を見て銀行に行った。

I mean, trying to translate the original in English would be like saying "by way of movie, the watched bank went to." Right?


Can someone give me a hint on

Can someone give me a hint on how to use [、] in sentences, I don't relly know when it's supposed to be used or not in japanese.


What is wrong

What is wrong with:

私は公園でお弁当を食べた。

?

Thanks!


There's nothing wrong with

There's nothing wrong with this sentence.


Under the sub-title

Under the sub-title "State-of-being subclauses as Adjectives", the first line says "The negative, past, and negative past conjugations of VERBS can be used just like adjectives...". Shouldn't it be STATE-OF-BEING instead of VERBS?

I seem to understand that NON-Negative, NON-Past State-of-Being Subclauses canNOT be used as an adjective. To clarify, can we therefore use NON-Negative, NON-Past Verb Subordinate clauses as an adjective? (the confusion was caused by the possible error in the sentence I pointed out earlier) Your examples seem to use NON-neg, NON-past verb clauses as adjectives in the examples: ボブは、いつも勉強する人だ and 赤いズボンを買う友達はボブだ

Thank you.


Your post is really

Your post is really confusing. I don't know why you think state-of-being would be more appropriate.

In "ボブは、いつも勉強する人だ", 勉強する is not being used as an adjective, it's being used as a verb. It just so happens that verbs can modifiy nouns and noun phrases. (It's the same in English: Bob is a person who always studies. Yes, 'always studies' is describing Bob, but that doesn't mean that 'studies' is an adjective. Studies is a verb).

In Japanese, on the other hand, negative verbs literally ARE い-adjectives. There is no difference between an adjective and a negative verb. 食べない conjugates just like any other い-adjective. You can even double negate it! 食べなくはないけど ("It's not that I won't eat it, but...").

But look at 勉強する. Does it conjugate and act like an adjective? No, so it's not an adjective. 勉強しない, on the other hand, conjugates just like an adjective. The past tense is 勉強しなかった in the same way that the past tense of おもしろい is おもしろかった.


Hmm... Perhaps I should

Hmm... Perhaps I should rephrase what I meant. Thanks for the explanation you offered though...

I am confused because of this example:
(2) ボブは、いつも勉強する人だ。
In this example, いつも勉強する is highlighted to show that it modifies 人. Moreover, いつも勉強する is a NON-negative, NON-past verb, used like an adjective to modify 人.

However, according to the guide, "The negative, past, and negative past conjugations of verbs can be used just like adjectives to directly modify nouns."
So can a NON-negative, NON-past VERB be used to modify nouns? Because from what I understand, a NON-negative, NON-past State-of-Being canNOT be used to modify a noun.

Thank you very much.


You are correct that the

You are correct that the non-negative, non-past state of being (だ or です) cannot be used to modify a noun. But the non-negative, non-past verb can be used.

For example, this is a valid sentence:

分かった人は手を上げてください。
Please raise your hand if you understand (understanding-people please raise your hand).


I think the verb doesn't

I think the verb doesn't always come at the end. [stuff][verb][gobi] would be more precise, having in mind that only the verb is necessary, right?


You say that the fundamental

You say that the fundamental order of the Japanese sentence is [Verb]. I would like to point out that this is as wrong as [Subject] [Object] [Verb]: the fundamental order of the Japanese sentence is [Word]. Your decision to call noun and adjective main words "state-of-being" and consider it a verb is a product of, as you put it, "trying to fit Japanese into an English-based type of thinking." English sentences require a verb; Japanese sentences do not.


There isn't really a problem

There isn't really a problem with this. The problem you see mostly comes from the inability of western names for parts of speech to apply properly. Saying the Japanese sentence order is [Verb] is technically correct, if we consider any word to carry similar properties to the western verb to be a verb. If we use such a definition, Japanese 一段, 五段, and 形容詞 (as well as だ and です clauses) would be included.  (For those unfamiliar, those three terms are ru-verbs, u-verbs, and i-adjectives respectively.)

Also, we must make the distinction between what is grammatically correct and what is actually spoken in practice. Quite often, people say things outside of acceptable grammar in formal situations. I can, while reading this comments, mutter 「まったく、その人たちの」under my breath. It may well be a complete thought, but that doesn't mean it's a grammatically complete sentence.


Ok I get that but when things

Ok I get that but when things get a little complex. What do you do? I get the basic sentences, but what about harder sentences I can't get that part.


In the first sentence of the

In the first sentence of the section entitled "Using subordinate verb clauses as adjectives," "verbs clauses" should read "verb clauses."


Well, I suppose it's time we

Well, I suppose it's time we start thinking in another way and forget about translating things into our native language so we start understanding things directly in Japanese.


Just to note something these

Just to note something these two ways that the sentence have been rearranged seem strange to me:

(2) 公園で私はお弁当を食べた。
(3) お弁当を私は公園で食べた。

If I could translate it I might read the first one...
As for park by way of me ate lunchbox
The second one...
As for lunch box, I (not sure where to fill in を for this) park by way of eating

Now the original sentence makes a lot more sense and maybe it's just me reading too much into it.

My translations are not perfect because I did them and my Japanese is not great.


Particles before their words

Particles before their words makes slightly more sense when trying to turn these directly into English.

Not to sound redundant, but I think a really good way to look at particles (as they would sort-of translate to English) is to put the English approximation of the particle BEFORE the word it's modifying.

So in as much as で = 'by way of', the 'by way of' should come before the word that で modifies. So this way, the sentences look like this (を is tricky ...)

公園で私はお弁当を食べた。
becomes
'by way of' park ; 'as for' me ; 'the?' box lunch ; ate.

お弁当を私は公園で食べた。
becomes
'the?' box lunch ; 'as for' me ; 'by way of' park ; ate.

And while it doesn't read smoothly in English, the concept is fairly clear, and you avoid ending up with something like 'by way of me' just because you have a で before a 私.


no the

no the "transliteration":
(2) 公園で私はお弁当を食べた。
"As for park by way of me ate lunchbox"
is wrong.

it would be correct (according to this guide) like thiS:
"by way of park, as for me, bentou ate" (not sure how was the example about the WO particle like for WA it was "as for..." and for DE it was "by way of.."

and (3) お弁当を私は公園で食べた。
would be:
"betou is(direct object marker, what the verb is pointing to/doing to), as for me, by way of park, ate."

the point is, and your mistake is that it's not always "as for ..." at the start of the sentence... the place where "as for..." goes depends on where the particle WA is placed.


I'd imagine it's meant to be

I'd imagine it's meant to be extreme in order to show the reader how, as it says in this section, it doesn't matter the manner in which the contents are ordered, so long as there's a verb at the end.

I mean, wouldn't it be fair to say:
公園で私はお弁当を食べた。
At the park I ate a bentou. (At park is where I bentou ate)
お弁当を私は公園で食べた。
The bentou [is what/that which] I ate at the park. (bentou I at park ate.)


She said something about the

She said something about the arrangement of words(n, pron, adj, etc.) in sentences does not really matter as long as the verb is at the end.

(2) 公園で私はお弁当を食べた。
park/[de]/me, myself, I/[ha]/box lunch/[wo]/to eat

I have translated as: I am to eat my box lunch by the park.

(3) お弁当を私は公園で食べた。
box lunch/[wo]/me, myself, I/[ha]/park/[de]/to eat

I think that this one can translate to: By the park, I eat my lunch box.

>I guess its up to you how you want to translate (and show) sentences.


Post new comment

Important
Wait! Are you about to ask a question about Japanese? You will have a better chance of getting your question answered at the forum instead.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options