What have you gained by using Heisig RTK1?

[ss]

Just chime in to say, each time I see title thread of blah blah HEISIG, I know it's going to be another nightmare. That's what I gained!

And I want to tell Christine, Coco san is such a humble and knowledgeable lady. She doesn't need to boast about her qualification in the public, BUT she is definitely one of the qualified professionals. And there are many qualified professional people in this board, simply kind, helpful and approachable.

.....coco wins hands down, and I think most here would agree.

So, 100% agree with Rich.

[coco]

これはNocturnalOceanさんの

(b) A1 and A2 are two states of someone or something.

という使い方になるのではないでしょうか。

A1,A2　が動詞の例として
・　腹を抱えて笑う
・　イスにすわって雑誌を読む
・　立って話す
などが挙げられるように思います。

この場合は、A2のとき、A1の状態がまだ存在してます(? 英語でThe state expressed by A1 is still in progress/still applies)。たとえば、「雑誌を読んでいすに座る」は違う意味だと思います。いすに座って、もう座っていないときに雑誌を読むではなくて、いすに座って、座っているままで読むという意味ですね。

はい、そうです。「イスに座って雑誌を読む」は、「イスに座った状態を継続したまま雑誌を読む」の意味です。
この「て形」は付帯（ふたい）状況を表す使い方になります。

So as these examples indicate, A1 and A2 don't necessarily have to be consecutive actions, but A1 at least has to be "actualized" (i.e. made real) before A2 occurs.

As far as I know, this is generally how て works (A = action, S = stative verb/adj)
A1てA2 = A1, then A2 (A1 is not necessarily completely finished when A2 occurs, but it has to have at least begun)
SてA = Action A is done after State S is actualized
AてS = Action A is done, resulting in State S
S1てS2 = States 1 and 2 both apply, S1 can come before S2 but it doesn't have to (S2 cannot be first, though)
This doesn't describe 100% of cases, but AFAIK it mostly holds true.

関連スレッド

もう少し、この「て形」の例を挙げてみます。

・ 窓を開けて寝る
これは、開けた(A1)た後に寝る(A2)。「窓を開けたまま寝る」の意味になります。

・足を組んですわる　
この場合、厳密に言えば、
すわった(A2)後で足を組み(A1)、その状態が続くことになります。

・ 口を開けて寝る
・ イビキをかいて寝る
寝入りばな（端）は口を閉じていたのに、寝ている間に口が開（あ）くことがありますよね。
寝る前にイビキをかくことは難しいと思いますが、睡眠中のある時点でイビキをかいていても、「イビキをかいて寝て（い）た」と表現されます。これらも、A2の後にA1/S1が発生した例です。

どうやら無自覚／無意識のうちにとる行動が含まれる場合、動作／状態の発生順番が入れ替わることがありそうです。
おもしろいですね。　 　

[Christine Tham]

I said earlier I will no longer contribute to the debate, so this post is not an attempt to do that.

However, one thing I have learnt from this discussion is that it is possible for even native speakers to have "alternative" interpretations of how to apply こと.

In order for more students to benefit, I will try and raise this for discussion in the Intermediate class this year. The students would have just passed JLPT3, so it should be an interesting discussion and review point.

The example I will try to use will be 料理して、食べること.

If anyone can suggest a better example, let me know.

richvh - I am disappointed that you believe I have somehow "disparaged" coco, since I have not responded or commented on any of coco's posts directly or indirectly (quite deliberately, since I consider coco's post to me inappropriate and offensive). Do I believe coco's interpretation of the dictionary definition is incorrect? Yes I do, but we won't go into that any further.

I am also disappointed that you somehow think this is about coco or me "winning." It's not a contest, there are no winners or losers - I will continue to recommend that you seek professional, qualified advice rather than rely on opinions on the Internet, no matter how "qualified" you think they may be. As I've mentioned before, I don't think contacting someone at the Japan Foundation would cost you any money on a matter like this. If it does, let me know, because I am a member of the Foundation.

[Christine Tham]

I think it is important to remember though that in cases like these, which are rather ambiguous, there might not necessarily be only one correct way of interpretation, especially if even among native speakers discord exists about it. I don't think the opinion of one native speaker can or should be held in higher regard that of other native speakers, because all of them are equally capable of telling you what sounds natural to them and what doesn't, and how certain sentences are interpreted.

So, if coco says she interprets 'koto' as referring to both parts of the sentence, she is correct, and if your teacher tells you that in his/her opinion it doesn't, then he or she is correct as well. I would say it's just a small linguistic ambiguity.

Thanks for your balanced and non-judgemental response. I found it refreshing after some of the other posts here.

Just for the record, if you reread my posts, you will notice I have never claimed that it is only possible to interpret the sentence in one way - if you recall, I said that richvh's translation was semantically acceptable.

I think a lot of people seem to have forgotten that an alternative dictionary has translated the word as 書物を世に出す (where you can see, there is no reference to printing and no て construction).

Any debate on how the sentence should be translated is moot, we can already deduce that the author of the sentence under discussion did not intend the こと to include printing. Unless of couse, you believe the author was incompetent and either provided the wrong definition or constructed the sentence incorrectly.

So from my perspective, it was never about "my translation is better than your translation nyah nyah nyah because my teacher said so." The point I was trying to make was "We already know what the intended meaning of the author is. Let's try to understand why. My explanation (for what it's worth) is ..."

Of course, one can still hold the view of "Well, I think the sentence should still be translated as ..." Well, that's possible, but that's tantamount to saying one of the dictionary definitions is therefore wrong, and therefore one of the lexicographers is incompetent. I personally am not willing to go down this path.

[coco]

The こと, as richvh said, applies to the whole sentence. The こと is an indicator of the definition of the word, which is the whole phrase, not just the second part. "publish" is what I should have written instead of "print", but that was a translation error, not a sentence parsing problem.

The こと, as richvh said, applies to the whole sentence. The こと is an indicator of the definition of the word, which is the whole phrase, not just the second part. "publish" is what I should have written instead of "print", but that was a translation error, not a sentence parsing problem.

I'm sorry, but I think both you and richvh need to review your basic Japanese grammar. The construction "AてB" denotes sequential actions, hence must be interpreted as "A, then B" or "Due to A, B"

Therefore, "AてBこと" means "the event of B, after A has occured", or "the event of B, due to A having occured". It does not refer to "the events of A and B" unless A and B are so closely interlinked that B cannot occur without A and vice versa.

This is not the case for printing and publishing, since one can print without publishing, and one can publish something that is not printed (世に出す can also be used to refer to releasing a film or CD, for example).

Therefore the only valid interpretation in this case is "the event of B, after A".

I will say under the circumstances richvh's interpretation is probably semantically acceptable, although it is sloppy translation. As I've said, my teacher would not have accepted it.

So my comment still stands - you don't appear to know how to parse this sentence correctly. That would indicate to me your level of comprehension of Japanese grammar is sub JLPT3.

I meant the definition of こと. I can't remember reading anywhere that is was only possible to modify the immediate preceding sentence, and that a te-form would not be included. But I see that it will be useful to bring into further studies.

What I really don't understand though is, if we look at the above example, if こと is used in definitions to define a word, then in our example, why not just say "世に出すこと" and not bring in other factors such as printing?

If we look at another deiniftion of 発行
証明書・証券・貨幣などを作って世の中に通用させること。

So in this definition こと only applies to 世の中に通用させること。 And not the fact of making the coins, certificates or whatever is included in 発行。

It might just be that I am not native English speakers, and I don't quite get all the terminology correct, but it still looks really weird to me.

これまでに話してきたのは、Yudanさん、NocturanalOceanさんがすでに指摘しているように「発行」という言葉の定義を表す「こと」の使用法です。

However, one thing I have learnt from this discussion is that it is possible for even native speakers to have "alternative" interpretations of how to apply こと.

In order for more students to benefit, I will try and raise this for discussion in the Intermediate class this year. The students would have just passed JLPT3, so it should be an interesting discussion and review point.

The example I will try to use will be 料理して、食べること.

If anyone can suggest a better example, let me know.

「料理して、食べること」は、なんという言葉の定義なのでしょうか。

----
編集:下線部の位置

[coco]

However, one thing I have learnt from this discussion is that it is possible for even native speakers to have "alternative" interpretations of how to apply こと.

In order for more students to benefit, I will try and raise this for discussion in the Intermediate class this year. The students would have just passed JLPT3, so it should be an interesting discussion and review point.

The example I will try to use will be 料理して、食べること.

If anyone can suggest a better example, let me know.

盗用

他人のものを盗んで使うこと。　許可を得ないで用いること。

この方が、今回の「こと」の解釈を議論する上で実りの多いものになると思います。

[Yudan Taiteki]

Any debate on how the sentence should be translated is moot, we can already deduce that the author of the sentence under discussion did not intend the こと to include printing.

I think that's the entire matter under discussion -- I was just about to say that regardless of the exact grammar of こと, the first clause is clearly an essential part of the definition. I don't think dictionary compilers are generally in the habit of including extraneous clauses in the definitions of the words.

Part of the problem here may be that this definition of 行 is not a word, it's an attempt at a definition of a bound morpheme, so you may see some difference between dictionaries depending on how the particular compiler of the dictionary sees that character as working in the words themselves. You would expect a greater divergence of definition for these things than for actual words.

The Daijirin's definition of 発行 is:
図書・新聞などを印刷して世に出すこと。刊行。
Once again, I don't think the intent of this definition is that 世に出す is all that's important and what comes before is irrelevant. The こと encompasses the entire sentence and indicates that the preceeding is the definition of 発行.

[ss]

Christine wrote:
In order for more students to benefit, I will try and raise this for discussion in the Intermediate class this year. The students would have just passed JLPT3, so it should be an interesting discussion and review point.

I am not an advanced student of JP, I am very interested in discussion like this, however, would you mind answering my questions before we proceed?

Christine Tham wrote:However, one thing I have learnt from this discussion is that it is possible for even native speakers to have "alternative" interpretations of how to apply こと.

Isn't this can apply to all other languages as well? Given that there are so many different situations and scenarios unclear, obviously it has other "alternative" interpretation depending on your experience in such area, no?

Please read the part Coco san underlined :
Christine wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but I think both you and richvh need to review your basic Japanese grammar.
>>> Therefore the only valid interpretation in this case is "the event of B, after A". ***
>>> So my comment still stands - you don't appear to know how to parse this sentence correctly. That would indicate to me your level of comprehension of Japanese grammar is sub JLPT3.

#1 With this kind of attitude, how do you think it would benefit us, learners of Japanese?

#2 Maybe it's a good idea to create a new thread if you think there is a need to further discuss things like those (quote this thread if you think it should be continue from here)

Christine wrote:
So from my perspective, it was never about "my translation is better than your translation nyah nyah nyah because my teacher said so." The point I was trying to make was "We already know what the intended meaning of the author is. Let's try to understand why. My explanation (for what it's worth) is ..."

Of course, one can still hold the view of "Well, I think the sentence should still be translated as ..." Well, that's possible, but that's tantamount to saying one of the dictionary definitions is therefore wrong, and therefore one of the lexicographers is incompetent. I personally am not willing to go down this path.

Chrsitine wrote:
It's not a contest, there are no winners or losers - I will continue to recommend that you seek professional, qualified advice rather than rely on opinions on the Internet, no matter how "qualified" you think they may be.

#3 Indeed, there are no winners or losers. So, please come back with your own understanding of the Japanese language, with your own interpretation, and if possible interact with Coco san or any other native Japaneses in Japanese, as to why you agree or disagree. I think this is a very good time for you to challenge yourself.

#4 At this point, I think it might be wise for you to realize that it's really your harsh comments and stubborness that lead to conflicts here. And I don't see the point of keep telling us to seek professional or qualified advice instead of rely on opinions on the internet. People here know their stuffs well, they know what to do. And, I've always thought that qualified professional people are all around the internet.

[coco]

二つの動詞が「て形」で結ばれ、「こと」を含んだ文章例をひとつ挙げてみます。　
言葉の定義ではありません。

よく噛んで食べることが健康によい。

Christine Thamさんはこれを「噛んだ後に食べる」と解釈しますか。
The event of eating after chewing well is good for your health.(?)

あるいは
Eating well-chewed food is good for your health.(?)
「よく咀嚼されたものを食べることが健康によい」でしょうか。　

「食べる」という行為は通常、咀嚼も含まれていますので、この文章は
「よく噛みながら食べること」が健康によい------と一般的には解釈されます。
When eating, chewing well is good for your health. (?)
のような意味になるのではないかと思います。

（英文は間違っていると思いますので、どなたか訂正してくださると助かります）

---
日本人だから説明が正しいとは限らないというのは同感です（私自身、うまく説明できないものや、間違っていることも多々ありますので）。
また、匿名ユーザーの説明を鵜呑みにせず、然るべき人に訊いたり文献で確認するなどして納得することが重要だと私も思います。

あなたもまだ学習中で、言葉の定義を表す「こと」の解釈を間違っている可能性があるのですから、"I think both you and richvh need to review your basic Japanese grammar"　と人にいえる立場ではありません。たとえあなたの解釈がすべて正しいものであったとしても、あなたの発言は、外国語を学習中の多くの読者に威圧感と不快感を与えている可能性があります。その結果、TJPのメンバーが投稿を躊躇するようなことがあれば、フォーラムにとって大きな損失になります。「て形＋こと」の解釈自体は非常に興味深く、多くの読者に益する内容なので、この話題は大いに歓迎しますが、発言には注意してください。

[Christine Tham]

By the way, I was at the JF library the other day, and found a few textbooks that would appear to support my assertion that こと (usually) "only applies to the immediately preceeding clause."

Complete Master Series: JLPT Level 3 Grammar Exercises (3A Network) ISBN4-88319-354-3 page 186:
～の／こと: used to nominalize the previous clause
Usage pattern: V plain form の／こと

にほんごチャレンジ: Level 3 Practice in Grammar and Reading (Ask Publications) ISBN987-4-87217-645-2 page 104:
開けるのを／ことを ... that ...
Vふつう形 <nominalize (used to nominalize the previous clause)>

I am not sure how reliable the second textbook is (it's a fairly recent one published in 2007) but 3A Network is the publisher of the highly regarded みんなの日本語 set of textbooks, arguably the best set of general purpose beginner level textbooks available today.

By the way, for the people querying about the dictionary definition and whether it implies "printing" prior to publishing, I would like to remind them that I have previously provided an example usage of the word (from business correspondence) which shows that the word can be used only in the sense of "release/issue/publish" with no notion of "printing".

To argue that somehow "printing" is intrinsically part of the definition would imply that either the editors of Koujien are incompetent, or Japanese people do not know how to use this word properly in business correspondence.

[Yudan Taiteki]

Well, "previous clause" is a little ambiguous and I'm not sure they intended to use the term "clause" to exclude anything before a -te form. The term "relative clause" (singular) is used even when the thing in question contains a -te form, for instance.

As for your example, I went back a few pages but couldn't find it so you may want to post it again. There may be some confusion here because two things have been discussed -- (1) the definition of 行（こう） in the Koujien, which is not a definition of a word, but an attempt to define a morpheme used in several compound words, and (2) the definition of 発行, which is a word. My position is that the 印刷 part is important but that the word is not strictly limited to 印刷 but could refer to other things along the same lines (e.g. recorded music); the morpheme does not, however, just mean 世に出す (nor does 発行 just mean 世に出す in any context.)

[Mystique]

Here are some examples of how 発行 is used in Chinese.

発行する機構/発行されるもの
Government/coin, currency, bond
Post office/stamps
Trading companies/stock certificate
Record companies/records, CD
Publisher/books

The institutions in the above examples are pretty much the only entities that have the right to create (coin, print, copy, etc.) the corresponding items before releasing to the public. Natually, for a publisher to 発行 a book, the publish would have to print it or authorize some 3rd party to print it. I'd say 印刷 is a very essential part of 発行 in the case of books.

The Japanese definition of this word seems to be the same as that in Chinese. If someone understands otherwise, please share your widsom.

My 2 cents.

[coco]

To argue that somehow "printing" is intrinsically part of the definition would imply that either the editors of Koujien are incompetent, or Japanese people do not know how to use this word properly in business correspondence.

何をか言わんや。