Bathroom humor

[keatonatron]

I figured it was a typo on your part, but I wasn't sure.

The sentence itself sounded fine to me.... until just now.

Grammatically, 水を流す is the 詰まりの原因, right?

"Please flush after use, because it causes the toilet to get clogged"

[Hyperworm]

I think your translation is right but your interpretation is wrong.
I think the 詰まりの原因 is politely omitted, and could be represented in a translation by "it".

"Please flush after use, because [otherwise] it causes (the toilet) to get clogged"

Perhaps, above a urinal is the wrong place for this sign...??

[sei]

Perhaps, above a urinal is the wrong place for this sign...??

I had been thinking the same for awhile now.....

[Yudan Taiteki]

Since everyone focused solely on my typographical error I assume that the oddness of the sentence itself is so readily apparent as to elicit no comment.

I assumed the typo was the problem -- I agree with hyperworm than the 糞が is politely omitted, perhaps?

[Harisenbon]

Perhaps, above a urinal is the wrong place for this sign...??

I had been thinking the same for awhile now.....

For some reason I completely glossed over the part where mike said urinal. :/
That makes it much more entertaining.

[Mike Cash]

I think your translation is right but your interpretation is wrong.
I think the 詰まりの原因 is politely omitted, and could be represented in a translation by "it".

"Please flush after use, because [otherwise] it causes (the toilet) to get clogged"

Perhaps, above a urinal is the wrong place for this sign...??

But as written the sign technically indicates that flushing is the cause of the pipes getting clogged up (and that such clogging is the desired outcome). Of course, no one is stupid enough to misinterpret the intended message of the sign in such a nonsensical way. I asked a couple of native speakers to verify my gaijin suspicion that I had found the construction of the sentence was odd, and got an 言われてみれば reaction.

[Hyperworm]

Wow, really, that's the problem? (congrats to keatonatron)
I thought the use of ので here was natural as (e.g.) an omission of the first part in

（そうしないと）詰まりの原因になりますので、使用後水を流して下さい
or（水を流さないと）詰まりの原因になりますので、使用後水を流して下さい
though I can't actually remember if I've seen this usage anywhere before or not... >_>

I'm not particularly happy with the wording in either of those though... the second one is repetitive, and the first one I'm not sure the forward-referencing use of そう at the start is OK >_> So how do you say this correctly?

And are you saying the sign is actually in the right place, or...? xD

[keatonatron]

So how do you say this correctly?

詰まりやすくなってますので、使用後必ず水を流して下さい。

[Yudan Taiteki]

I don't really see anything wrong with the current reading since the meaning is obvious, but another way would be 使用後必ず水を流して下さい。そうしないと、詰まるおそれがあります or something like that.

[keatonatron]

I don't really see anything wrong with the current reading since the meaning is obvious, but another way would be 使用後必ず水を流して下さい。そうしないと、詰まるおそれがあります or something like that.

Actually, using おそれがあります is a good one. You don't need そうしないと with it though.

詰まりのおそれがありますので、使用後水を流して下さい。

Anyway, I saw another sign today that I thought wouldn't be acceptable in Western culture.

And this one was actually done professionally! (not a simple computer printout)

[sei]

Oh wow that's.... Wow...

[Bengal_Tiger234]

^To Mike Cash

At first I couldn't really understand the sentence because I'm used to 詰まりmeaning "namely" or "in other words," but then I looked it up on Edict and it says it can also mean "blockage." So I tried translating the sentence again in my mind and the closest I could come up with is "Because (it) will cause blockage, please flush after use." Is this the correct meaning? I'm not entirely sure. It does seem like an odd sentence as you said, but I can't put my finger on it exactly. Does it have to do with the ambiguity of what they're referring to? I'm a bit at a loss.



Edit: Wow, I take 5 minutes to write a post and already like 10 extra people reply. Lol, oh well...

[keatonatron]

Does it have to do with the ambiguity of what they're referring to? I'm a bit at a loss.

Some easy-to-understand explanations have already been posted. Did you notice there is a second page?

Edit: Wow, I take 5 minutes to write a post and already like 10 extra people reply. Lol, oh well...

The last post before yours was available an hour before you replied...

[JaySee]

Edit: Wow, I take 5 minutes to write a post and already like 10 extra people reply. Lol, oh well...

The last post before yours was available an hour before you replied...

Make that 13 hours

[keatonatron]

Minus 55 minutes and 14 letters