ということで

[thetazuo]

1. 「その前に全員で辞職してくれても構わない。いずれにせよ、再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということで話を付けてある」

2. 一応念のためということで、近隣住民にも話を聞いてみたが、有力な情報は得られなかった。わかったことは、二〇年ほど前からここに住み始めた人でも、ここに氷芽川という人が住んでいたことを知らない、ということくらいである。

Hi. I got two examples here. I think the first ということで means “about/regarding the matter that...” and the second ということで means “because”. Am I on the right track? If not, please correct me.
Thank you.

 

[Joschl]

"再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれる" is the content of an agreement that someone is talking about. The particle/postposition "で" refers to the noun こと with the attributive clause "再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるという". "で" is governed by the verb "付ける" of the collocational expression "[X]で話を付ける", which means

話の片をつける。相談・交渉をまとめる。「仲介人を立てて―・ける」https://kotobank.jp/word/話を付ける-603482

The meaning/function of the particle/postposition "で" in sentence 1 is

⑦期限・範囲を表す。https://sakura-paris.org/dict/広辞苑/prefix/で

The meaning/function of the particle/postposition "で" in sentence 2 is

③理由・原因を示す。https://sakura-paris.org/dict/広辞苑/prefix/で

The attributive clause that is nominalized by mean of "こと" lacks a predicate such as "[近隣住民にも話を聞いてみよう]" and is elliptical, i.e. "一応念のため[predicate]という.

 

[thetazuo]

Thank you very much.

The meaning/function of the particle/postposition "で" in sentence 1 is

So do think it’s appropriate to translate the first で as “about/regarding”?

 

[Joschl]

No, I don't. Honestly speaking, I can't quite follow you. In my view, the particle/postposition "で" in sentence 1 indicates that the nominalized clause "再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということ" is the conclusion that people have reached after discussing how to deal with a particular situation that they are involved in. Someone is telling someone else that they have reached an agreement that someone is going to help them to find another job.

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

1. 「その前に全員で辞職してくれても構わない。いずれにせよ、再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということで話を付けてある」

2. 一応念のためということで、近隣住民にも話を聞いてみたが、有力な情報は得られなかった。わかったことは、二〇年ほど前からここに住み始めた人でも、ここに氷芽川という人が住んでいたことを知らない、ということくらいである。

Hi. I got two examples here. I think the first ということで means “about/regarding the matter that...” and the second ということで means “because”. Am I on the right track? If not, please correct me.
Thank you.

In my humble opinion, your understanding is perfectly correct!
Good job!

I think the literal translation for the first で is "by means of the matter that," "by~" or "through~," but it doesn't make sense in the English language.
Therefore, technically speaking, we have to change "by the matter that..." or "through the matter that..." to "about/regarding the matter that..." in this context.

再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということで話を付けてある
=再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるという内容で話を付けてある
＝再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれることで話を付けてある
＝再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれる内容で話を付けてある

一応念のためということで、
=一応念のために、
＝in order to make sure just in case,
=because I want to make sure just in case,

 

[thetazuo]

Thank you both. I see.

 

[Joschl]

"about/regarding the matter that..." in this context.

Does that reading really make sense to you? "再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということ" is not the content of the general topic of their consultation but its final result of it, is it? And the predicate "話を付ける" makes sense because "再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということ" is the content of the result of discussion, not its topic, doesn't it? Your interpretation made sense to me too if "再就職の面倒は<ラタトスク>が見てくれるということ" would be the content of the topic of the discussion or if I would not distinguish between the topic of the discussion and its result, for whatever reason.

一応念のためということで = 一応念のために

Personally, I would prefer to look at the surface form of a sentence and take the quotative function of the attributive construction "[X] to iu" into account without replacing it with another construction that has (almost ) the same meaning in order to prevent myself from prematurely subsuming different things unter the same category.

"[X] to iu koto de" and "[X] ni" is not equivalent here because "に" can just be omitted in the adverbial clause "[一応念のため(に)]. If we really want to contrast two more or less equivalent constructions with each other, then we will need to write down something like "[一応念のため(に)]ということで" = "[一応念のために]ということで" without removing "to iu koto de" from the surface of the sentence.

 

[thetazuo]

夕弦。耶倶矢を「動」とするなら「静」のキャラということで設定した君だったが、いつの間にか耶倶矢よりもナチュラル中二な上に、肉食なキャラになっていた。

The writer is commenting on one of the characters he created as if her was talking to her in the あとがき.

Is the bold ということで the same usage as the first example ということで話を付けてある in op? Namely, the で expresses 期限・範囲 and the what precedes ということで is a conclusion.
Thank you.

 

[Joschl]

I must admit that I don't understand what the author is talking about in the sentence above. I would like to restrict myself to describing the functions of the particle/postposition "で" by quoting a short passage from 森田良行's book "助詞・助動詞の辞典". I hope I won't infringe copyright.

「で」は，ある範囲や序列，継続していたものなどがそこを限界として終わりとなり，それ以上は異質の領域となることを表す。
（１）時刻・期間の語に付けばその時点で終わって他の状況へと移行するか，その時間帯の状況がそこを限度として終了することを表す。
（２）場所の語に付けば，その所においてある行為や現象を起こすことを，
（３）人や事物に付けば，その人数や事物によって事が成就する，ないしは状況が引き起こされることを表す。

I think that we will be able to understand the semantic functions of "で" easier if we draw a picture or something.

 

[Joschl]

筆者は[耶倶矢]を[「動」のキャラ]として, [夕弦]を[「静」のキャラ]として設定したと言っているのですか。

 

[thetazuo]

Thank you.

筆者は[耶倶矢]を[「動」のキャラ]として, [夕弦]を[「静」のキャラ]として設定したと言っているのですか。

Yes.

 

[Joschl]

I think I can understand the context better than yesterday evening. The author is talking to 夕弦, one of the characters that she/he has invented, to explain his/her own motivation/reason for creating her/him.

In my view, the meaning/function of "で" is the same as that one of で in sentence 2 in your post #1 above.

で (５）原因・理由・動機を表す。「火事―一文なしになる」「撃たれた傷―死ぬ」「老師の一言―さとる」https://sakura-paris.org/dict/大辞林/prefix/で

Mr Morita subsumes this meaning/function under category (3) above (ibid. p. 276)

I'm of the opinion that we will be able to understand the structure of the first part of the utterance "耶倶矢を「動」とするなら「静」のキャラということで" better, if we add "のキャラ" to 「動」and add "とする" or "としよう" to "「静」のキャラ" as well (i.e. "耶倶矢を「動」のキャラとするなら (夕弦を)「静」のキャラとする/としようということで"). The phrase in round brackets 夕弦を governed by the verb する in "[X]を[Y]とする" is omitted because she/he occurs as the head of the noun phrase "君" with the attributive clause "(X[=the author]が)設定した".

 

[thetazuo]

Thank you very much.

筆者は[耶倶矢]を[「動」のキャラ]として, [夕弦]を[「静」のキャラ]として設定したと言っているのですか。

But I feel that maybe interpret ということで as として is better?

 

[Joschl]

Because you are the one who knows the entire context, you will certainly know how to read the author's utterance.
But I think you should avoid mixing the author's utterance whose structure you want to understand with the sentence that I made in order to understand what the author was talking about.