というのであれば

thetazuo

Senior Member
Chinese - China
1.放課後。一度帰路に就いた折紙は一人、来禅高校へと戻ってきていた。
理由は一つ。下校している途中、いつもつけている髪飾りがなくなっていることに気ついたのである。
別に小さなピン一つ、なくしたところでさしたる痛手にはならないのだがーーそれは昔母に買ってもらったものであるというのであれば話は別だった。

2.まあ普通の女の子が対象、というのであれば間違いなくそちらが正解だ。

Hi. Could you help me understand the expression というのであれば? It seems we can just say ものであれば and 対象であれば respectively in those texts. What would be difference between というのであれば and であれば? Is the というの used for emphasizing some feelings? Or is というのであれば subjunctive mood?

Thank you.
 
  • Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    Whatever conjunction would be used, the clause is conditional only in form, but avtually is the basis of a judgment. It is not a subjunctive. The speakers of the two sentences arrive at respective conclusions, based on the grounds previously indicated in the sentence.

    Now, why such a big conjunction as toyūnodeareba is used? Factor number one, stylistics. This is a type of conjunctions more often used in formal texts such as business talks. This is unlikely in your examples as they seem to be soliloquies. Factor number two, a careful procession of logical sequences. This means one goes carefully through each logical step before reaching the conclusion. This is slightly more likely than the first. Factor number three, personal preference. Sometimes, novelists bring to their stories their own preference of words. This happens a lot when the author writes like they speak, and the editorship is not careful enough to weed out idiosyncrasies.
     

    thetazuo

    Senior Member
    Chinese - China
    Thank you.
    The speakers of the two sentences arrive at respective conclusions, based on the grounds previously indicated in the sentence.
    Do you mean the part before というのであれば is a conclusion?

    And is というのであれば the same as というのなら?
     

    Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    What comes before the conjunction is the basis of a judgment. Your sentences are in form:
    If A, then B.
    The B is a judgment. I chose to call A the basis, not the condition, because the veracity of A is pretty solid. In terms of logic, what the sentence does is modus ponens, or getting B out of A and A → B.
     
    Last edited:
    Top