に死の鉄槌を

< Previous | Next >

thetazuo

Senior Member
Chinese - China
「まあ他の理由は『女の子に興味なさそう』『ぶっちゃけホモっぽい』だったが」
「謂われなき中傷に死の鉄槌を!」
「まあ落ち着けって。『腐女子が選んだ校内ベストカップル』では、俺とセットでベスト2にランクインしているぞ」

Hi. Dear teachers.
With the underlined part, is the word 下す omitted after 鉄槌を? Can I translate the second sentence as “I’ll bring down the hammer on that unreasonable slander!”?
More importantly, why can we omit 下す? Is it common to end a sentence with を in Japanese?
Thank you.
 
  • Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    The "omitted" word right after tettsui-o is not 下す. It could be any verb but the sense is not, "I shall do this or that." It is less personal, "There shall be," "someone should bring down," or "let's bring down," and so on. Common slogans in demonstrations use this construction as shorthand for imperative: 〇〇大臣は辞任を, 汚染企業は補償を.

    A seasonal greeting uses the same as wish-making: よいお年を.
    The full sentence is thought to be よいお年をお迎えください, which is also used.

    The o-termination is, I must say, somewhat formal. Your text apparently uses it in jest.
     

    thetazuo

    Senior Member
    Chinese - China
    Thank you, Mr. F. So can I translate the three sentences as follows?
    1. 謂われなき中傷に死の鉄槌を!(Let’s bring down the hammer of death on the unreasonable slander!)
    2. 〇〇大臣は辞任を (We demand that XX Minister resign)
    3. 汚染企業は補償を (We demand that polluting enterprises compensate)

    And generally, this imperative construction ended with を means “Let’s do A to B” and what the verb “do” stands for depends on the context, right?
     

    kanadaaa

    Senior Member
    Japanese (Tokai)
    With the underlined part, is the word 下す omitted after 鉄槌を? Can I translate the second sentence as “I’ll bring down the hammer on that unreasonable slander!”?
    More importantly, why can we omit 下す? Is it common to end a sentence with を in Japanese?
    As Flaminius says, it doesn't seem like a matter of omission, but rather it seems to me that this is just a sentence fragment, or some kind of a nominal phrase that is used kind of like an interjection.
    So the literal translation would be something like "Death hammers to that unreasonable slander".
    Translating it to make it more comprehensible, it means "That unreasonable slander ought to be ashamed, and those who ignited it deserve death".
    2. 〇〇大臣は辞任を (We demand that XX Minister resign)
    3. 汚染企業は補償を (We demand that polluting enterprises compensate)
    You can't treat those as the same as 1.
    2 and 3 can be interpreted as しろ is omitted, but it's clearly not the case in 1.
    This is natural because 1 is by nature not associated with any verb or verb omission.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top