珍しいなと思っていたら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました

[theseus_]

Context:
夜ご飯を食べて、キッチンを少し掃除しました。旦那さんがハーゲンダッツを買ってきてくれたので今から食べます。珍しいなと思っていたら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。


1) Through the author's explanation, I know the person who went out to drink with friends is the author's husband.

I suppose the husband bought his wife the Häagen-Dazs ice cream as compensation for wenting out to drink, so the subject of "飲みに行きました" should be the husband, does it make sense?

Is there a obvious mark to identify who is the subject of "すぐに友達と飲みに行きました" in grammar？


2) I guess "今から食べます" can also be present tense and future tense.

Does the author ate the ice cream while she was writing the diary? Or she was about to eat?

 

[gengo]

夜ご飯を食べて、キッチンを少し掃除しました。旦那さんがハーゲンダッツを買ってきてくれたので今から食べます。珍しいなと思っていたら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。

Is there a obvious marker to identify who is the subject of "すぐに友達と飲みに行きました" in grammar？

No. We can only intuit the intended meaning from the context.

2) I guess "今から食べます" can also be present tense and future tense.

Does Did the author ate eat the ice cream while she was writing the diary? Or she was about to eat?

It means that she will eat the ice cream as soon as she finishes writing her diary.

We had dinner, and I cleaned up the kitchen a bit. My husband brought home some Häagen-Dazs, so I'll have that in a while. I was thinking that it was strange for him to do this, and sure enough, he went out drinking with a friend right after dinner.

The implication is that the husband rarely does such small kindnesses for his wife, which made her suspicious that he had an ulterior motive (下心).

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

Is there a obvious mark to identify who is the subject of "すぐに友達と飲みに行きました" in grammar？

1.珍しいなと思いながら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻
2.珍しいなと思いつつも、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻
3.珍しいなと思っていたら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> ダンナ
4.珍しいなと思い、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻

I believe the bold part can be functioning as the so-called obvious marker.
In 1, 2, and 4, the subject who went for a drink must be the wife, although it is weird from the context.

3' いつも月初めから来るものが来なかったので珍しいなと思っていたら、妊娠していました。--> 妻　またはココちゃん
---> やはり文脈次第ですかな。

2) I guess "今から食べます" can also be present tense and future tense.

Does the author ate the ice cream while she was writing the diary? Or she was about to eat?

I think "今から食べます" is always the future tense, from the practical viewpoint.
If you want to describe it in the present tense, it would be 今食べています　今、食べているところです, which is literally the "present-progressive" tense in English.

 

[theseus_]

It means that she will eat the ice cream as soon as she finishes writing her diary.

We had dinner, and I cleaned up the kitchen a bit. My husband brought home some Häagen-Dazs, so I'll have that in a while. I was thinking that it was strange for him to do this, and sure enough, he went out drinking with a friend right after dinner.

The implication is that the husband rarely does such small kindnesses for his wife, which made her suspicious that he had an ulterior motive (下心).

Thanks for correcting me about the wrong tense, and giving the translation!
Now I completely understand why the wife thougt it was strange with your explanation.

1.珍しいなと思いながら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻
2.珍しいなと思いつつも、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻
3.珍しいなと思っていたら、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> ダンナ
4.珍しいなと思い、すぐに友達と飲みに行きました。--> 妻

I believe the bold part can be functioning as the so-called obvious marker.
In 1, 2, and 4, the subject who went for a drink must be the wife, although it is weird from the context.

Thanks!
I realize for the first time that "たら" can mark a change of the subject.

I think "今から食べます" is always the future tense, from the practical viewpoint.
If you want to describe it in the present tense, it would be 今食べています　今、食べているところです, which is literally the "present-progressive" tense in English.

Thanks again!
The explanation helps me to deepen my understanding about "ます" and "ている".

3' いつも月初めから来るものが来なかったので珍しいなと思っていたら、妊娠していました。--> 妻　またはココちゃん
---> やはり文脈次第ですかな。

Ps.
Can "うさぎのココちゃん" have "女の子のあれ"?😱 Maybe I don't see it was just for fun?

 

[SoLaTiDoberman]

Ps.
Can "うさぎのココちゃん" have "女の子のあれ"?😱 Maybe I don't see it was just for fun?

Sorry. I was wrong, scientifically.
I thought every female mammal had the menstration because a female dog had it.
However, the mightly Google's search taught me that a female rabbit doesn't have menstration. Therefore, even when ココちゃん's gender was female, she couldn't have it. There are two types of female mammals that have or don't have the menstration. I just learned.

Therefore, the only possible person or animal as the subject of the sentence would be the wife, the writer, according to the context.
I just wanted to show every posibility of the subject being somebody or something else just in case, but I was wrong. Sorry.

It might have had the connotation of a joke, of course, but I was basically serious.

 

[theseus_]

I thought every female mammal had the menstration because a female dog had it.
However, the mightly Google's search taught me that a female rabbit doesn't have menstration. Therefore, even when ココちゃん's gender was female, she couldn't have it. There are two types of female mammals that have or don't have the menstration. I just learned.

Therefore, the only possible person or animal as the subject of the sentence would be the wife, the writer, according to the context.
I just wanted to show every posibility of the subject being somebody or something else just in case, but I was wrong. Sorry.

It might have had the connotation of a joke, of course, but I was basically serious.

Many thanks for replies!
Actually, before I saw your last reply and googled it, I never knew that female rabbits don't have menstration.

Now I have learned there are multiple possibilities of the subject in that "たら" sentence.