A noun with two modifying clauses

foreevermore

New Member
English - American
I need to have 象町に住んでいる and 他の動物に会いたがる both modifying 象。

Which is grammatically correct:

Now, if combine them by using -て form:
象町に住んでいて他の動物に会いたがる象です。
Is it understood that (象町に住んでいる)is referring to 像?
It seems to me that it would read something like:
independent clause [象の町に住んでいる] + て + independent clause [(modifying clause-動物に会いたがる) + 象 + です。]
Instead of
[modifying clause(象の町に住んでいる)+ modifying clause (他の動物に会いたがる)]象+です。
Suggestions?

Or would you not use ーて form and just separate them by a comma:
象町に住んでいる、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

Or should I use stem form:
象町に住み、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

Which is more clear?
 
  • Wishfull

    Senior Member
    Japanese
    Hello.
    I can't understand. Please show your Japanese's meaning in English.
    What is "zou-machi". Is it the name of the town? or Is it "elephants town" ?
    Then what is elepahnt town? Is it the area where wild elephants live?

    He is an elephant, who lives in elephants town, and also wants to meet other animal.

    ???? Would you explain more about the background?

    I think your three sentences are gramatically correct equally, but I don't know the context's meaning.
    Is it a nursery tale? If so, I can understand well.
    And if so, you should say "zou-no-machi" rather than "zou-machi."
     
    Last edited:

    Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    As mentioned by Wishfull, all three renditions have the noun is the subject for the two clauses.

    It seems to me that it would read something like:
    independent clause [象の町に住んでいる] + て + independent clause [(modifying clause-動物に会いたがる) + 象 + です。]
    Instead of
    [modifying clause(象の町に住んでいる)+ modifying clause (他の動物に会いたがる)]象+です。
    The second one is the more natural understanding even without any context. I am not 100% sure why this happens but the first interpretation is usually avoided. Is it that two implied subjects are one too many?
     

    Starfrown

    Senior Member
    English - US
    1. 象の町に住んでいて、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    2. 象の町に住んでいる、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    3. 象の町に住み、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    This topic also interests me a great deal. I would like to ask Flaminius to elaborate a bit on his above response. Could you please explain the relative acceptabilities of the above three sentences? What differences in meaning can you see among them?
     

    Flaminius

    coclea mod
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    As mentioned by Wishfull, all three renditions have the noun elephant as the subject for the two clauses.
    It seems to me that it would read something like:
    independent clause [象の町に住んでいる] + て + independent clause [(modifying clause-動物に会いたがる) + 象 + です。]
    Instead of
    [modifying clause(象の町に住んでいる)+ modifying clause (他の動物に会いたがる)]象+です。
    The second one is the more natural understanding even without any context. I am not 100% sure why this happens but the first interpretation is usually avoided. Is it that two implied subjects are one too many?
    The first one has two implied subjects:
    Someone lives in Zōmachi and someone else is an elephant wanting to see other animals.

    The second one has only one hidden subject:
    Someone is an elephant who lives Zōmachi and wants to ....

    Indeed -te can link sentences whose verbs have different subjects. But an interpretation like the first sentence is impossible (I think) in subordinate clauses. Off the top of my head, I think two unspecified subject is one too many.

    1. 象の町に住んでいて、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    2. 象の町に住んでいる、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    3. 象の町に住み、他の動物に会いたがる象です。

    This topic also interests me a great deal. I would like to ask Flaminius to elaborate a bit on his above response. Could you please explain the relative acceptabilities of the above three sentences? What differences in meaning can you see among them?
    Sentences 1, 3 are very common and regular construction. No. 3 is more formal.
    Sentence 2: The -ru ending clearly marks the end of a relative clause. In a short sentence it creates an unnecessary interruption of the flow but in a long sentence it serves as a sign, "Wait for the antecedent (well, postcedent) to turn up."
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top