Hi, here are some remaining sentences from a text that has given me many problems....
1. 昼と夜、つまり公人と個人の生活のけじめがはっきりし ていること。
My translation: "The distinction between day and evening -- that is, between a person's public (i.e. working) and personal lives -- ought to be clearly marked."
Is that right? Does こと give a sense like "ought to"?
2. Next sentence: 八時か九時という夜ごはんの時間帯。
My translation: "Eight or nine in the evening is the time for dinner."
Again, this seems to be a sentence without a main verb, and I am therefore unsure of its overall purpose. Is my translation a reasonable interpretation? Is this sentence to be considered an abbreviated form of a fuller sentence with a main verb?
3. パリ市内の小ささによる交通の使。
a) The first part looks to me like "Due to Paris' small size", but although I guess almost anywhere seems small compared to Tokyo, it seems a stretch to call Paris in any way "small". Is 市内 qualifying this statement in some way that I'm missing?
b) I don't understand 交通の使. Is it saying something about ease of intercourse? Again, I am hampered by the fact that this seems not to be a full sentence, and I do not understand its overall purpose.
4. 自分のふところ具合でのもてなしの仕方であること。
My translation: "Hospitality should be carried out within one's economic means."
OK? Again, I'm assuming こと is "should", so if I have that wrong then I have the whole purpose of this section wrong...
5. 家庭的なおかずという代物が、意外に、手早く、ダイナ ミックに出来るということ。
My translation: "Family-related topics of conversation should be able to appear unexpectedly, readily and dynamically."
a) Does おかず mean something like "topic of conversation" or is it referring to side dishes?
b) I am a bit confused by the mention of 家庭的な since the text so far has been talking about socialising with friends. How does 家庭的な fit with that theme?
6. 早い話が、サラダと肉の焼いたのでもすまされるわけで 、まごまごしないですむからだ。
I have no idea what this means, not even a guess.
Reading through your quotations, it seems like that the writer lists the advantages in having a home party in Paris comparing to Tokyo. If so, こと(and the other nouns at the end of the phrases) means "fact"; a fact that the distinction between day and evening is clear, for instance.
3) a)
"Central Paris" doesn't make sense?
b)
Isn't that 交通の便?
5) a)
The latter, side dishes.
5) b), 6)
It seems to me that the writer is talking about when entertaining friends with homemade meals in a home party.
OK, I'm going to give this a shot, with the background that it's a list of things that make throwing a party better in Paris than Tokyo.
昼と夜、つまり公人と個人の生活のけじめがはっきりし ていること。
That day and night, in other words, public and private life and clearly separated.
八時か九時という夜ごはんの時間帯。
The 8:00 or 9:00 time that dinner is had.
パリ市内の小ささによる交通の便。(I think it's 便 too)
The public transportation by the smallness of Paris. (OK, that doesn't make sense. I really don't get this one.)
自分のふところ具合でのもてなしの仕方であること。
That entertaining guests is done according to one's budget.
家庭的なおかずという代物が、意外に、手早く、ダイナ ミックに出来るということ。
That family-type snacks are done as unexpectedly, quickly, and dynamically as possible.
早い話が、サラダと肉の焼いたのでもすまされるわけで 、まごまごしないですむからだ。
In short, because won't be thrown off since everything's settled with salad and cooked meat. (I really don't get the サラダと肉の焼いたのでも part at all...)
Avoid Mojibake! -- 文字化けを避ける！
Jim Breen's online dictionary and kanji lookup
Dictionary at Goo -- English-Japanese, Japanese-English, Japanese Language
Weblio -- Multiple Japanese dictionary and encyclopedia simultaneous lookup
Lang-8 -- Have native speakers correct your writing!
便 means "convenience" here.
サラダと肉の焼いたの has a nuance of "only salad and just sauteed meat", i.e., simple dishes.
Here's my interpretation.
パリ市内の小ささによる交通の便。
Paris is 'smaller' in size comapred with Tokyo.
This site can be interesting.
東京の大きさ│MID-TOKYO MAPS│森ビル株式会社 - MORI Building
便 means convenience.
パリ市内の小ささによる交通の便（がいいこと）
It takes less time to go from one place to another in Paris (compared with Tokyo).
サラダと肉の焼いたの should mean salad and steak.
It's everyday meal in France and it is not necessary to prepare something special (for parties.)
--- edit ---
Oh, Toritoribe san beat me again! Ha ha.
Aaahh, OK. So if I were to replace the two のs in the last one, could I say サラダと肉が焼いたもの and pretty much keep the meaning in tact?
---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------
Wow. Tokyo's pretty big. I wonder how it compares with all five boroughs of New York. It looks like the 山手線 is twice as large as London and Paris each, though.
The last の indeed is a pronoun and therefore can be replaced with もの, but the first の is the one to indicate the object, i.e., を.
肉の焼いたもの/肉を焼いたもの
Really? I think this is the first time I'm hearing of の being used for を. I think that's why I just thought it should be が and completely forgot about the 焼く/焼ける transitive/intransitive pair (and which was which). Are there other examples of の for を? This strikes me as really strange.
I think it's relatively common.
紙の丸めたの（紙を丸めたもの/丸めた紙）を投げた。
プラモデルの組み立てたの（プラモデルを組み立てたもの/組み立てたプラモデル）が置いてあった。
タルトの上に桃の切ったの（桃を切ったもの/切った桃）が敷き詰めてある。
I see. So in these cases I suppose the first の goes with the second の, and not with the verb. Is this a new thing?
Thanks everyone. Having brought my magnifying glass into action, I can see that yes it is of course 交通の便, which makes a lot more sense.
I don't recall seeing の for を before either...
Are there contexts where こと at the end of a sentence really can mean "ought to" or "should", or did I make that up?
Can anyone shed any more light on these verbless sentences? Although I think I understand the basic meanings now, I still don't really understand the reason for not having a main verb. Do they have a staccato or abbreviated feel as they would in English? Is it a special choice that the author has made to create a certain stylistic effect, or is it a routine and unremarkable sentence form?
No, you did not make that up. For example: 大会役員は午前８時３０分、選手は９時４５分までに会場に集合のこと。
They're just missing だ in the examples above. I think it's fair to say they have a staccato or abbreviated feel. That's how they feel to me, anyway.Originally Posted by eeky
I don't think so. の as the meaning を is common. See the following examples.
客のもてなし（客をもてなすこと）
挨拶の依頼（挨拶を依頼すること）
金銭の授受（金銭を受け渡すこと）
The former nouns 客, 挨拶, 金銭 are the objects of the latter verbal nouns もてなし, 依頼, 授受. The difference is the abstruct concepts こと vs. the conclete things もの.
How about to think that the writer is just listing the advantages? Isn't it common also in English to list nouns?
There are advantages in Paris comparing to Tokyo; 1. the fact that he distinction between ~, 2. the time for dinner that~, 3. the convenience.....
These are different, though, because they are nouns, whereas 焼いた is not. That's where I'm having a problem understanding it. Saying 挨拶の依頼 is perfectly fine to me, and I've heard this pattern a lot. It also stands on its own. Saying 肉の焼いた is not something I've ever heard and doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can say 挨拶の依頼だ, can't I? But I can't say 肉の焼いた. That's where the confusion is coming in.
You should think it as 肉の焼いたの/焼いたもの, and not 肉の焼いた.
Alright. This is going to take some time for me to get my head around, though. Is there any particular advantage in saying it that way, rather than use を? It seems like it would be so much clearer with を...
肉を焼いたの can mean 肉を焼いたこと, i.e., an action to saute meat, whereas 肉の焼いたの clearly refers to a sauteed meat.
野菜より先に肉を焼いたのは誰？順番間違ってるよ。
I see. Well, almost. It makes sense that it could be said that way now, at least.
By the way, I like your example sentence, but I thought 焼く meant "bake", not "saute". So I checked the 'pedia, and found out it actually refers to a lot of different culinary techniques:
Wikipedia -- 焼く（調理）
I just keep learning new things from this thread.
---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------
By the way, eeky, I found another use of こと as a command on that very Wikipedia page: 下記を参照のこと。
Yeah, I too thought what the most appropriate verb for 焼く in this case in English was, and checked a dictionary."Grill" maybe fit, too?
Yeah, according to the article, "roast", "bake", "toast", and "grill" all work. I wonder what cooking meat over an open flame without any 熱媒 is called in English. Roasting, maybe? Like chestnuts roasting over an open fire? Hmm...
Put like that, I guess so. I think I had rather lost track of the overall context of this part. If I can recap:
それなら、なぜ、パリにいるとき、日本へ帰ったら、ひ とつ、と思うのであろう。昼と夜、つまり公人と個人の 生活のけじめがはっきりしていること。八時か九時とい う夜ごはんの時間帯。パリ市内の小ささによる交通の便 。・・・・
Are we saying the first sentence means "In that case, I wonder why, when I'm in Paris, I think it would be good to return to Tokyo", and then she goes on to list the advantages of Paris, these being reasons why it would not be so good, after all, to return to Tokyo? Is that right?
Well, to Japan, but I guess she's from Tokyo, so in that sense it's right. Otherwise I believe you're understanding it right. At least, that's how I'm understanding it.
Sorry, I meant Japan...
The most common image of 肉を焼く in Japanese would be フライパンで焼く, I believe. That's why I chose "saute".
The first sentence means "I wonder why I think 'if I return to Japan(, it would be good to call lots of friends...)", as I wrote here, and not "it would be good to return to Japan".
Those are the lists of the reason why the writer thinks that an home party is easier to have in Paris than Japan, i.e., the reason why she thinks "I'm going to have a home party if I return to Tokyo" in Paris. (Actually, those are also the reasons why it's hard to have a home party in Japan.)
Posting Permissions
Digg
Del.icio.us
Technorati
Twitter
*I love 
