# は and を



## sandaraqz

Hello. Why do transitive verbs take the particle は  rather than an object marker を?
 脱ぐ nd 食べる are transitive verbs and need the object marker を, but in the following sentences, the particle は is used instead. Why not を? 
制服はもう脱ぐんだ。
りんごはもう食べました。
If it's は used, so the translation would be "the uniform already takes off" and "apples already ate. This sounds strange. Could you shed any light on this matter? What's the role of は in this case?


----------



## Nino83

sandaraqz said:


> What's the role of は in this case?


In Japanese "wa" is the topic particle. The subject particle is "ga".
Often the subject is also the topic, but also other complements can be the topic.
The topic is something we're speaking about, something that is known, that was just introduced into the discourse (similar to the role that the definite article has in Germanic and Romance languages). 　

りんごを食べた。 => Saya sudah makan apel (itu). I ate an/the apple. 　
りんごは食べた。 => Apel itu saya sudah memakannya. (As for) that/the apple, I ate it.


----------



## frequency

sandaraqz said:


> Why do transitive verbs take the particle は rather than an object marker を?


No~ not quite. は is a subject *topic* marker.
は
は as a Japanese topic marker
Japanese grammar § Topic, theme, and subject: は wa and が ga



> If it's は used, so the translation would be "the uniform already takes off" and "apples already ate. This sounds strange.


You're right. They're strange.


> 制服はもう脱ぐんだ。
> りんごはもう食べました。


These are good example where は is used as topic markers.
Guess who will take off the uniform? The hearer will. Guess who ate the apple? You (speaker) did. They're omitted. Therefore, although a bit weird,

_About the uniform, as for the uniform, when it comes to talk about the uniform,_ take it off.
_About the apple, as for the apple, when it comes to talk about the apple,_ I ate it.


Nino83 said:


> Often the subject is also the topic


Yes. For example, 私は中学生です。 This isn't your case in the OP.
(Cross-posted with Nino)


----------



## uchi.m

The topic marker -ha emphasizes what is being addressed. It turns out that the word attached to -ha gets all the attention.

Atarashī tokei wo katte kita. = I *have bought* a new watch.
Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.

The bold parts would be stressed, when spoken, in English.


----------



## Nino83

uchi.m said:


> Atarashī tokei wo katte kita. = I *have bought* a new watch.
> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.
> The bold parts would be stressed, when spoken, in English.



In English it is the new information (the focus) that is stressed, not the old one (i.e the topic).

何を食べた？
*りんごを*食べた。
What did you eat?  
I ate *apples/some apple*.
りんごがテーブルの上にあった。 どこなの？何をしたの？
りんごは、食べた。
There were (some) apples on the table. Where are they? What did you do?
I *ate* the apples. I *ate* them.


----------



## uchi.m

Nino83 said:


> In English it is the new information (the focus) that is stressed, not the old one (i.e the topic).
> 
> 何を食べた？
> *りんごを*食べた。
> What did you eat? I ate *apples/some apple*.
> りんごがテーブルの上にあった。どこですか？何をしたの？
> りんごは、食べた。
> There were (some) apples on the table. Where are they? What did you do?
> I *ate* the apples. I *ate* them.


Please elaborate with the following sentence, then:

Zō ha hana ga nagaku te, hana wo kirei ni shita.


----------



## Nino83

Which is the question? Is it about translation or about stress?


----------



## uchi.m

Both.


----------



## karlalou

uchi.m said:


> The topic marker -ha emphasizes what is being addressed. It turns out that the word attached to -ha gets all the attention.
> 
> Atarashī tokei wo katte kita. = I *have bought* a new watch.
> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.
> 
> The bold parts would be stressed, when spoken, in English.


These are correct. Nino seems to have just misread your 'bold' as 'old'.


----------



## Nino83

I don't know if we're going off-topic (from "topic/focus" to "stress"). 
What have you bought? 
I've bought *a new watch*. (stress on "a new watch") 
How is it in Japanese? 
Nani o katta (no)?
Atarashii tokei *o* katta. 
If I'm not wrong, in this case one cannot say "atarashii tokei wa katta". 

This watch is beautiful. Is it a present?
No. *I bought* this watch. (stress on "I bought") 
In this case which particle is more appropriate? 
Iie. (Kono) Tokei wa katta. 
Iie. (Kono) Tokei o katta.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Iie. Kore* wa* *watashi ga* kaimashita! (or katta mono desu!)


----------



## Nino83

Thanks, SoLaTiDoberman, for the answer. 
This is what I thought too. Generally "o" indicates the new information which is stressed in English while "wa" indicates the old information, which is unstressed in English.


----------



## Flaminius

uchi.m said:


> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.


In fact _atarashii tokē wa_ is understood as definite.


----------



## 810senior

uchi.m said:


> Atarashī tokei wo katte kita. = I *have bought* a new watch.
> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.


The former is quite okay, but the latter sounds weird without any context behind. I reckon that there's more to it.


----------



## uchi.m

The example was as follows,





uchi.m said:


> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.





810senior said:


> The former is quite okay, but the latter sounds weird without any context behind. I reckon that there's more to it.


例に当たる状況の一つは下の様であれば、どう思いますか？

花子: 学校遅くなるよ。さっさと。
太郎: ううん。遅くならないよ。昨日、帰る途中、新しい時計は買ってきた。


----------



## Nino83

As a side note, I asked in the English forum where the sentence stress is, and it is confirmed that in English the stress falls on the word representing the new information.



Spoiler: sentence stress and new information in English



Q: What have you bought?
A: I've bought *that watch*.

Q: Who has bought that watch?
A: *I* have bought that watch.

Q: Do you remember that beautiful watch we saw yesterday? In the end, what have you done?
A: I've *bought* that watch. I've *bought* it.



It would be interesting to know which particles you'd use in Japanese in these cases.


----------



## Flaminius

uchi.m said:


> 花子: 学校遅くなるよ。さっさと。
> 太郎: ううん。遅くならないよ。昨日、帰る途中、新しい時計は買ってきた。


多分こういう意味だろうと私が思う内容を自然な日本語で書き直します:
花子: 学校遅れるよ。はやく。
太郎: ううん、遅れないよ。昨日帰る途中、新しい時計を買ってきたから(分かるんだ)。

会話の中で太郎が時計を買おうとしていたという前提が共有されているようには見えないので、「新しい時計」は不定と解釈するのが自然です。しかし「新しい時計は」という形態は定の解釈を要求します。情報という概念で考えれば、時計は新情報ですが「は」は旧情報としての解釈を強制するので、不適切です。


----------



## Nino83

Is it correct to use "wa" in the following example?

遅れたくなかったら、時計を買わなくては行けない・ 買うほうがいい。
時計は、もう買いました。

As far as I understand, the particle "wa" seems to be similar to the situation where we use a reprise pronoun, for example in left and right dislocations.



Spoiler: examples in italian and English 



_Se non vuoi arrivare in ritardo, dovresti comprare un orologio.
L'orologio l'ho già comprato. L'ho già comprato l'orologio_.

_If you don't want to be late, you should buy a watch_.
_(As for) The watch, I've just bought it._


----------



## karlalou

Nino83 said:


> Is it correct to use "wa" in the following example?
> 
> 遅れたくなかったら、時計を買わなくてはいけない・ 買うほうがいい。
> 時計は、もう買いました。


These are perfect standard Japanese, meaning I already bought a watch.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, karlalou.


----------



## 810senior

Nino83 said:


> Is it correct to use "wa" in the following example?
> 
> 遅れたくなかったら、時計を買わなくては行けない・ 買*った*ほうがいい。
> 時計は、もう買いました。



Perfectly fits in. 
I re-recognize that the Japanese "wa" is _quite _the problem.


----------



## Nino83

Good. 
This reinforces my thought that when the subject is the topic there are no problems (i.e in Indo-European languages the subject is, by default, the topic) while when the direct object is the topic, it corresponds to the left/right dislocations with reprise pronouns in Indo-European languages.
If it is so, I think I can confirm that _ringo wa, tabeta_ is similar to the Indonesian _apel itu, aku sudah memakannya_ (lit. apple the, I just eat-it) (which, in the book "Indonesian Reference Grammar", is called "object-topic" construction, seeing that in Indonesian the topic occupies the pre-verbal position).


----------



## uchi.m

日本語をお書き直し、ありがとうございました。





Flaminius said:


> 多分こういう意味だろうと私が思う内容を自然な日本語で書き直します:
> 花子: 学校遅れるよ。はやく。
> 太郎: ううん、遅れないよ。昨日帰る途中、新しい時計を買ってきたから(分かるんだ)。
> 
> 会話の中で太郎が時計を買おうとしていたという前提が共有されているようには見えないので、「新しい時計」は不定と解釈するのが自然です。しかし「新しい時計は」という形態は定の解釈を要求します。情報という概念で考えれば、時計は新情報ですが「は」は旧情報としての解釈を強制するので、不適切です。


悪いですが、良くわからないのは表現を新・旧情報で区別するのですが、ご説明いただければ嬉しいです。また、「新しい時計は」の定な表現の用例を一つでもいただければ嬉しいです。
ありがとうございました。

Edit:　「新しい時計は」の例はこのようにあげられます：

金子：　新しい時計は、格好いいね。ディズニーで買ってきたの？
陽太：　うん。

「新しい時計は」単なる短文の主語になりますね。「～は」は　Topic marker ではなくて。


----------



## uchi.m

Flaminius said:


> uchi.m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact _atarashii tokē wa_ is understood as definite.
Click to expand...

Would it be correct if I rendered the Japanese sentence as _I have bought the new watch_ instead?


----------



## Nino83

uchi.m said:


> 「新しい時計は」単なる短文の主語になりますね。「～は」は　Topic marker ではなくて。


The topic is something that is just understood, known by the speaker and the hearer, which is most of the time definite.
When you say "o carro quebrou" (lit. the car broke down) we know you're speaking of your car or when you say "a cozinha tá muito suja" (lit. the kitchen is very dirty) you're speaking of the kitchen where we are.
In these cases the old, known information, i.e the topic, is the car, the kitchen, while the new information, i.e the focus, is that the car broke down or that the kitchen is dirty. In this case the subject is the topic.
After dining one could say "le stoviglie le ho lavate", "the dishes, I washed them", "la vaisselle, je l'ai lavée" (we're speaking of the plates we used during this dinner), in this case the direct oject is the topic. At the phone one could say "sto lavando dei piatti", "I'm washing some dishes", "je lave de la vaisselle", replying to the question "what are you doing". In this case, the subject is the topic while the object is the focus.

It would be interesting to know if the Japanese happen to say "sara wa, araimashita" in the first case and "sara o aratte imasu" in the second case.


----------



## uchi.m

Nino83 said:


> It would be interesting to know if the Japanese happen to say "sara wa, araimashita" in the first case and "sara o aratte imasu" in the second case.


That would depend on what you want to drive your focus to, for instance:

Asako: Osara, shamoji, chawan wo aratte kureta?
Yuusuke: Sara ha aratta. Sore igai ha mada.

EDIT: Asking what one is up to,

Erika: Nani yatteru no yo.
Enzō: Sara wo aratte iru.
Erika: Sosokkashī wa ne, mō [genkotsu]

Nino83, I am afraid sentence pitch and loudness stress is not really related to old/new information, but rather with semantic emphasis itself. Please refer to English sentence stress for more information.


----------



## Nino83

I don't know if the relations between stress and topic/focus are partially off-topic. It's up to the moderators to decide.


uchi.m said:


> Nino83, I am afraid sentence pitch and loudness stress is not really related to old/new information, but rather with semantic emphasis itself.


Semantic emphasis is *strongly* related to the old/new information. In your link there is this example: "I asked you to buy me a bunch of red roses".
If the woman who's speaking says: "I asked *you* to buy me a bunch of red roses" she's putting the stress on whom she asked (the question is "*who* was asked to buy a bunch of red roses?", "*who(m)*" is the new information)
If she says: "I asked you to buy me a bunch of *red roses*" she's putting the stress on *what* is to be bought ("*what* is to be bought?", "*what*" is the new information). There are different strategies in order to put emphasis to the new information, and these are: a) stress b) stress + syntax.
direct object focus (emphasis on *what* I bought)
a) stress
I bought *that watch*. (default, new information at the end of the sentence; confirmed here)
*That watch* I bought. (marked construction, the focus is in first position, it is stressed)
b) stress + syntax
*That watch* is what I bought. (cleft sentence, stress on the focus)
It's *that watch* that I bought. (cleft sentence, stress on the focus)
You can find these constructions not only in English, but in Italian and other Romance languages, Slavic languages, Germanic languages.

I think that knowing the relations between stress patterns and topic/focus in IE languages can help (us) understand better the diffference between "wa" and "ga/o".


----------



## karlalou

uchi.m said:


> The topic marker -ha emphasizes what is being addressed. It turns out that the word attached to -ha gets all the attention.
> 
> Atarashī tokei wo katte kita. = I *have bought* a new watch.
> Atarashī tokei ha katte kita. = I have bought a *new watch*.
> 
> The bold parts would be stressed, when spoken, in English.


I agree that in the former sentence, 'have bought' would be stressed when it's the point of the speaker, and that in the latter, the 'ha' is saying "regarding it", so in English 'new watch' is to be stressed.


Nino83 said:


> The topic is something that is just understood, known by the speaker and the hearer, which is most of the time definite.


Yes, because of the nature of it, it might have that tendency, but nothing prevents us from saying
私は新生活に向けて準備を始めました。*時計は*買ったのですが、まだまだいろいろ必要です。
(I started preparing for my new life. I have bought a watch, but still need other things.)
even to a stranger we meet on a bus.

To mean "I have bought the watch", we most likely say *その／あの* 時計は買いました.


----------



## frequency

uchi.m said:


> Asako: Osara, shamoji, chawan wo aratte kureta?
> Yuusuke: Sara ha aratta. Sore igai ha mada.


This is successful.


> 花子: 学校遅くなるよ。さっさと。
> 太郎: ううん。遅くならないよ。昨日、帰る途中、*新しい時計は買ってきた。*


What you're doing here is the same thing in the first one without prior information about the watch. I mean that it doesn't have the prior information as shown in the first one―Osara, shamoji, chawan.


> I *have bought* a new watch.


You're stressing the verb.


> I have bought a *new watch*.


You're stressing the noun.


> Osara, shamoji, chawan wo aratte kureta?
> Sara ha


You're choosing one, and focusing it. This is not stressing.

は wiktionary
1. 主題を示す。文が何について（のみ）語っているか、あるいは何かとの対比を示す。
テレビ*は*よく見る。 - 対象をテレビに限定する。映画を見ないのかもしれない。


----------



## Nino83

karlalou said:


> Yes, because of the nature of it, it might have that tendency, but nothing prevents us from saying


Maybe because the activity you're going to do often requires the object we're speaking about?
For example, if one is going to play tennis it is known that he needs a racket. Is "wa" correct in this context?
A:テニスをしに行きましょう。準備ができていますか。　
B: はい。ラケットは掴んだ。行きましょう。　　
In Italian in these cases we can use the topic-comment structure in which the direct object is the topic.
A: _Andiamo a giocare a tennis. Sei pronto?_ (Let's go to play tennis. Are you ready?)
B: _Sì. La racchetta *l*'ho presa. Andiamo!_　(Yes. The racket I took *it*. Let's go!)


----------



## karlalou

Nino83 said:


> Maybe because the activity you're going to do often requires the object we're speaking about?
> For example, if one is going to play tennis it is known that he needs a racket. Is "wa" correct in this context?
> A:テニスをしに行きましょう。準備ができていますか。
> B: はい。ラケットは掴んだ。行きましょう。
> In Italian in these cases we can use the topic-comment structure in which the direct object is the topic.
> A: _Andiamo a giocare a tennis. Sei pronto?_ (Let's go to play tennis. Are you ready?)
> B: _Sì. La racchetta *l*'ho presa. Andiamo!_　(Yes. The racket I took *it*. Let's go!)


I don't really get how the requirement for an object relates here, but, yes, we would say はい、ラケットは持ちました。さあ、行きましょう, and we say naturally 準備*は*できていますか. Other than that, your sentences are just so natural.


----------



## Schokolade

karlalou said:


> 私は新生活に向けて準備を始めました。*時計は*買ったのですが、まだまだいろいろ必要です。



That は is *the contrastive は*, not the topical は.　



frequency said:


> 何かとの*対比を*示す。
> テレビ*は*よく見る。 - 対象をテレビに限定する。



That's it.
対比＝contrasitve



uchi.m said:


> Yuusuke: Sara *ha* aratta. Sore igai *ha* mada.



These は are also *the contrastive は *(which 明鏡国語辞典 calls as 「『*対比*』と呼ばれる用法」. Also called 取り立て助詞), not the topical は (which 明鏡 calls as 「『主題』『題目』などと呼ばれる用法」).

The part marked by the contrastive は isn't necessarily old/known information (旧情報/既知情報).


----------



## uchi.m

Schokolade said:


> These は are also *the contrastive は *(which 明鏡国語辞典 calls as 「『*対比*』と呼ばれる用法」. Also called 取り立て助詞), not the topical は (which 明鏡 calls as 「『主題』『題目』などと呼ばれる用法」).


Let me give you one more example,

Yōko: Osara wo aratte chōdai.
Mari: Hai.

Later on,

Mari: Osara ha aratte oita!

Is this ha a topic marker? There is not an actual contrast between items in a list, so.


----------



## Schokolade

uchi.m said:


> Mari: Osara ha aratte oita!
> 
> Is this ha a topic marker?



Yes, it's the topical は.


----------



## karlalou

Schokolade said:


> That は is *the contrastive は*, not the topical は.


I don't see how it becomes not the topic marker.
Whether it’s contrasting, all the same, what the は is indicating is the topic of the sentence.


----------



## Nino83

For example Mr. Pikotaro could say something like _pen to painappuru *ga* hoshii_ or _pen *wa* hoshii ga painappuru *wa* hoshikunai (desu)_.


----------



## frequency

uchi.m said:


> There is not an actual contrast between items in a list, so.


uchi, excellent!



Nino83 said:


> ラケットは掴んだ。


Nino, ironically speaking you don't have balls with you.
But note that this is not always. In this case it can cover and mean ラケットを持ちました。This dual functionality is confusing for us, too.


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> In this case it can cover and mean ラケットを持ちました。This dual functionality is confusing for us, too.


Hi! 
I'm not sure whether you're referring to the dual funcionality of the particle "wa" or that of the verb 掴む.


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> A:テニスをしに行きましょう。準備はできていますか。
> B: はい。*ラケットは掴んだ。*行きましょう。


In this case, if you say ラケットは持ちました instead of ラケットを持ちました, it is not horribly wrong and we do this tiny misspeaking. Then we could say that は can work for "I have a racket with me" and "If I talk about a racket, I have only/at least it with me".
The point is that in some cases both ways （ラケットは～、ラケットを～） are okay―it also make us wonder sometimes which we should use.


----------



## Flaminius

I find ラケットは持ちました fine, *frequency*.  Like definite and indefinite markers in other languages, whether or not to use _-wa_ largely depends on how you perceive a given situation.  I assign definiteness to ラケット because a racket is to my mind an associated element for テニスをする to be a meaningful utterance.  In fact 準備 is also an associated element.  In other words, both ラケット and 準備 is part of the mental scheme in which one conceives what it is like to play tennis.  It's not something that I immediately think of on hearing "tennis," but it's clearly something that the speaker A closely associates with playing tennis.  Since the speaker B elaborates on how she is ready for a match, this _-wa_ is a topic marker.

I am still debating what the _-wa_ is in ラケットは持った.  Since no one was going to discuss the racket, it may not be a topic.  Is it the contrastive _-wa_ then?  Maybe it contrasts a racket with other equipments and regards them as paraphernalia?  In other words, if A and B bring rackets with them, they can avail themselves with other things later in the court or do without them.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you frequency, Flaminius.

In my example the speaker B is doing a list of things he must have in order to go to play tennis. Do you happen to think about all you need before doing a specific activity? Something like "Ok, I took this, this and that. I'm ready to go".
It's something like: "I got the racket. The balls too, then we can go". It's not something like "I got the racket but I forgot the balls".
A:テニスをしに行きましょう。準備はできていますか。　
B: はい。ラケットは持ちました。ボールも。行きましょう。　

Is, in this case, "wa" a topic marker? It seems so to me.


----------



## frequency

Yes, in that flow the speaker wants to say "At least I have a racket with me", that works fine of course. That conversation sounded to me like people are going to play tennis without balls. ラケットを持ちました still sounds like that they have balls, too.


Nino83 said:


> B: はい。ラケットは持ちました。ボールも。行きましょう。


Excellent.


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> That conversation sounded to me like people are going to play tennis without balls. ラケットを持ちました still sounds like that they have balls, too.


Ah, ok, that's clear. If I use ラケットは without specifying that I got the balls too, it could seems contrastive like ラケットは持ちました…けど… (as if there were somthing implicit).


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> contrastive like ラケットは持ちました…けど… (as if there were somthing implicit)


Maybe yes. (Sorry let me think about more lol.) And of course context matters a lot.


----------



## Nino83

I made this example because it seems a bit tricky to me. Nobody spoke about rackets or balls, but people need them in order to play tennis, so I thought they could be taken for granted, expecially if  somebody asks you if you're ready.
I asked about it in order to see the limits of the particle "wa", i.e when one can take something for granted, so don't think too much about it. 
(Also in Italian in these cases one can use both contructions. It depends, as Flaminius suggested, on how one perceives the situation).


----------



## uchi.m

frequency said:


> Yes, in that flow the speaker wants to say "At least I have a racket with me", that works fine of course. That conversation sounded to me like people are going to play tennis without balls. ラケットを持ちました still sounds like that they have balls, too.


The feeling that balls were missing may have been caused due to the fact that the topical wa drives all attention to the racket, leaving no room to anything else to be taken into consideration.


----------



## karlalou

sandaraqz said:


> 制服はもう脱ぐんだ。
> りんごはもう食べました。
> If it's は used, so the translation would be "the uniform already takes off" and "apples already ate. This sounds strange. Could you shed any light on this matter? What's the role of は in this case?


It’s just as the English term ‘subject’ is supposed to mean _theme _or _topic _(it’s never the _action receiver_ unless _passive voice_), in Japanese, it’s more so. The Japanese term for ‘subject’ literally translates as ‘main word’ or ‘master word’. The particle は always indicates the ‘main/master word’ to us. It also happens in English when it’s a linking verb like ‘_be_’ or ‘_seem_’ that the subject is not the action maker. Here it’s more apparently ‘_theme_’.

が also indicates the _theme _of the sentence. Sometimes it’s the _action maker_, sometimes it’s the _action taker_.

So, the Japanese ‘*main/master word*’ doesn’t mean the _action maker_ to begin with. Sometimes it’s the action maker, but _it’s not always the case._ It might be funny, but it’s indeed more truly ‘_*subject*_’.


----------



## frequency

uchi.m said:


> the topical wa drives all attention to the racket, leaving no room to anything else to be taken into consideration.


Indeed, in the contrastive は.

Usually, the hearer would think that the speaker has balls too because nobody wants to go tennis without them. So using ラケットは持ちました there isn't odd and we actually (or a bit carelessly) say so―we understand what the speaker wants to say. Sounding like restriction, but not especially intended so, sometimes. If I want to be really sure if we have balls, I will naturally ask ボールは？

In the meaning that the substance you're holding is racket, ラケットは～、ラケットを～ are the same. This is another confusing respect the two have. (The difference between them is that は can add the effect of restriction/focus, though...when I say ラケットは持ちました in that example, I feel as if I'm standing on a subtle borderline. Good example.)


----------

