# とは



## divisortheory

Forgive me for posting a question with very little context, but what does this construction mean?  I have seen it many times throughout the years, but I can't find it any grammar book etc.  It it simply a contraction of と言うことは?  Unfortunately I don't have any concrete examples handy right now, because it was a few weeks ago the last time I saw it.  But it's just something that's always been nagging me, so I thought I would ask.


----------



## lammn

It is particle と + particle は.
Depending on the context, it can have different meanings.

Sometimes とは means というのは. In such case, と is the quotation marker, while は is the topic marker. The construction AとはB roughly means "the so-called A is B". It is a very handful usage where you can search the meaning of a certain word by typing ~とは.

I think と言うことは belongs to a different category.  I wonder if と言うことは could be contracted to とは at all.


----------



## Aoyama

Lammn is right.
And if you go further, you'll see that と[言うこと]は is just an "idiosyncratical expression", close to "well"... You may also have と言うと ... with a similar meaning.


----------



## Arui Kashiwagi

Interestingly, my dictionary (広辞苑 4th Ed., which is one of the most famous JP-JP dictionaries) doesn't have an entry for "とは". But newer dictionaries categorize it as a *collocation* (=連語) that consists of two particles.
http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/159809/m0u/とは/


----------



## divisortheory

lammn said:


> It is particle と + particle は.
> Depending on the context, it can have different meanings.
> 
> Sometimes とは means というのは. In such case, と is the quotation marker, while は is the topic marker. The construction AとはB roughly means "the so-called A is B". It is a very handful usage where you can search the meaning of a certain word by typing ~とは.
> 
> I think と言うことは belongs to a different category.  I wonder if と言うことは could be contracted to とは at all.



Thanks for your explanation.  Would you mind giving couple basic example sentences?  Also I'll give an example:

Recently I was wondering whether or not you can use the word 強い when talking about 地震の力.  This is while I was already already talking with someone about the word 強い.  So I asked them, 強いとは地震について使えますか。 Is this correct/incorrect usage?


----------



## Aoyama

地震の力, as a translation of "earthquake strength", is a bit strange in Japanese.
Japanese would use 地震度は強い/okii or magnitude (sorry, can't really type Japanese with this PC).
But this being said 強いとは地震について使えますか makes sense. You can very well say that kono 地震は強い.


----------



## lammn

divisortheory said:


> lammn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes とは means というのは. In such case, と is the quotation marker, while は is the topic marker. The construction AとはB roughly means "the so-called A is B". It is a very handful usage where you can search the meaning of a certain word by typing ~とは.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind giving couple basic example sentences?
Click to expand...

 
Well, you can google a lot of those sentences from the web: 

震度とはある地点での、地震による揺れの度合いを大きさで分類したものです。
(The so-called "shindo" is ...)
愛とは、崇高なものから、恋愛、そして欲望に至るまで様々な意味で用いられる概念である。
(Love is ...)


----------



## akimura

divisortheory said:


> 強いとは地震について使えますか。 Is this correct/incorrect usage?


 
I'm afraid it sounds a little weird.  Due to verb structure, word order, and meaning  issues, I could come up with the following correct examples with minimum  change:

「強い」と*は*地震について*使えます*か。
「強い」*とは*地震について*言えます*か。

The use of とは here falls into definition 1 of 大辞泉.  Incidentally, the sentences that lammn has collected for us fall into its second definition.

On the side note, I would probably choose to say in spoken Japanese:
(A) 地震*は*「強い」*って*言いますか。(conversation with colleagues)
(B) 地震は「強い」と言いますか。(official occasion)
(C) 「強い」*って*地震について*は*使えますか。(conversation with colleagues)
(D) 「強い」*という形容詞は*地震について使えますか。(This is probably the one that comes out of my mouth the most naturally whether I'm at an official occasion or in conversation with collegues)



Aoyama said:


> 地震の力, as a translation of "earthquake strength", is a bit strange in Japanese



Yes.  Meanwhile, 地震の力 as a translation of "the power of the earthquake" works just fine as in:地震の力とは恐ろしいものだ。
(Note that the use of とは here falls into the second definition of 大辞泉.)
​


----------



## Aoyama

But then, I think 地震力 (ryoku) would be better than 地震の力 (chikara) ...


----------



## akimura

Aoyama said:


> But then, I think 地震力 (ryoku) would be better than 地震の力 (chikara) ...



Well, I have never heard of the word 地震力（じしんりょく） before.  So I did a quick web search and found that it's a technical terminology used in the construction industry.  The link I found is here.  地震力 seems to be _seismic force_.  

So I'm afraid 地震の力 should be the one, as the translation of the "power of the earthquake", in my example sentence.  It didn't mean to cover a very specialized technical issue.  It means a generic power of the earthquake that ordinary people faces, like the one that people around the world has seen since March 11.


----------



## Aoyama

> 地震力 seems to be _seismic force_


absolutely, which is the expression used in English (rather than _strengh of the earthquake_, which is also possible, with a slightly different nuance).


----------

