# 前世で因縁 vs 前世の因縁



## thetazuo

なぜか彼女の体格ーーというか主に胸部ーーを見ていると、遥か昔に受けた耐えがたい屈辱を思い出すかのような感覚に囚われた。......前世*で*因縁でもあったのだろうか。

Hi. How should I understand the bold *で*? Why not 前世*の*因縁?

Thank you.


----------



## Flaminius

Usually, nouns of time take _-ni_ for the postposition, but 前世 is predominantly used with _-de_.  I don't know why but:
前世で会ったことがある > 前世に会ったことがある
来世でお会いしましょう > 来世にお会いしましょう

前世の因縁 is possible but it'd be used with a verb in the non-past form:
前世の因縁でもあるのだろうか。


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.
So is this 因縁でもあった a combination of 因縁+でも+あった, rather than 因縁であった+も?

And doesn’t 前世 refer to a place (世界) rather than time? And I understand your examples, but I am more familiar with the pattern 「AにBがある」since に indicates the place where B exists while で is for the place where an action takes place. That’s why I think 前世に因縁でもあった is more correct. Do you mean when it comes to 前世 this particular word, 「AでBがある」is preferred than 「AにBがある」for the place where B exists?


----------



## Flaminius

thetazuo said:


> And doesn’t 前世 refer to a place (世界) rather than time?


I am perhaps feeling really pedantic, but it is more accurate to say that 前世 and 来世 manifest themselves in the Japanese language as metaphors of place.  A linguistic enquiry of this level need no be concerned with the ontology of supernatural concepts.



thetazuo said:


> since に indicates the place where B exists while で is for the place where an action takes place


This sounds so familiar that I can trace the source.    In fact, 因縁 is an action noun meaning to encounter in such a way that either of the parties leaves the scene unsatisfied.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again. I see. I didn’t know 因縁 was an action noun.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

前世*で,　[*因縁でもあったのだろうか］。

*⇔［前世の因縁］*でもあったのだろうか。

Both are correct.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, SLTD. So unlike Flaminius, you think the でもあった is a combination of であった and も, rather than でも(a substitute for が)+あった, don’t you?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

edit) I think Flaminius's explanation is better and more accurate.

I felt that で version was more natural in this context, although の version could be possible if*［前世の因縁］* part was regarded as one phrase.  And yes, it should have been better if it was written in the present tense.
Yet, I don't think the の version is grammatically wrong or doesn't make sense. Both are correct, or at least both are acceptable.

I don't understand #7. I don't know what you're talking about, yet, probably I don't agree with you.
I basically agree with Flaminius.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again. I see. I just mean you both think the でも in 因縁*でも*あった is used in the same way as in お茶*でも*飲みませんか。, right?

But in another context, for example,
Sentence ending with でもあった


> だがその偶然はあらかじめ決められていた世界の意志でもあった。


Unlike the OP example, this でもあった is a combination of だった and も.

That’s what I meant.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Make anther thread, because what you're asking is not the original question of #1.
And I do not want to answer to your new questions, which might continue endlessly.


----------

