# 我が腕をして閃光とならん



## kuuzoku

Hi,
大気満たす力震え, 我が腕をして閃光とならん! 無双稲妻突き！ 

"をして" refers to doing a "skill" not "arm", right? 

"とならん" shortened version of とならない. But it's usage seems different that doesn't amount /to doesn't become?

The second part of the first sentence is confusing me. 

Thank you.


----------



## Flaminius

I suspect 我が腕をして閃光とならん is an ungrammatical attempt at a causative "I shall make my harms a flash".

The part Nをして is usually part of a classical Japanese construction for causative:
N-o shite V (irrealis form)-shimu — make N do V

I am not 100% sure because this is about historical Japanese, but the _-shimu_ part may or may not be replaced by other elements connoting causative.  If so, one way of salvaging the sentence is to use なる, a causative counterpart of なる:
我が腕をして閃光となさん

Any which way, ならん is the irrealis form of なる with ん (historically written む), a suffix of volition, hortative, and forecast; having nothing to do with causative.


----------



## kuuzoku

Hello, Flaminius, thank you for the response. However, I do have a follow-up question. 

You wrote:

"one way of salvaging the sentence is to use なる, a causative counterpart of なる: 我が腕をして閃光となさん"

Did you mean use "なさる"? instead of "なる"

Thank you. Also, to make sure I understood correctly, modern ならん would be なろう, correct?


----------



## Flaminius

Oh oh, it is an apparent typo.  I meant to write なす.  It is in active use but nowadays we use _N-ni suru_ more frequently.

なさる is an honorific する, thus not fitting here.


----------



## rukiak

kuuzoku said:


> Hi,
> 大気満たす力震え, 我が腕をして閃光とならん! 無双稲妻突き！
> 
> "をして" refers to doing a "skill" not "arm", right?
> 
> "とならん" shortened version of とならない. But it's usage seems different that doesn't amount /to doesn't become?
> 
> The second part of the first sentence is confusing me.
> 
> Thank you.



I think をして refers to "my arm(s)" because in this context, the 突き will be made by the person's arm(s).

ならん -->ならむ（not ならぬ）in old Japanese.
む adds the meaning "I guess", "I expect" or "It will".


----------



## kuuzoku

どうもありがとうございます.


----------



## rukiak

I guess this is kind of a magical thing, not just a skill of spear (or sword, or martial art? ).

So, the phrase "大気満たす力震え, 我が腕をして閃光とならん! " is a spell and means: The power pervading the atmosphere shall tremble and ,with my arm, turn into a flash of lightning!


----------



## kuuzoku

Hello, yes you are right. It is something said before the person used a sword move.


----------



## Flaminius

rukiak said:


> I think をして refers to "my arm(s)" because in this context, the 突き will be made by the person's arm(s).


I am not sure what you mean by "refer", but is 閃光とならん grammatical according to your interpretation?


----------



## rukiak

It is difficult to explain things like magic, but I''ll try.
In magical stories or video games, a spell is used to cause a big magic. At that time, the magician just recites the spell to ask some God, Devil, or the nature for a big favor.
The Magician himself is like a observer or catalyst.

In kuuzoku's context, 我が腕 is kind of a holder or catalyst. 
And 大気満たす力震え, 我が腕をして閃光とならむ! is a spell to make a wish to something happen.
Here, む seems to mean that "相手の動作についてその実現を期待する（勧誘、軽い命令）・・・するのがよい。・・・してほしい。" written in Koujien, at the section of む（助動詞）. 閃光となれ must be a synonym.

Of course, we can also see phrases like "閃光となす" in some stories, but having the other meaning.


----------



## Flaminius

Hi,

Sorry, but I still don't get you.  It is not 閃光とならん per se that I am asking about but its relation to 我が腕をして.  Honestly I don't know any use をして other than in the causative construction.

You wrote "我が腕 is kind of a holder or catalyst." If, however, it becomes (_naru_) 閃光, does it not constitute a change that a catalyst does not undergo by definition?


----------



## rukiak

I'll try to explain more. 
In the sentence, をして indicates the object that is used, or ordered.
Old Japanese is used. There are some explanation in Koujienn,at the section "して".
>if it becomes (naru) 閃光
No. My arm doesn't become 閃光. That's not the subject.

The subject is a kind of super-powers, like the power of the nature, or maybe power of Gods or Devils.

The power is supposed to become "閃光" with using my hand. 

And more, the spell is "大気満たす力震え, 我が腕をして閃光とならむ!" in this case, but it could be "大気満たす力震え,閃光とならむ!" in another case. The later one still makes sense as a spell. The laler one means "The power pervading the atmosphere shall tremble and turn into a flash of lightning!" or "I order that the power pervading the atmosphere shall tremble and turn into a flash of lightning!".
So "我が腕をして" is not a key here.


----------



## Flaminius

rukiak said:


> In the sentence, をして indicates the object that is used, or ordered.
> Old Japanese is used. There are some explanation in Koujienn,at the section "して".
> >if it becomes (naru) 閃光
> No. My arm doesn't become 閃光. That's not the subject.


Being used and ordered seem to be making a significant difference.  Perhaps you take it in the used sense ("instrumental" is the grammatical jargon that comes to mind), and I in the ordered sense (causative; If something takes an order, it is reasonable to assume that it can carry out the order, thus is a subject).

In my 古語辞典 (旺文社 s.v. して), the instrumental sense is explained as follows:
2. 手段・方法を示す。　…で。…でもって。
「長き爪－ー眼をつかみつぶさむ」〈竹取・かぐや姫の昇天〉​The entry has one more example (which I spare due to the quote limit) and neither is used with _-o_ as the phrase under discussion.  It will be great if we could compare this definition with yours in _Kōjien_.


----------



## rukiak

Flaminius said:


> Being used and ordered seem to be making a significant difference.  Perhaps you take it in the used sense ("instrumental" is the grammatical jargon that comes to mind), and I in the ordered sense (causative; If something takes an order, it is reasonable to assume that it can carry out the order, thus is a subject).


No. I don't mean that. Though it is close.
Although your point came closer to mine, it still lack of an important point.
I have explained using words such as "observer", "catalyst", "God" and "nature", bucause I want to explain that the subject (who becomes 閃光, who brings 閃光 according to your former presumption, or whoever) is the super-power, neither a fighter, a magician nor the arm.



Flaminius said:


> In my 古語辞典 (旺文社 s.v. して), the instrumental sense is explained as follows:
> 2. 手段・方法を示す。　…で。…でもって。
> 「長き爪－ー眼をつかみつぶさむ」〈竹取・かぐや姫の昇天〉​The entry has one more example (which I spare due to the quote limit) and neither is used with _-o_ as the phrase under discussion.  It will be great if we could compare this definition with yours in _Kōjien_.


広辞苑（Kōjien）して（格助詞）
1．ある人の命令をうけて、その事をする人を指す。使役の助動詞と呼応する場合が多い。漢文訓読では多く「をー」の形をとる。・・・を使って。・・・に命じて。西大寺本最勝王経（平安初期点）「諸の有情をして恭敬し供養せしむとなり。」
3．Flaminiuさんの古語辞典からの引用例と同じことが書かれています。
（２．は関係ないので略。）

The 1st entry in this dictionary seems to appropriate for this case.
But you have to keep in mind that our issue is about magic and fantasy, so that the object that is not 人, but the arm, is treated like 人（a living thing）. 
As you would understand reading the entry, 「命令を受けてあることをする人」is  not the main person to do tasks. His role is to get an order and do something, he is used by someone else.
The subject who organize and carry out the project is essentially the one who uses him.

Getting back to our issue, the relations are like this:

*Subject*: 　　　　　　　　　　　　super-power such as God, Devil, nature
*Object* who is ordered (used):　 the arm
*Supplicant*/observer:　　　　　　 person who chant a spell

You can actually see this kind of spelling phrases, in games and novels featuring wizards and magical fantasy.


----------



## Flaminius

If you take the first definition of the _Kōjien_ entry as the sense of the して under discussion, *rukiak*, I still wonder how you can justify をして bound to なる (> ならん). The dictionary says that the entry in this sense is often used with causative auxiliaries, but in fact I have never seen it without a causative. Even if it was rarely used without one in older Japanese, I suspect such a case is virtually non-existent in mocked classical styles used in Modern Japanese.



rukiak said:


> As you would understand reading the entry, 「命令を受けてあることをする人」is not the main person to do tasks. His role is to get an order and do something, he is used by someone else.
> The subject who organize and carry out the project is essentially the one who uses him.


If you use the term subject as above, you are departing from the linguistic definition of the word. As you yourself wrote, "is role is to get an order and do something." Perhaps I didn't need to underscore the latter portion. Both "get an order" and "do something" are actions that need a willful subject. The dictionary definition can smoothely apply to the modern causative construction; _A-ga X-ni Y-saseru_. Grammarians have found out that X is the subject of Y and the whole subordinate clause is the compliment of the causative auxiliary, _-saseru_, whose subject is A.  I haven't seen anything that prevents this interpretation from being applied to what we are discussing.

Even in your quote, it is "all the sentient beings" that "extol and praise Buddha" (terms in double-quotes are my tentative translations; I am not very conversant with Buddhism). The sentence entails that their extolation and praise are motivated by someone / something else who exerts an influence on, or gives an order to the subject. A philosopher may find the outside influence sufficient to disqualify the actor as the subject, but a grammarian should be satisfied to find who is falling prostrate before the statue or who is singing the song of praise.  Likewise, what we have  discussed supports 我が腕 as the subject.


----------



## rukiak

Sorry, but I can't agree with you and I think I can contradict you. But, before that, it seems that I had better say one thing at first.

*I* have been feeling that the sentence#1 has no typos and that kind of phrase looks familliar to me (under the magic and fantasy context). And also, it seems not nonsense grammartically.

*You*, Flaminius, is never familiar with the phrase, and thinks of that as grammatically nonsense.

________
So, this discussion is hopeless, and practically dull and nonsense ,at least for me. The questioner Kuuzoku ,maybe he is a player of some game and hit this problem, has already been convinced that it makes sense under the circumstances.

It is not that I want to say I'm right. If I could, I would show you lots of similar examples from games and novels featuring magic, but for many reasons, I couldn't do that right now. So I think it is not enough for this discussion.
And the more I (and maybe you too) go into the detailed technical area to explain perfectly, the more I take mistakes. That's because not only our knowledge problem, but some ambiguity of the language, and possibly the process of transition of the language with age.
_________

Sorry I'm tired of this issue.
I''ll contradict your last post shortly.
>I still wonder how you can justify をして bound to なる (> ならん)

Pls read all my previous posts.

>As you yourself wrote, "is role is to get an order and do something."

I thought you point it out, it was not easy to explain so I just had to write that way. You shouldn't mix up that part with the whole contaxt.


----------



## rukiak

OK, I've maneged to find some breakthrough as to the issue between you and I.

Here is a site I've just found, where they quote spells from novels featuring magic.
http://www.geocities.jp/ateliersweet/magicword/01.html
And from there will I quote now:
e.g.1「マナよ、ほとばしる光の矢とならん」
e.g.2「奇跡の源　魔術の根源たるマナ」「その大海の一滴を　我に使役なさしめよ」「マナよ！」「鎚鉾の強き護りとならん！」

Now, I propose a compromise we could temporarily reach a settlement. 
It is that "ん(=む)" is "相手の動作についてその実現を期待する（勧誘、軽い命令）", and then "をして" is an improperly applied して meaning 道具( means "tool" just simply, purely, having no difficult expanded nuance) which is clearly listed in both 広辞苑 and 旺文社古語辞典.

I have been feeling still restless, so I hope we could reach some temporary agreement.
I hope you think this proposal could be also one of possible explanations beside yours.


----------



## Wishfull

Hello.

There are two interpretations.

A) The lightening will be created by the hand.
or
B) A certain miracle power will change the hand to the lightening.
Right?

I don't know the true grammar because it is about old Japanese.
And I'm sure that the original writer even didn't know the correct grammar, either.
He is a game creator, not a scholar of literature.

Judging from the context, I think A) is better, although it's possible whatever an unbelievable thing may happen, because it is a fiction;Game.

From another point of view that this is the WordReference Form, I would like to know that sentence A) interpretation is correct or not, grammatically. Though it is very tough to find out all the usages of it.


----------



## rukiak

Wishfull said:


> Hello.
> I don't know the true grammar because it is about old Japanese.
> And I'm sure that the original writer even didn't know the correct grammar, either.
> He is a game creator, not a scholar of literature.


That's right. That is supposed to be one of the elements we have to consider when we elavuate a meaning of the language.

And there are other things we have to consider ,wherein:
・Writers and scenario writers for games generally look up technical books, history books, or related books before them, to imitate or follow them.
・They are recognizing the shared perspectives in existance about this field.

After that, we can evaluate their meanings and errors.
That is, deciding which is the more possible error as their point of view, among many possibilities.

_____________________________________________
>A) interpretation is correct or not, grammatically.

Without replacing some words, it is not possible in my opinion. Lightening in 閃光となすis not be able to be the subject. And if the subjet is "the hand", the original text has to be changed like Flaminius said.


----------



## Flaminius

rukiak said:


> _____________________________________________
> >A) interpretation is correct or not, grammatically.
> 
> Without replacing some words, it is not possible in my opinion. Lightening in 閃光となすis not be able to be the subject. And if the subjet is "the hand", the original text has to be changed like Flaminius said.


 As long as we all agree that the sentence has something to be desired of, I don't mind if we have more than one way to fix it.

I greatly appreciate your post yesterday (#17 _supra_).  It explained all about the sentence in case 腕 is not a subject.  I pray you don't condescend to calling it a compromise as if I had a hand in this.  The credit, I admit, is all yours.



Wishfull said:


> And I'm sure that the original writer even didn't know the correct grammar, either.
> He is a game creator, not a scholar of literature.


Nor does his editor, or project manager, look like a scholar (Incidentally, I don't profess to the qualification, either).  I even suspect that other writers of the same genre have a similar care-free attitude to the classical grammar, of which *rukiak* has undertaken to show us a very telling sample.  This does not, however, prevent me—as well as anyone who wails over their ignorance and misconceptions—from presuming an unfortunate impression about their command of the language.  Until one day when books and games of this kind are so popular that everyone speaks and writes in this mocked classicalism, I think I can maintain this stance.


----------

