# koete meguriau



## Dimble Garrick

I'm trying to learn Japanese since some months ago, and I usually found myself with problems to get the right meaning of some words, even after searching through each resource I have access. Japanese makes me feel like if I never get the context of the phrase.

In the phrase: fukai ao no sekai koete meguriau, I can't understand what is the correct interpretation of koete meguriau.
I know koete is the ~te form of the koeru verb, an I had found the meaning of meguriau too, but I still don't know the combined meaning or meanings of this words.

If someone have the patience to give me some tips I'll be grateful.

I also appreciate information about resources, like sites of interest for a student like me, programs to learning, and things like that.

Thanks.


----------



## Locoidiomas

This is how I understand it

Fukai ao no sekai = deep blue world. fukai ao comes from fukai ao iro. The fukai ao no sekai relates to the ocean or the sky.

But, there if not particle thereafter

When you have no particle, you must also know that this particle is always "は"
So basically it says "fukai ao iro no sekai wa koete meguriau".
This means that the deep blue world exceeds itself and then meets (someone) by chance. It also could mean that it is you who surpass (something) and go to meet the deep blue world. It's a poetic verse then, and if you have anymore doubts you must reinterpret the context.


----------



## Dimble Garrick

Thanks for the help.
I found a translation that reads:

"We meet above the deep blue earth"


It don't sound correct to me. Can you tell me if it can be interpreted that way.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello *Locoidiomas*,

...and welcome to the WR fora!    I hope you will have linguistic fun around here.


Locoidiomas said:


> When you have no particle, you must also know that this particle is always "は"
> So basically it says "fukai ao iro no sekai wa koete meguriau".


The way I see it, if there is no particle, there _is_ no particle.  Even if a particle is not there to mark a noun, the noun (or a noun phrase) implicitly has a relation with other components of the sentence (or with the sentence as a whole).  The implied relation must be so basic that it does not need a particle to declare it.  *Locoidiomas*, when you referred to は, I seemed to hear you  say that one of the implicit relations is subject.  Another good candidate for an implicit relation is object.  As regards the thread topic, the latter is more apt.

So, a possible rewrite of the sentence is:
Fukai ao no sekai o koete meguriau.
(We/they whosoever) meet each other beyond the deep blue world.

This translation, however wooden it may be, is similar to what *Dimble Garrick* (hearty welcome to you too  ) brought up above.  What the deep blue world means is up to poetic interpretation.

Edit: I am not able to explain very well why the particle-less noun is not the subject but the object of the verb _koeru_, but one of the points to keep in mind is that Japanese sentences do not have much appetite for inanimate subjects (entities that, in a regular understanding of the world, are considered to be lifeless).


----------



## Locoidiomas

Hi Flaminius.
There is a problem with what you say. When you "if there is no particle then there is no particle" you make a mistake: you go outside from grammar. I know a lot of people believe that Japanese has not a steady grammar, but in fact, I believe every language has a steady grammar. 
Another mistake you make is to think of Japanese as if it were a westerner language, with "noun" and "object", Japanese doesn't work like that, it more accurated to talk about "topic marker" and "clause marker".
I feel pain because I contradict you and I am still a newbie, but I'm very familiar to the Japanese language. Every time someone omits a particle, is "は": give it a try.


----------



## Flaminius

I am sorry but you lost me in the above post.  Could you please explain;
1. what your point is,
2. how these arguments are related to the thread topic,
3. if they are to support your translation in #2 _supra_ (the deep blue world exceeds itself),
4. and, if number three is the case, how you account for the translation in #3?

Thank you,
Flam


----------



## Locoidiomas

1. My point is that when you see no particle after a word you should imply it is "wa". "Wa" is the "topic marker", that means that what's been stated before becomes a topic, not a noun.
2. I'm trying to translate accurately the entire phrase.
3. They are for its support.
4. Both #2 and #3 are correct, but it depends entirely on the context.

Thanks for your warm words of welcome.


----------



## Dimble Garrick

Thank you both for your help, i would try to learn as much as i can.
Maybe one day i will be able to help others too.


----------



## SpiceMan

Locoidiomas said:
			
		

> When you "if there is no particle then there is no particle" you make a mistake: you go outside from grammar.


I can't see how interpreting that a particle that is not there is not an implicit は is "outside grammar".

Also keep in mind that Flaminius is Japanese so I doubt he thinks about Japanese grammar in "western language" terms. In fact, I don't "doubt", I know for sure since I've seen him disagree several times with non-japanese people that try to explain Japanese through western language grammar (including myself)

Last but not least, は is not always a topic marker since it fulfills several functions, grammatically speaking. So even if you simply regard a missing particle as a は, depending on context, that は can be something different from a topic marker.

It can be used to make contrast between things, to indicate the subject, the object, to stress something in a chain of events/things, to indicate concession or compromise, and more.
Moreover, it often overlaps with other particles functions (particularly in the presence of negated verb or adjective forms).


----------



## Locoidiomas

Hi Spice Man.
Ok, first what is first.
I didn't know flaminius is a japanese person. I've probably offended him really badly.
I'm steady on my thesis though. The reason is that basically japanese translators are not really aware of how to translate your language accurately to westerner languages. I've seen japanese translators make the same mistakes over and over because they think they know. And I'm sure that, although you are used to relate words without markers as something not necessary wrong but within grammar, I think you are actually just omitting the particle. I've checked several grammars and no one denies this probability (I actually would be delighted if I get to find one). Overall, this find has always worked for me. That's why I added the "give it a try" part. Maybe I'm wrong, but if it's so I would like to know exactly why.
I also want to add that "topic marker" it's just its name. I never meant that a topic marker is always a topic marker, even if I interpret it as a topic for this particular case.

But this is not the place to discuss this matter in my opinion and

I'm really sorry for any inconvenient I've caused.


----------



## Flaminius

Locoidiomas said:


> Every time someone omits a particle, is "は": give it a try.


I tried but I cannot come to the same conclusion as yours.  Other native speakers may please chime in if they disagree with my judgement but the following two sentences mean different things: 
1.  Fukai ao no sekai wa koete meguriau.
2.  Fukai ao no sekai koete meguriau.

I tend to interpret _Fukai ao no sekai_ as the subject of the Sentence #1 (if you don't believe that Japanese has subjects, could we settle with "what would be the subject when the sentence is translated into a Western language"?).  For a top-notch argument as to how _-wa_ topicalisation subsumes case markers such as _-o_ (accusative marker or object) and _-ga_ (nominative marker or subject), see this thread.  In contrast, when the noun phrase is not marked by a postposition (or particle) as in Sentence #2, I'd most likely understand it as the object of _koeru_ (> _koete_).

Generally speaking, however, a particle-less noun can be the subject, the direct object and the indirect object of a sentence (and may be more).  I am just saying that direct object is the most likely interpretation as regards the thread topic sentence.



Locoidiomas said:


> 1. (...) "Wa" is the "topic marker", that means that what's been stated before becomes a topic, not a noun.


Are you saying _-wa_ does not mark a noun or a noun ceases to be a noun when it becomes a topic?  Granted that _Fukai ao no sekai_ is strictly speaking a noun phrase, I don't believe that is what you meant.  Please clarify the quote.



Locoidiomas said:


> And I'm sure that, although you are used to relate words without markers as something not necessary wrong but within grammar, I think you are actually just omitting the particle.


There are two stumbling blocks that encounter this idea.  First, omission assumes that a noun (or a noun phrase) with a particle is the base state and a particle-less noun is the derived state.  Why is it more appropriate than regarding the particle-less noun as the base state and the one with a particle as the derived state?

Second, determining the exact particle that has been omitted poses some difficulty.  Due to the different meanings of the Sentences 1 and 2 above, _-wa_ may not be the omitted particle in this case.

I avoided answering these questions because I don't know the answers or how to find them.    To iterate my position, a particle-less noun within a sentence bears so fundamental a function for the sentence that the function needs no postposition to outwardly mark it.  Also note that our positions are not so removed from each other's as long as we agree that a particle-less noun can be the subject or the object of a sentence (if you need the caveat; subject and object as they turn up in translations).


----------



## Flaminius

Here is one of possible explanations that account for the different interpretations for the particle-less sentence and the one with _-wa_.

1.  Fukai ao no sekai wa koete meguriau.
In this sentence, a topic is introduced by virtue of _-wa_.  Generally, a sentence with a topic can be divided into a topic and a comment, which is the rest of the sentence.  Syntactically, it means that the topic noun should be meaningfully related to all verbs in the sentence.  I assume a stricter hypothesis:
A topic noun should be assigned with the same case by all verbs in the sentence.

Now here is small-print caveats.  This rule obviously does not apply to verbs in subordinate clauses.  Also, I understand that, once a topic is declared, it is going to be treated as the topic in next sentences until another topic is declared.  However, this rule seems to apply only to the immediate sentence that _-wa_ is used.

On one hand _koeru_, which is a transitive noun, gives chance for the topic to be either the subject or the object of the verb.  On the other hand, _meguriau_ is an intransitive verb.  This means the topic can either be the subject of the verb or bear the function that should be marked by _-to_ (meet *with*).  Since object is the only possibility that the two verbs have in common, the topic is decided to be the object of both verbs.

2.  Fukai ao no sekai koete meguriau.
A particle-less noun can only be understood in relation with the verb that it first encounters in the sentence, which is _koeru_ in this case.  As we saw above, the verb can offer two functions for the noun to support.  Here I make the second assumption:
A transitive verb offers "object" to a noun before it offers "subject."

Maybe I should allow that this assumption is not a very solid law.  Interpreting a particle-less sentence may depend greatly on the semantics of each component of the sentence.  I have mentioned being animate or inanimate as one of such conditions.  In this sentence, however, few things seem to impede interpreting the noun as the object of the verb.


----------

