# 制圧した地域



## kaven-ever

Hi.
Context: イラクでは、これまでにイスラム過激派組織が制圧した北部や西部の地域に対し... From NHK
Shouldn't it be 過激派組織に制圧された - 過激派組織が北部や西部の地域を制圧した? 制圧 can be a 自動詞?

Thanks.


----------



## OED Loves Me Not

> イラクでは、これまでにイスラム過激派組織*が制圧した*北部や西部の地域に対し...


　　　　　Perhaps the verb 制圧する can be a 自動詞, but here in this sentence,
　　　　　it is a 他動詞 (transitive verb) all right. 



> これまでにイスラム過激派組織*が制圧した*北部や西部の地域


　　　　= the northern and western regions that the Islamic radical organization 
　　　　　　*has *so far *been controlling* (that is, has so far had under control)


----------



## 810senior

An interchanged expression 過激派組織に制圧された is also fine with me and equivalent to the other.
As OED Loves Me Not has explained 制圧する may be a intransitive verb but can be a transitive verb as actually used in the sentence.


----------



## YangMuye

I think he just did not realize 過激派組織が is part of the relative clause, so
過激派組織が北部や西部の地域を制圧した -> 過激派組織が制圧した北部や西部の地域

Incidentally, unlike in English, the voice of the verb in Japanese is not required to agree with the noun it modifies. So 制圧された地域 and 制圧した地域 are actually both grammatical, but not necessarily interchangeable in all contexts.


----------



## M Mira

YangMuye said:


> I think he just did not realize 過激派組織が is part of the relative clause, so
> 過激派組織が北部や西部の地域を制圧した -> 過激派組織が制圧した北部や西部の地域
> 
> Incidentally, unlike in English, the voice of the verb in Japanese is not required to agree with the noun it modifies. So 制圧された地域 and 制圧した地域 are actually both grammatical, but not necessarily interchangeable in all contexts.


Isn't that due to する can be both transitive and intransitive, unlike other kinds of verbs which could be either but not both?


----------



## Flaminius

This is a relative clause.  Although Japanese relative clauses often have no apparent heads, they aren't so different from those in European languages in other aspects.

過激派が制圧した地域: the areas that the radicals have taken
過激派に制圧された地域: the areas that have been taken by the radicals

Both are grammatically acceptable but the passive is often avoided out of stylistic concerns.


----------



## kaven-ever

A million thanks for everyone.
After thinking it over, I think maybe there's something wrong in my understanding here. So I'd like to take a more trial.
I choose the words 亡くなる and 亡くす.
1: この女性が亡くした息子はただ十歳です。 -> この女性が息子を亡くした.
2: この女性が亡くなった息子はただ十歳です。
So the 1 is correct while 2 is not?


----------



## 810senior

kaven-ever said:


> 1: この女性が亡くした息子はただ十歳です。 -> この女性が息子を亡くした.
> 2: この女性が亡くなった息子はただ十歳です。
> So the 1 is correct while 2 is not?



1 is definitely fine but 2 is grammatically incorrect.
It should be この女性*の*亡くなった息子は. (の means not the head of the relative clause but the generative case standing for the son is who she gave birth to.)

As for whole sentence I think this way will be better: （この女性の）亡くなった息子はまだ十歳（になったばかり）でした。


----------



## Flaminius

kaven-ever said:


> 1: この女性が亡くした息子はただ十歳です。


A minor correction:
この女性が亡くした息子はまだ/たったの十歳です。



810senior said:


> が should be interchanged with の to make the relative clause perfect.


Are you saying that この女性が亡くした息子は is less acceptable than この女性の亡くした息子は?  I disagree.


----------



## 810senior

Flaminius said:


> A minor correction:
> この女性が亡くした息子はまだ/たったの十歳です。
> 
> 
> Are you saying that この女性が亡くした息子は is less acceptable than この女性の亡くした息子は?  I disagree.



No that's not what I mean. (I should have written it more concretely since it looked quite ambiguous)
I thought the phrase この女性が亡くなった息子 in second sentence was grammatically incorrect so should be changed into 女性の亡くなった息子は.


----------



## Flaminius

Aaaah, okay. My disagreement is now revoked.


----------

