# Relative past tense



## Ectab

In this sentence:
友達が死んだ男を見たのです

it could mean both:
1-(My) friend saw the man who died.
2-(I) saw the man whose friend had died.
right?

My question is about 1, since Japanese uses relative tense as in Classical Arabic, then the man should have died before my friend saw him, right?
but what if I would like to declare that my friend saw a man then that man died in an accident after friend saw him? in Arabic, we would use the same phrase whether he saw him before or after he died.
so this simple sentence would mean:

My friend saw the man who died 
My friend saw the man who had died.

I don't think we can say:
友達が死ぬ男を見たのです
because it would also mean that the man would have not died yet.


----------



## frequency

Ectab said:


> it could mean both


Yes, great.


> the man should have died before my friend saw him, right?


Yes. Semantically, it is understood so.


> my friend saw a man then that man died in an accident after friend saw him?


You need to add more explanations. 友人がある男性を見たけど、その後死んでしまった。or 友人は後に死んでしまった男性を見た。



> 友達が死ぬ男を見たのです
> because it would also mean that the man would have not died yet.


You're right. Or this sounds like your friend watched a man who was going to die. (When your friend watched the man, he was about to die.)


----------



## Flaminius

友人は後で死ぬことになる男を見た。


----------



## karlalou

Ectab said:


> I don't think we can say:
> 友達が死ぬ男を見たのです
> because it would also mean that the man would have not died yet.


We usually add other things to make things clear. For example:
僕の友達が、その死んだ男のことを以前、見ていたのです。


----------



## frequency

If you mean


Ectab said:


> 友達が死ぬ男を見たのです。


this can't mean 友達が死んだ男を見たのです。, you're right. They are not the same.


----------



## Yuuu

I think karlalou's example can usually work fine, but it still has a possibility to be understood as "My friend saw the man, who had already been dead."

It's difficult to find a short sentence that can perfectly avoid any misunderstanding.

So, my best suggestion is this. (it's long though )
その男は今ではもう死んでしまったのですが、私の友達はその男を、その男が死ぬ以前に見たのです。


----------



## frequency

Ectab said:


> but what if I would like to declare that my friend saw a man then that man died in an accident after friend saw him?


見た後に死んだら？と聞いていて、


Ectab said:


> 友達が死ぬ男を見たのです


これじゃまだ死んでいないよね？とＯＰで聞いている。これでは少し言葉が足りないし、この発言をする時にはその男は死んでいないとダメだよね。



Yuuu said:


> その男は今ではもう死んでしまったのですが、私の友達はその男を、その男が死ぬ以前に見たのです。


結局、言ってることは同じなんだけどポイントは「見た後死んだ」ということと、「友達が死ぬ男を見たのです」ここで、現在形の「死ぬ」を使ったらどうか、っていうのを聞きたいんだと思うよ。


----------



## Ectab

So we must add more details to make it clear, right?
so what about:
友達が死んだ男を以前見たのです。
I was wondering if we could make a sentence with less details and adverbs to describe the difference between the two sentences.
so can my sentence work correctly?
thank you


----------



## karlalou

Ectab said:


> 友達が死んだ男を以前見たのです。
> I was wondering if we could make a sentence with less details and adverbs to describe the difference between the two sentences.
> so can my sentence work correctly?


友達が死んだ男を以前見たのです is vague. Without further context, we can't tell what you are exactly talking about. It could be 私の友達がその男の生前を見ていたのです。

友達が死んだ男を以前見たのです is even possible to mean that I saw before a man whose friend has died.

A vague sentence is grammatically no problem. It can be a good start of a story. It would work no problem if the listeners know the context.


----------



## frequency

Ectab said:


> 友達が死んだ男を以前見たのです。


You're saying _My friend saw a man before who died_. My friend saw a dead man before. Or_ I saw a man before whose friend died. _
You're right in the OP. 以前見た works to say "saw before".


Ectab said:


> but what if I would like to declare that my friend saw a man then that man died in an accident after friend saw him?


See #3.


----------

