# ということ vs こと



## John_Doe

I'd like to discuss a specific example from a grammar reference I'm reading now.


> 彼がこの集まりに来ない*ということは*確かだ。
> 彼がこの集まりに来ない*ことは*確かだ。
> 
> ...Third, if S represents something likely to happen, both _S koto_ and _S to iu koto_ are acceptable. In this case the speaker may view the situation at either a concrete level or a conceptual level.



The authors explain _koto wa_/_to iu koto wa_ in terms of concrete level/conceptual level respectively. When they go into details, their explanations are lucid ("_to iu koto wa_ is used when S is unlikely or impossible," etc), but I don't get the whole idea of "the speaker viewing the concrete content of S at a conceptual level". How'd you explain the difference between two sentences?


----------



## Tonky

"Viewing the concrete content of S at a conceptual level" is probably what we call 具体的事象の概念化.ＡとＢは同じ*ということ*です。​ＡとＢは同じ*こと*です。​If you look at the two lines above, the latter is stating it as a fact or phenomenon[事実 or 事象] "A and B are the same", while the former is explaining the concept[概念] "The thing/fact is that A and B are the same". The speaker views the latter as a fact, but the former is possibly not considered a fact by some and the speaker is explaining it as a concept that it is a fact. Does that make sense?
という is from ～と言う, so, ～ということ basically means "the thing that _someone_ says as ~", which _originally_ represents that the S part is not stating a fact that happens/happened.
愛する*ということ*​愛する*こと*​The former is a famous translation of "The Art of Loving" while the latter is simply "loving" or "to love". The former is a concept.
とにかく、暗い間は、大きな*地震があったということ*はわかるのだが、まさか家の中がメチャメチャになっているなんて思いもよらず、まして、マンションがズタズタだなんて全く思っていなかった。​鎌倉時代は１２９３年の永仁地震以外も大地震の記録があり、どれが関東地震かを特定するのは難しいが、この時期に巨大*地震があったこと*はほぼ間違いない。​This case here, both ということ and こと are acceptable. However, even though both are talking about this fact that there was an earthquake, the former is obviously not stated as a fact - the writer could only imagine but did not see it - and the latter is stating it as a fact even though the writer did not see it but says it based on the historical records. This is what the authors mean by "conceptual level" and "concrete level".
The example lines in op is rather hard to see the difference because 来ない is a negation and the action does not happen anyways. (or say, "does not happen" likely happens.)


----------



## John_Doe

> the former is possibly not  considered a fact by some and the speaker is explaining it as a concept  that it is a fact. Does that make sense?



I don't understand the purpose of it. Does the speaker want to convince someone that something is actually a fact?

Conversely, if one states ＡとＢは同じ as a fact, does it mean that the statement is considered as a fact by...everyone?



> the  latter is stating it as a fact even though the writer did not see it  but says it based on the historical records.


Does the writer make his statement "concrete" by mentioning that there's a historical evidence?



> The example lines in op is rather hard to see the difference because 来ない  is a negation and the action does not happen anyways. (or say, "does  not happen" likely happens.)



While we are at it, what would you say about this usage of to iu koto?



> Two characters discuss TV news which were completely falsified in order to hide the real state of things)
> A: まさかここでカイーバーやアプトムの存在を公表するわけにもいくまいしな
> B: まあなにはともあれ。今度の事件で民衆もようやく現体制に不信感を持ち始めた*ってこと*だ。



1. If a sentence ends with "*とういうこと*だ", does it mean that the "Xということは" part was omitted?
2. Is what B says a conclusion from some facts he already knows?


----------



## Tonky

John_Doe said:


> I don't understand the purpose of it. Does the speaker want to convince someone that something is actually a fact?
> 
> Conversely, if one states ＡとＢは同じ as a fact, does it mean that the statement is considered as a fact by...everyone?


Let me put it this way; it is about each speaker/writer's perspective recognition whether the speaker/writer views it as a concrete fact or generalizing it from his/her conceptual aspect. 
As for the case of ＡとＢは同じ, ＡとＢは同じことです is the speaker/writer's opinion and believes it to be true and simply telling others so. ＡとＢは同じということです is that the speaker/writer is explaining it as a general concept that everyone agrees, like, "it means that A and B are the same" as if that is not his/her opinion, but rather it is a general idea shared by all. Please note that it does not matter if that is actually true or not, it is the speaker/writer's view point.



> Does the writer make his statement "concrete" by mentioning that there's a historical evidence?


He/she makes the statement based on the records/evidence, and it is a simple statement of his belief/opinion. Once he uses ということです, he generalizes it as a general opinion everyone can agree (based on the records). "concrete" is just a term used to point out that it is the opposite of "general concept".



> The example lines in op is rather hard to see the difference because 来ない is a negation and the action does not happen anyways. (or say, "does not happen" likely happens.)
> 
> 
> 
> While we are at it, what would you say about this usage of to iu koto?
Click to expand...

I would need context to say anything in detail, but if I am free to guess the context, I'd say, 彼が来ないことは確かだ sounds like the speaker heard directly that this person would not come from some trusty info source or 彼 himself. 彼が来ないということは確かだ sounds like someone else told him that he was not coming and he is confirming it somehow by his guess work. But that is just my imagination I can think of right now, and I may change my mind if I get to see different context.



> Two characters discuss TV news which were completely falsified in order to hide the real state of things)
> A: まさかここでカイーバーやアプトムの存在を公表するわけにもいくまいしな
> B: まあなにはともあれ。今度の事件で民衆もようやく現体制に不信感を持ち始めたってことだ。
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If a sentence ends with "*とういうこと*だ", does it mean that the "Xということは" part was omitted?
> 2. Is what B says a conclusion from some facts he already knows?
Click to expand...

1. Yes and No. It should be ＸということはＹということだ, but I think sometimes it can be ＸはＹということだ. 
2. I think B is confirming that A thinks the same as B that this is a general idea which is shared by those who know the truth(s). "Anyways, it means that ~". (B is not asking A to agree or disagree, but believes/expects A agrees fully.)

I'm sorry that my English is not clear enough to explain this  I hope it makes sense this time...?


----------



## John_Doe

> I hope it makes sense this time...?


From what you said I conclude that "conceptual level" has something to do with "shared knowledge", whereas "concrete level" relates to "personal view".

Actually, it's still super vague for me, so I'd like to ask additional questions.
1. Could any statement be viewed from concrete/conceptual point of view?
2. If "the speaker/writer is explaining it as a general concept that everyone agrees", why does he need to point out that at all? Anyway, everyone would agree with that. Is a plain "ＡとＢは同じです" not enough to convey it?



> "Anyways, it means that ~". (B is not asking A to agree or disagree, but believes/expects A agrees fully.)



If B says "it means that..." then it means that B arrived at some conclusion, as I said, and/or are about to point out a connection between his statement and something else (cause-effect, premise-logical conclusion, etc), or he restates something ("in other words, it's..."). Really, I don't see "generalizing" here or how "it means that" is related to what your said, for that matter.

On the other hand, if I think that what I am about to say is "a general idea which is shared by those who know the truth", am I supposed to add ~to iu koto to my statements? Like "water is a chemical compound of hygrogen and oxygen"?


----------



## Tonky

Awwww  I'm doing such a horrible explanation here.



John_Doe said:


> From what you said I conclude that "conceptual level" has something to do with "shared knowledge", whereas "concrete level" relates to "personal view".


No. "conceptual level" is not shared, but more like knowledge or information that _should be_ shared and yet to be shared, the speaker/writer is sharing it with others by this very sentence, expecting others to agree, not as his/her own opinion, but as a *concept*. ("It can be said so" or "it is said so", not "I say so", note again that it is *と言う*事. It is rephrasing what someone else would say.) 



> Actually, it's still super vague for me, so I'd like to ask additional questions.
> 1. Could any statement be viewed from concrete/conceptual point of view?
> 2. If "the speaker/writer is explaining it as a general concept that everyone agrees", why does he need to point out that at all? Anyway, everyone would agree with that. Is a plain "ＡとＢは同じです" not enough to convey it?


1. Can you give examples?
2. As I said above, it is not really a known general concept that everyone already agrees, but pointing it out, generalizing it, expecting others to agree. As for ＡとＢは同じこと, I might have given a bad example. Let me think again on it.

I have to go for now, let me reply the rest later.
Meanwhile, does this link help you understand this concrete vs conceptual in any way?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object


----------



## John_Doe

> Meanwhile, does this link help you understand this concrete vs conceptual in any way?


I know what it is, but how 彼がこの集まりに来ない could be viewed at "a conceptual level" is beyond my abilities to understand. Abstract reasoning always involves non-specific (not instantiated) descriptions, and "he" is already too concrete to be viewed abstractly. Or the statement have to be about all instances/cases of "him not coming", i.e. "him not coming in general". I'm starting to think that the whole "conceptual/concrete" thing is just a misleading concept.



> the speaker/writer is sharing it with others by this very sentence,  expecting others to agree, not as his/her own opinion, but as a *concept*.



So can we say that that way he wants other people to view his statements as "depersonalized", impartial?

Again, the communicational purpose of it is still a total mystery for me. Well, I'd know his words are not his own words, thank him very much, so... what? Why would I be supposed to agree with him? If his proposition was true, known to me, or sounded convincing I'd agree with it. If it wasn't, I wouldn't do that regardless of whether it was his idea or someone else's, or even nobody's (like it was flying in the air, you know). I feel like the goal is more than just agreement seeking.



> a known general concept that everyone already agrees, but pointing it out, generalizing it, expecting others to agree.



How does adding ~to iu koto help you to generalize a statement? Just adding something at the end doesn't change the content or, more specifically, makes it more general. Just compare two statements:


> He's not going to come.
> He's not going to come. I'm speaking generally here, I'm generalizing it, if you know what I mean *wink*



Absurd, isn't it? You have to rewrite the sentence in order for it to be more general.


----------



## Tonky

Been pondering on this for some time now, sorry that it's taking longer time.
 Would it make more sense if I use the term "induction" as in theory, instead of conceptual level perception/recognition? 
I admit I hardly used right terms to explain this. I have not learned enough philosophy to talk about this in English unfortunately, but let me try a little bit, and pardon me if I'm using certain terms or ideas wrong.

For example, let's say here are some pieces of information or data that the speaker has.
①彼はいつも5時に来る He always arrives here at 5.
②彼はいつも4時半に家を出る He always leaves home at half past 4.
③彼はいつも家を出る前に友達に電話をかける He always calls his friend on the phone before he leaves home.

These always happen when he comes. So, by "Inductive Reasoning", you could say that he likely comes when ①-③ happens, no matter if it is true or not in reality. 
 However, today,
④もう5時を過ぎているのに、彼はここに来ていない It's already past 5 and he hasn't arrived yet.
⑤4時前に既に彼はいなかった He was not at home/gone before 4.
⑥彼の友達は、彼から電話をもらっていない His friend didn't get a phone call from him.

All these different pieces data of ①-⑥ lead him to this simple abstract conclusion that "He is not going to come today", which I hope you would not see as a fact, but an induction. It is his own generalization from his own experiences and information.

On the other hand, If the speaker himself heard from him that he was not coming, or his friend who gets phone calls from him regularly told him that he was not coming, then that is not an abstract conclusion. No matter if he actually comes or not in truth, "he is not coming" is absolute for the speaker (at least for the time being). 

Does this make sense?


----------



## John_Doe

I got more or less what you are trying to say. Now I can more fully understand what was meant by "conceptual" in the reference.



> All these different pieces data of ①-⑥ lead him to this simple abstract conclusion that "He is not going to come today", which I hope you would not see as a fact, but an induction. It is his own generalization from his own experiences and information.



However, I don't understand why you didn't say that when I directly asked you, "Is what B says a conclusion from some facts he already knows?". It would've saved us time.

I'd like to get back to that example. What B says doesn't follow from what A says, right? In other words, B says, "Anyway, [the fact that the government and the mass media are trying to hide the truth about Guyver] means [or only proves that, so to speak] people has started to question the government's doings".


----------



## Tonky

John_Doe said:


> I'd like to get back to that example. What B says doesn't follow from what A says, right? In other words, B says, "Anyway, [the fact that the government and the mass media are trying to hide the truth about Guyver] means [or only proves that, so to speak] people has started to question the government's doings".





> Two characters discuss TV news which were completely falsified in order to hide the real state of things)
> A: まさかここでカイーバーやアプトムの存在を公表するわけにもいくまいしな
> B: まあなにはともあれ。今度の事件で民衆もようやく現体制に不信感を持ち始めた*ってことだ。*


I think it follows from what A says, though? B replies to A's comment with まあなにはともあれ(anyways, either way, in any case), and the next sentence to summarize the situation "今度の事件で～". The  "。" end-sentence mark is only for a pause in this case that omits something along the line of "it's all good", and I think the two sentences are connected. (But I can be wrong as I myself have not watched it.)
I am not very sure what the subject "it" indicates here from the available context, but if [the fact that the government and the mass media are trying to hide the truth about Guyver] fits, then you are probably right. I do not know what was on this TV news, but can imagine that whatever shown on the news seems have proved people starting to question the current regime according to B. 



> However, I don't understand why you didn't say that when I directly asked you, "Is what B says a conclusion from some facts he already knows?". It would've saved us time.


I can only make excuses like "I didn't deny that!"  ... "Conclusion" doesn't generally belong to "concept" category in my brain either... Just take it that I'm stupid. I didn't think you had gotten it from reading all the other parts of your questions and comments and I just had to let myself fall into the cesspool.


----------

