# Kitto maigo ni natta n deshoo



## guyper

'Kitto maigo ni natta n deshoo'

Help to translate literally please

Thank you


----------



## soka

I would translate it as "He/she surely became/was a lost child"

kitto= surely
maigo= lost child
ni naru= to become, to be
n deshou express uncertainness, supposition


----------



## NonComposMentis

soka said:


> I would translate it as "He/she surely became/was a lost child"
> 
> kitto= surely
> maigo= lost child
> ni naru= to become, to be
> n deshou express uncertainness, supposition



Yes, *soka*, that is certainly possible. However, although "maigo" in kanji is written "lost child", it is often used just to mean "lost", so this could also mean "We (he, she, they) surely must have got lost." (I.e., either "must be now" or "must have been")

I am not sure about the tense of the verb. While the Japanese uses simple past tense, if you do so in English that implies that the situation has been resolved. In Japanese that is not necessarily so. I believe the Japanese is similar to "must have got", implying either that we are now lost (more probable, IMO) or that we were lost. While the use of the supposition (ndeshoo) would make it more likely that the speaker is saying "We must be lost!" (i.e., now), I can think of contexts where uncertainty about a now-resolved event could be possible. Perhaps a native speaker will chime in here and describe all of the possibilities implied in this simple past tense usage, and why the present tense isn't used here.

Some friends told me that one time in a department store they saw a little girl crying and they asked her, "maigo ni natte iru?" (Are you lost?) and she said, "iie, mama ga maigo desu." (No, my mother is lost.)


----------



## Flaminius

NonComposMentis said:


> I am not sure about the tense of the verb.


Okay, but what you explained right after this statement has my adoration for achieving clarity and conciseness.  ^_^

Why does one choose _maigo-ni natta_ here?  Because _maigo-ni naru_ does not work.  A form that ends with _-ru_ refers to a repetitive/customary action of the present or a one-time action in the future (often quite immanent).  Since a habitual maigo is an odd concept in Japanese, _maigo-ni naru_ can only mean that someone is going to get lost from now on.  Another issue to consider is that the state of being a _maigo_, whether it has ceased to be or is  still current, originates from sometime in the past.  Any reference to the past solidly crashes with the _-ru_ form.  It is often argued that the _-ru_ form signifies "non-past," which avoids any reference to the past.



> While the Japanese uses simple past tense, if you do so in English that implies that the situation has been resolved. In Japanese that is not necessarily so. I believe the Japanese is similar to "must have got", implying either that we are now lost (more probable, IMO) or that we were lost.


A regular _-ta_ form only refer to a past whose consequences are irrelevant to the present.  The verb _naru_, however, denotes a change of status that is irrevocable until declared otherwise.  If the action referred to by _naru_ happened in the past, the effect of the event continues, thus achieving something similar to the English present perfect.  Context is necessary to determine whether a certain _natta_ is a reference to the past or a present perfect.


----------



## NonComposMentis

Flaminius said:


> Why does one choose _maigo-ni natta_ here?  Because _maigo-ni naru_ does not work.


My bad! I should have said "instead of the present _continuous_ tense". I did not intend to refer to the _simple _present. I would guess that the difference between _maigo ni natta_ and _maigo ni natte iru_ is one of emphasis, the former emphasizing something has gone wrong(*) and the latter emphasizing the present condition.
(*) Often expressed as _something went wrong _in informal speech.



Flaminius said:


> A regular _-ta_ form only refer to a past whose consequences are irrelevant to the present.  The verb _naru_, however, denotes a change of status that is irrevocable until declared otherwise.


Thank you. This makes the use of _naru_ unequivocally clear. However, having read this, I wonder how "consequences [that] are irrelevant to the present" jibes with the use of the _-ta_ form in expressions such as _zutto ikitakatta_?


----------



## Flaminius

NonComposMentis said:


> I would guess that the difference between _maigo ni natta_ and _maigo ni natte iru_ is one of emphasis, the former emphasizing something has gone wrong(*) and the latter emphasizing the present condition.


Yes, I think the difference here is that of a action and a state.
You might ask a worried family, 「なにがあったんですか」.  A typical answer is, 妹が迷子になっ*た*んです.  The family indicates that the cause of their present commotion is something that has already happened.  Whether it holds sway on the present is to be understood by context.

Another enquiry, 「どうしてまだ出発しないんですか」 would elicit, 妹が迷子になっているんです.



> Thank you. This makes the use of _naru_ unequivocally clear. However, having read this, I wonder how "consequences [that] are irrelevant to the present" jibes with the use of the _-ta_ form in expressions such as _zutto ikitakatta_?


I would say it jibes without much problem.  行きたかった to my mind means that the speaker's craving is over now that she has got the chance to do so.  Even if the speaker has not arrived at the destination, Japanese grammar regards that the 行きたい craving is over.


----------



## NonComposMentis

NonComposMentis said:


> However, having read this, I wonder how "consequences [that] are irrelevant to the present" jibes with the use of the -ta form in expressions such as _zutto ikitakatta_?





Flaminius said:


> I would say it jibes without much problem.  行きたかった to my mind means that the speaker's craving is over now that she has got the chance to do so.  Even if the speaker has not arrived at the destination, Japanese grammar regards that the 行きたい craving is over.



Now you've blown my little gray cells. I am totally lost. I remember the thread about the present perfect ("I have always wanted to go to Miyajima") in which you implied the opposite, as I understand it. Obviously, I am missing something here, but I can't figure out what it is.

I have revisited that thread and reproduce partially here what you had to say about the present perfect (in which the craving is very much *not* over).



Flaminius said:


> To achieve the present perfect for Japanese adjectives, you need -ta only (ikitakatta) ... I'd express "always" by zutto. No other particles are necessary: zutto Miyajima-ni ikitakatta.



In that thread you seem to have been saying that the -ta ending is present perfect (this is rendered as "I have always wanted to go to Miyajima" in English), i.e., the craving continues; but, in this thread you are saying that the craving is over and done with. What am I missing?


----------



## SpiceMan

NonComposMentis said:


> What am I missing?


I think you're missing context:


Flaminius said:


> Context is necessary to determine whether a certain _natta_ is a reference to the past or a present perfect.


An that goes for any verb, not just naru.

Past tense case 1:
- When I was a kid I wanted to go to Disneyworld.
Past tense case 2:
- We're going to Spain.
    - But I wanted to go to France!

In the first case "wanted" is 100% past. In the second it's past... but I'm sure the speaker still wants to go to France .
As far as I know, context determines the scope of the "past" tense pretty much always in any language.

A great share of learning a language is interpreting contexts, but that's mainly practice and interaction with the language rather than grammar imho.
How do you explain to an English language student that "I wanted to go to France" and "I wanted to go to Disneyworld" are different kinds of "pasts". How do you explain that one past continues in the present and the other does not... with grammar? My guess is that you can't.

You can only provide different contexts so the student may grasp how context work in the language.


----------



## NonComposMentis

SpiceMan said:


> I think you're missing context:


Yes *SpiceMan*_, _context is always important isn't it. However, in the "rules" that Flaminius gave us above about how the -ta ending is reserved for "consequences [that] are irrelevant to the present", he did not specify that they are context-limited. Context cannot make any verb form mean anything you like. It has a clearly-defined scope of usage, which  means what it means, in specific, clearly-defined, rule-based contexts. When I asked Flaminius how that rule affected the sentence about wanting to go to Miyajima, he said that the rule applied, _not_ that the context was different.

If both of these posts that Flaminius has written are accurate and precise, then the -ta form is somewhat different than the English present perfect in meaning. If that is true, I would like to know exactly what that difference is. What has been implied here, is that the -ta ending applies to only a limited section of the scope of the present perfect (desire satisfied or on the verge of being satisfied).



SpiceMan said:


> Past tense case 1:
> - When I was a kid I wanted to go to Disneyworld.
> Past tense case 2:
> - We're going to Spain.
> - But I wanted to go to France!
> 
> In the first case "wanted" is 100% past. In the second it's past... but I'm sure the speaker still wants to go to France



This is past tense, not present perfect, and it is in English, not Japanese, so the parallels are difficult to draw. In either case, the desire is now inconsequential, exactly the difference between past tense (desire inconsequential) and present/present perfect (desire still very consequential). Since the present perfect does not exist in Japanese, there has to be another way to express this difference. In your example, there would be a _huge_ difference between "But I wanted to go to France" (expressing disappointment, the speaker has given up on going to France, whether the desire still exists or not is inconsequential, same as the Disneyland example) and "But I want to go to France" (expressing opposition, the speaker has definitely not given up on going to France, the existence of the desire is _very_ consequential). Using the present perfect here ("But I have always wanted to go to France") would be closer in meaning to the present tense than the past tense in English, the desire is seen as consequential, although present perfect adds another dimension (strength of desire) and so may be seen here as more emotionally pressuring. It is this consequentiality that I would like to get straight in Japanese.

If I follow these rules that Flaminius has given, as I understand it I could say _zutto Miyajima he ikitakatta_ only if the desire is seen as being satisfied or on the verge of being satisfied. In English, that condition does not exist for the present perfect, only for the simple past. If I say "I _have always wanted to go_ to Miyajima", the meaning is the same whether there is any possibility of satisfaction or not. Flaminius _seems_ to be saying that that is not true in Japanese with the -ta ending. In any case, I would like to know exactly what the limits are, and whether Flaminius overlooked the context and misstated that the rule applies here. If this rule does apply as Flaminius seems to be saying, then perhaps we need to say something like _zutto Miyajima he ikitai to omotteiru ga..._ when the desire is not going to be satisfied in the foreseeable future, and we are not giving up on the desire.

I hope I am not being overly nit-picky here, but it seems to me that there is either a lack of clarity or a very important difference in meaning.


----------



## Flaminius

Hello *NonComposMentis* and *SpiceMan*,

I think I have written a few posts with two wrong assumptions.  I haven't got around to writing a thorough reply to address issues raised but here is a small note that I haven't abandoned discussions in this thread.

1. Suffix _-ta_ may be applied for adjectives to signify slightly different things from those when used with verbs.  I somehow assumed that _-ta_ means the same thing no matter what it merges with.

2. I mentioned that a reference to the past is always irrelevant to the present conditions.  This,  in view of sentences that *NonComposMentis *has pointed out, needs revision.


----------



## Flaminius

I am afraid I have lost considerable touch with the thread discussion while soul-searching but one of the most important things to consider is that use of _-ta_ with _tai_ is different from that with verbs or adjectives (this is a modification to the correction I stated in #10 point 1.  I cannot seem to stop correcting myself   ).

The adverb _zutto_ is used to express a present state that was enacted a long time ago ("A long time ago" is to be understood relative to the context).  For verbs, it is used in a construction as below:
二時間前からずっと食べている。
He has been eating all along since two hours ago.

His eating has started a while ago (for eating few disagree that two hours is a long time, I think  ) and the state of eating continues without interruption up to the present.

If _-ta_ is applied to the sentence, the state of  gastronomic orgy is considered to be over.
二時間前からずっと食べていた。
He was eating all along since two hours ago (but finally stopped just now).

As regards "zutto ... -ta" used with verbs, I think it is still safe to say that the time frame constructed by _-ta_ is irrelevant to the present.


It seems, however, not to be the case with _tai_.  For sentences with _tai_, _zutto_ requires a different construction.
昔からずっと行きたかった。
I always wanted to go since olden days.  

Note the use of _-ta_.  A more basic point is that, being adjective-like, _tai_ cannot take _-iru_ suffix because adjectives are by definition references to states.  With _-iru_ suffix, a state would be signified redundantly.  Unlike verbs, which take _zutto_ with their present (non-past imperfective to be really really accurate but let's not argue with minute details without necessity...) forms, 昔からずっと行きたい sounds pretty awkward.  Not that the sentence means something weird but the phrase itself is just not used (I hasten to add that it is okay as a subordinate clause: 宮島は昔からずっと行きたい土地でした).

It has been pointed out in another thread that a typical periphrasis to mean what *ずっと行きたい would mean is; 昔からずっと行きたいと思っている.  Whether 昔からずっと行きたかった can function in the same way needs further analysis.

Note:
Regular adjectives behave pretty much the same way verbs do in presence of _zutto_.
この壁は昔からずっと黒い is a perfectly grammatical reference to the present state enacted long time ago.  However, この壁は昔からずっと黒かった is also possible, narrating the event in the same time frame as the first.  The difference is that the first focuses on the present blackness whereas the latter on the past blackness.


----------



## Flaminius

Flaminius said:


> Whether 昔からずっと行きたかった can function in the same way needs further analysis.


So here is an attempt at further analysis.  This is going to be an explanation on #10 point 2 — _-ta_ is not necessarily irrelevant to the present.

It has been pointed out that Japanese sometimes uses 行きたかった where English would have it as, "I want to go."
E.g., フランスに行きたかった (A child upon hearing that her family is going to Spain for summer vacation; not to France as she wanted)
Even if _-ta_ is used, the girl's desire to go to France has not necessarily ceased.  Compared to フランスに行きたい, which is also possible, 行きたかった here is NOT a reference irrelevant to the present but a more low-key assertion of her desire.  I think I can typically expect that the girl is not going to cling to the doorpost resisting her parents dragging her to the airport.  She is not entirely happy with the decision but does not raise further objection.  At its strongest, _-ta_ here expresses disgruntled feelings of the speaker for the statement  modified by _-ta_.  If _-ta_ expresses a mood, or the subjective attitude of the speaker, it cannot express a tense.  A modal _-ta_, in other words, can be used in reference to the present.

There is a thread that deals other usages of modal _-ta_.  Click.


----------

