# 未来をその手に



## Bradgiarco

Hello everybody,

I'm a bit unsure about the meaning of this sentence: 未来をその手に。I have no context, it's just an slogan (picture attached).

1. I guess it's an idiom? その手 means "that way, this kind of way" according to my dictionary. So my guess: "That's the future" (sorry, perhaps I have too much imagination and it's not even close). In Apple's English page it says "say hello to the future", but slogans hardly ever are translated literally.

2. Doing some research I've seen a japanese song named　その手に明日を, so I guess it can be used in other ways, not just with 未来 ?

PS: I see iPhone X is cheaper in Japan, now I have an excuse to go 

Thanks in advance for your time,


----------



## Contrafibularity

My guess about 1 is "The future is in your hands! (if you have this iphone X)" 
その手 is "that hand" or "those hands" (the hands of the people spoken to) in this context.  

My guess about 2 is basically the same.  Literally, it means "tomorrow in your hands", but the meaning depends on context.  I had a look at the lyrics of the song and then the title sounds much less optimistic.  It's more like "The future is bleak, but we'll get on."    

You have many excuses to visit Japan.  For one, Sakura season is coming


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> I guess it's an idiom?


No, it's an advertising slogan by Apple, as you said. That of course implies an iPhone X in your hand. That 未来 is the metaphor of that state-of-the-art device. What the slogan wants to do is conjure up an image that you have it in your hand.

手 means "means (6)/method". So your dictionary says:


> "that way, this kind of way"





> but slogans hardly ever are translated literally.


That's right. Maybe that is the Japanese version.



> Doing some research I've seen a japanese song named　その手に明日を, so I guess it can be used in other ways, not just with 未来 ?


That's the choice by the writer. You can use 明日, too. You know they have the similar meaning.


----------



## Bradgiarco

Thank you very much to both of you.

The thing is, I think that maybe in japanese you use determiners a little bit different than in English and Spanish then. その means "these, those, that", so translating literally it is: "the future is in these hands". In Spanish (and I'm almost sure in English too) it's impossible that "these" refers to the hands of the person spoken to (unless you are pointing at them or some other specific case), one should say instead: 未来をあなたの手に。 That's why I was asking if その手に was an idiom. But I see that for both of you it is clear that その here refers to "my" hands. Why not saying あなた? It just sound weird or there's some kind of rule I do not know?

PS: I'm sure sakura season is gorgeous, but I can't visit Japan without having a bath in an onsen in the middle of a mountain while snowing. So I guess I have to wait for next winter


----------



## Flaminius

Hello,

Here, _sono_ is used as a vague reference to a third person, meaning something to the effect that he/she/they that have an iPhone X will get the future in their hand.  It’s not a demonstrative like “this” or “that” but a personal possessive pronoun.

A quick recap of revious discussions: 手 is the metonymy for both “work” as in その手 and “possession” as in 手に入れる.


----------



## frequency

Ah sorry, it is a very natural usage so I didn't understand notice why you didn't understand the その there.


Flaminius said:


> he/she/they that have an iPhone X will get the future in their hand.


You're among those people, too.


----------



## Contrafibularity

Bradgiarco said:


> その means "these, those, that", so translating literally it is: "the future is in these hands". In Spanish (and I'm almost sure in English too) it's impossible that "these" refers to the hands of the person spoken to (unless you are pointing at them or some other specific case), one should say instead: 未来をあなたの手に。


I did say "that" and "those" but did not say "these".  And I completely agree with you that "these" cannot refer to the hands of the person spoken to, unless you're holding / pointing at the hands right now.  



Flaminius said:


> Here, _sono_ is used as a vague reference to a third person, meaning something to the effect that he/she/they that have an iPhone X will get the future in their hand. It’s not a demonstrative like “this” or “that” but a personal possessive pronoun.


This confuses me a lot, but I'm curious to know.  First, does it have to be a third person when it seems "I" (the ad itself) is talking to "You" (the person spoken to)?  Second, it has never occurred to me that s_ono_ is a pronoun, not an adjective.    
I don't know if this is a good example, but I'll give it a go.  
Suppose that a manga character (a mentor-like figure) says to the hero, "未来はその手でつかめ！".  He could say "未来はきみの手でつかめ！", and it means the same thing to me, though different in tone, and it seems その手 and きみの手 are interchangeable.  
Some English dictionaries treat "your" as a pronoun, a derivative of "you".  Is this what you meant?


----------



## Flaminius

Welcome to the WR Fora, *Contrafibularity*.  Dr. Johnson says hello to you.



Contrafibularity said:


> does it have to be a third person . . . . ?


The tone of the advert is too impersonal to limit its referent to a second person.  If "he/she/they" does not sound right, "one" or the generic you can do the business.



Contrafibularity said:


> it seems "I" (the ad itself) is talking to "You" (the person spoken to)?


I don't sense that the advert is talking to the reader.  This is an advert without an image of a person or jussive (e.g., 手にしよう).  To focus on the wording, the copywriter seems to have avoided creating an impression that the advert is speaking to the reader by choosing _sono_ instead of _anata-no_.  Contrast it with your example where the mentor and the hero are already engaged in a conversation; even if the utterance is the only line in their conversation, at least they both know whom it is directed at.  I have no problem understanding_ sono_ _te_ as “your hands” in this case.  When used in a conversation, _sono_ refers to things that are close either physically or figuratively to one's interlocutor.  In this scheme, _sono te_ is the hand(s) of one's interlocutor.  Ordinarily, you don't expect that your interlocutor has a hand of someone else.

Now back to the copy.  I don't find myself being spoken to by the advert. There is no person who is being spoken to because there is no conversation in the first place.  Still, I can understand who will have the future in their hands.  It must refer to anyone that considers buying the product; hence my “vague reference to a third person.”  I hasten to add that the reference includes someone who is looking at the advert.  In a nutshell, I argue that _sono_ is a generic reference to anyone other than the speaker themselves.



> Second, it has never occurred to me that s_ono_ is a pronoun, not an adjective.


It is a matter of definition.  I don’t call anything adjective that does not conjugate for the tense in Japanese.


----------



## Contrafibularity

Thank you for your welcome, Flaminius.  I enjoy forums here very much, and I hope I haven't caused any pericombobulations. 



Flaminius said:


> The tone of the advert is too impersonal to limit its referent to a second person. If "he/she/they" does not sound right, "one" or the generic you can do the business.


When I see an ad like this, or an election campaign poster with a slogan like this, I always feel I'm spoken to or being appealed to, and here I mean "I among other people (as one of _us_)".  This is not exactly a conversation, but not so remote from the manga situation I illustrated.  And here arises another question.  You said


Flaminius said:


> To focus on the wording, the copywriter seems to have avoided creating an impression that the advert is speaking to the reader by choosing _sono_ instead of _anata-no_.


If _sono _is a personal possessive pronoun, it is not compatible with _anata-no_, right?  But it seems to me they are.  未来をあなたのその手に sounds natural enough (to me at least), and this applies to the manga situation too. (未来をきみのその手でつかめ）I don't know if others agree with this, but _sono _and _anata-no_, when used together, don't sound redundant to me, and I think it's because _sono _is a demonstrative, referring to direction.


----------



## Flaminius

No pericombobulations being caused, unless you are someone who practises floxinoxinihilipilification.

The discussion is getting technical and tricky.  Your あなたのその手 is either 1. an emphatic construction or 2. a further restriction on the referent.  In other words, the latter use entails that あなた has more than one hand or a pair of hands that are relevant to the dialogue.  I admit a lot of ugly things can creep in to my little cozy theory, but _sono_ is difficult to interpret other than a pronoun in simpler sentences.  In the sentence below, 
彼はその顔を彼女から背けた。
the owner of the face is 彼.  In other words, it is wrong to assume that there is a third person present in the locus and 彼 forced him to turn away from the woman.



Contrafibularity said:


> here I mean "I among other people (as one of _us_)".


As long as you allow the referent to include a vague "everyone", I surmise our positions are not so different.  (Or do I misconstrue?)


----------



## frequency

Flaminius said:


> I hasten to add that the reference includes someone who is looking at the advert.


Then he or she includes a reader.


Bradgiarco said:


> Why not saying あなた?


You can also use あなた in that example. 未来をあなたの手に is okay. But you know 未来をその手に is shorter. And the structure with four moras + four moras sounds fine, like the rule of 5 7 5 in haiku. Compact, but a larger impact. Euphony is important, too.
mora

その
3 ばくぜんと物事をさし示す。
その could indicate undefined (many) people, including you.


----------



## Contrafibularity

Flaminius said:


> As long as you allow the referent to include a vague "everyone", I surmise our positions are not so different. (Or do I misconstrue?)


No, you are quite right. 



Flaminius said:


> _sono_ is difficult to interpret other than a pronoun in simpler sentences. In the sentence below,
> 彼はその顔を彼女から背けた。
> the owner of the face is 彼. In other words, it is wrong to assume that there is a third person present in the locus and 彼 forced him to turn away from the woman.


You've got a point, but I think I need some more time to follow your argument.

I don't see myself as someone who practises floxinoxinihilipilification, but I would be in danger of doing so if I went on. 
I withdraw here, therefore, with much appreciation for your supercalifragilisticexpialidocious input.


----------



## Bradgiarco

Hello everybody and thanks for your responses,

Sorry for answering that late, but it's been a busy week and wanted to read the responses carefully.

I think everybody explained themselves thoroughly and I understood it pretty well.

Nevertheless, going over it a little bit more, another question comes to mind:

I guess here, as in many sentences in Japanese, the verb is being omitted, which in this case would be ある。But then, the particle one should use is は instead of を, right? It would be: 未来はその手にある right? or it would be を？


----------



## Flaminius

Japanese sentences are often understood without verbs; provided that case markers for the nouns establish the relationships between them.  The presence of _-o_ means you have to assume a transitive verb as being implied.  This way, you can exclude the possibility of _aru_.  Then, there is another case marking, _-ni_, one of whose function is to mark the indirect object of a verb.

The kind of the implied verb is one that allows bringing the future (_-o_) to your hands (_-ni_).  Off the top of my head, verbs that make sense include _ataeru_, _yudaneru_, and _sazukeru_.  None, however, seems to make a good copy.  Besides brevity, this may be the reason the verb is not mentioned.


----------



## Bradgiarco

Thank you Flaminius,

Then, 未来はその手に would sound natural in Japanese, assuming the verb is ある？


----------



## frequency

You can't use を with ある.


Bradgiarco said:


> 未来はその手に would sound natural in Japanese, assuming the verb is ある？


Yes. If you say その手にある, ある with a に phrase can show existence and location. This is a complete clause. You add more info to say what you have there. 未来.
As for 未来(, )その手にある.
If you say 未来はその手に, you're leaving ある out, and this is what you're doing. And you can use any other intransitive verbs than ある. e.g. 存在する、残る、etc.

If you say 未来をその手に, you're leaving out any transitive verb, as Flam said.


----------



## Bradgiarco

Thank you again both of you!

But then, does it have another nuance? As Flaminius said, if there is no obvious verb you can use in this sentence with the を particle, and if using は it would be pretty evident that ある is the omitted verb, why would the copywriter chose を　instead of は？

My guess: using を　emphasises the fact that it is iPhone X what places the future in your hands. If you use は, it's just kind of a generic statement?


----------



## frequency

Bradgiarco said:


> why would the copywriter chose を　instead of は？


That's a writer's intention. How do you read it? It's free. Because it has no verb, you can read it freely. You can read it 未来をその手につかめ, but I didn't. I read it like "We sell/provide you it. It's a highly advanced machine so you feel like you've got future." Your OP gives you a free choice.


> If you use は, it's just kind of a generic statement?


Indeed, 未来はその手に sounds like a general statement more than the case above. Sounds "Future in your hand" to me. You know it's more ambiguous. But note that I don't say "using _wa_ makes a statement ambiguous."

I think that when we read 未来をその手に, we tend to supplement a verb probably because of the object marker _wo_. Personally, I don't supplement a verb when I hear 未来はその手に. I read this one as it is.
Is my post answering your question?


----------



## Bradgiarco

Totally! 

Thanks to all of you!


----------

