# じゅんさんはリサさんがわかると言った。



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

According to Huang ('On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns'), in sentences like the following, if there is no preceding context, we cannot know whom or what the person is speaking about. He speaks about Chinese but he says it applies to Japanese and Korean too.

For example, we meet right now and I say:
じゅんさんはリサさんがわかると言った。　

From this sentence can you understand whom does Lisa know, which is the person that Lisa knows?
Or would you reply something like "だれ（をリサさんはわかる)？


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Generally speaking,
じゅんさんはリサさんがわかると言った。
＝June said that she was able to identify Lisa.


But I'm not sure your question.


Nino83 said:


> For example, *we* meet right now and* I* say:
> じゅんさんはリサさんがわかると言った。


Who are the "we" ?
Who is the "I" in your question?
Is June or Lisa included in the "we" or "I" in your context?


----------



## Nino83

Hi, SoLaTiDoberman. 
In my example I'm speaking to you. I understand that _wakaru_ is not the best verb. I'll try with a verb that takes the particle _o_. 
じゅんさんはリサさんが愛すると言った。 
I'm just reporting an information I heard.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Okay. I got it.
I=Nino83.
we=Nino83 and SLTD in this case, right?

In that case,
じゅんさんはリサさんがわかると言った has no ambiguity, which means "June said that she was able to identify Lisa."


じゅんさんはリサさんが愛すると言った。
This is a little mysterious sentence.
It means something like this：
June said that Lisa was loving somebody.
June said that Lisa was doing the act of loving somebody.

じゅんさんはリサがボブを愛していると言った。
＝June said that Lisa loved Bob.


----------



## Nino83

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> じゅんさんはリサさんが愛すると言った。
> This is a little mysterious sentence.
> It means something like this：
> June said that Lisa was loving somebody.


Thanks! 

So, in this context you exclude that this sentence means something like "Jun said that Lisa loves *him (= Jun*)", isn't it?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Yes. I exclude that possibility.

"Jun said that Lisa loves *him (= Jun*)".
＝*じゅんさんは、リサさんから愛されていると言った。*


----------



## Nino83

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> "Jun said that Lisa loves *him (= Jun*)".
> ＝*じゅんさんは、リサさんから愛されていると言った。*


Great. This confirms what Prof. Huang says.

And if, for example, there is a preceding context, a topic we're speaking about, could these meanings be possible?

ボブは知っている？じゅんさんはリサさんが愛していると言った。
Do you know *Bob*? Jun said that Lisa loves *him (= Bob)*.
じゅんさんは知っている？彼はリサさんが愛していると言った。　
Do you know *Jun*? He said Lisa loves *him (=Jun)*.


----------



## 810senior

Nino83, you have to make it clear *who *loves _*whom *_or it is merely a confusing and ambiguous sentence that is way too hard to translate. I know there must be the context but we have no other way to know it.

P.S.
My try on some given English translations on post #7:
ボブのこと知ってるか？ジュンさんが言うにはリサさんはボブにいまゾッコンらしい。
ジュンさんって分かるよね？彼が前に自分で言ってたけど、リサさんってジュンさんのことが好きらしいよ。


----------



## Nino83

Thanks for your reply, 810senior.

I hope the following example has enough context.
I'm speaking with a friend of mine about a student, who's walking in front of us.
A: Who's that student?
B: Bob. Jun said that Lisa loves *him* (Bob).
A: あの学生は、だれ？　
B: ボブ。じゅんさんはリサさんが愛していると言った。

Is the second sentence ambiguous?


----------



## uchi.m

B: Bob. Jun san ha Lisa san ga Bob wo ai shiteiru to itta.


----------



## frequency

uchi.m said:


> B: Bob. Jun san ha Lisa san ga Bob wo ai shiteiru to itta.


Yes.


Nino83 said:


> B: ボブ。じゅんさんはリサさんが愛していると言った。


Is Bob implied in the second one? Yes and no. Roughly understandable. But we may need a little time to understand, and then you'll need information or your memories. "I might have heard that Lisa has a boyfriend called Bob..yes." Then you'll understand it. If you don't know the statement is a bit harder to understand, but リサさん*が* would work to show the necessary information.

I mean that the second one （じゅんさん～）could be understood as a stand-alone sentence that excludes the information about Bob.


----------



## 810senior

Nino83 said:


> Thanks for your reply, 810senior.
> 
> I hope the following example has enough context.
> I'm speaking with a friend of mine about a student, who's walking in front of us.
> A: Who's that student?
> B: Bob. Jun said that Lisa loves *him* (Bob).
> A: あの学生は、だれ？
> B: ボブ。じゅんさんはリサさんが愛していると言った。
> 
> Is the second sentence ambiguous?


It still confuses me because it doesn't seem to give me a clue whether Lisa is being hooked on Bob and the revealed context doesn't have something to do with this: who would have guessed that it is *Bob *that she is now *crazy about* in this context?


----------



## Nino83

Thank you.

The examples that Prof. Huang makes in that article are the following:

1) Zhangsan shuō Lisi bù rènshì.
Zhangsan says (that) Lisi doesn't know (him).

2) Shéi kànjiàn-le Zhangsan? Zhangsan shuō Lisi bù rènshì.
Who saw Zhangsan? Zhangsan says Lisi saw (him).

3) Nà gè rén, Zhangsan shuō Lisi bù rènshì.
That man, Zhangsan says (that) Lisi doesn't know (him).

He says that in 1) it is excluded that the person Lisi knows is Zhangsan, and if we want to convey this meaning we have to add the direct object _tā_ (him), so the sentence becomes _Zhangsan shuō Lisi bù rènshì *tā*_. As SoLaTiDoberman confirmed, it is the same thing in Japanese.
If we don't add the direct object, it is excluded that the person Lisi knows is Zhangsan and we don't know whom Lisi knows. Huang says:


> If the visitor says _Zhangsan shuō Lisi bù rènshì_, the usual assumption is that EC refers to someone else, and the most likely response is "Zhangsan said Lisi doesn't know who?".


Until now, it seems that also in Japanese it is so.

Then, about the sentence 2), he says that in this case also without _tā_ (him), Zhangsan is the topic so the sentence means that Lisi saw Zhangsan.

In the sentence 3), he says that "that man" is the topic, so the sentence means that Lisi doesn't know "that man".

Now I was wondering if it was the same in Japanese.

I'll make another example where Bob is introduced in the first sentence as topic of the discourse.
ボブのことをどう思いますか。
*ボブは*良い人だと思います。 じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。

Is it sufficient in order to convey the meaning that "Lisa loves Bob"?

And in this case?
ボブのことをどう思いますか。
ボブは良い人だと思います。*ボブについて*、じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。


----------



## frequency

The three cases seem similar to those in Japanese.


Nino83 said:


> If we don't add the direct object, the sentence is ambiguous. Prof. Huang says what follows.


I agree.


> ボブのことをどう思いますか。
> *ボブは*良い人だと思います。 じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。


Perfect.


> ボブのことをどう思いますか。
> *ボブは*良い人だと思います。*ボブについて*、じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。


It sounds like you're repeating ボブ.

In these cases, as [ボブは][良い人だと思います。 じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。], [ボブは] looks like an adverbial phrase, maybe.
See Flam's #4.
_It can be used adverbially too:
Kyō (wa) ginkō e ikanakereba naranai. [Today I have to go to the bank.]_


----------



## Nino83

Good! 
So the problem of the example in #9 was that "Bob" was not adequately "topicalized".  
Thank you!


----------



## frequency

Good. You're welcome. I forgot to say that maybe ボブは and ボブについて have the similar function. So it looks repeated.


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> I forgot to say that maybe ボブは and ボブについて have the similar function. So it looks repeated.


Yes. I used ボブについて because I was not sure if it was a good idea to use two "wa" in the same sentence.
Does ボブ*は*じゅん*は*リサが愛してると言います。 sound a bit "cacophonic" in Japanese?


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> ボブ*は*じゅん*は*リサが愛してると言います。


This is a question of construction. Strangely, this says that ボブは言います。And the embedded one: じゅんはリサが愛している。This one would usually be understood じゅんのことはリサが愛している. So, Bob says that Lisa loves Jun. That can be ボブはじゅんをリサが愛していると言います。
So the meaning largely differs. 

You can also say,
*ボブは*良い人だと思います。 ボブをリサが愛してるとじゅんは言います。And you can make one or more variations, too.


Nino83 said:


> in #9 was that "Bob" was not adequately "topicalized".


That 「ボブ。」? It would be simply the answer for だれ？


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> ボブは言います。And the embedded one: じゅんはリサが愛している。This one would usually be understood じゅんのことはリサが愛している. So, Bob says that Lisa loves Jun.


 (Help!) 


frequency said:


> That 「ボブ。」? It would be simply the answer for だれ？


Right! I didn't think about it.  
Now I know that when there are two "wa", the first is the subject (or actor, agent, who performs the action). Thanks!


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> (Help!)


Ha!


> there are two "wa", the first is the subject (or actor, agent, who performs the action).


You're right. See


> ボブは良い人だ


Here the は works so at the same time. (plus works adverbially.)


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> Ha!


Using two "wa" without knowing how to do it could lead to great gaffes and misunderstandings. 


frequency said:


> Here the は works so at the same time. (plus works adverbially.)


Yes. This is the interesting thing of the Japanese syntax. You can introduce, establish, a topic and then, in the following sentence, the same topic (often omittted) can be the subject, the object (like in リサが愛してる, where it is omitted) or something else. 
This is why it is different from the Indo-European subject (but this is a good discussion for the thread "は and を").


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> This is the interesting thing of the Japanese syntax.


Yes..I must add follow-up (to excuse)


frequency said:


> [ボブは][良い人だと思います。 じゅんはリサが愛してると言います。]


If I could say that [ボブは] can jump to modify the second sentence. I'm not sure, but it can read so. If it can't do this, the second would be stand-alone again. If I get any information I'll come back.


----------

