# 関山から山科へ、参ろうと云う途中でございます



## Starfrown

I have a question concerning a sentence I found in Akutagawa’s 「藪の中」. Here it is:

場所は関山から山科へ、参ろうと云う途中でございます。

It’s pretty easy to see roughly what he’s saying, i.e. the place is midway between Sekiyama and Yamashina, but I’m not entirely sure what’s going on grammatically in this sentence.

Is the “to iu” necessary? Could you simply write:

関山から山科へ、参ろう途中 ?

If so, what would the difference be?

Should the phrase be translated literally as: “the midway point through which (I) would go from Sekiyama to Yamashina”?


----------



## Ocham

場所は関山から山科へ、参ろうと云う途中でございます。

関山から山科へ、参ろう途中 ?
No, it should be 関山から山科へ参る途中.

I don't know why we put という（と云う） here, so I can't explain 
by using grammatical terms. But I know when we usually put 
it here:

example:
さあ、行くぞ、*という*時になって子供が身体の不調を訴えた。
さあ、行くぞ means Let's go!

Either さあ、行くぞ or 参ろう can be defined as words someone 
utter(ed). And と云う（＝と言う） literally means "say that." I think 
it has much to do with the usage of と云う（と言う） here.


----------



## wathavy

To me, it looks more like related to the sounds which makes better with the original sentences.
Perhaps a language teacher has his theory, but I would like to put it it has better rhythm than without 'ToIu'.
...


----------



## Starfrown

Ocham said:


> Either さあ、行くぞ or 参ろう can be defined as words someone
> utter(ed). And と云う（＝と言う） literally means "say that." I think
> it has much to do with the usage of と云う（と言う） here.


 
I am aware of its literal meaning, but "to iu" often has very little meaning in attributive/relative clauses in Japanese--in many cases it may be deleted--and I was wondering whether this were one of those cases. You say that it's not, and before I posted, I was leaning your way because of the volitional form "mairou."
 
For a literal translation of the phrase:
 
関山から山科へ、参ろうと云う途中 ?
 
Perhaps this would work:
 
"the midway point [through which] (I) say (I) will/would go from Sekiyama to Yamashina"


----------



## Wishfull

Starfrown said:


> I am aware of its literal meaning, but "to iu" often has very little meaning in attributive/relative clauses in Japanese--in many cases it may be deleted--and I was wondering whether this were one of those cases."


 
I think (that) you are right. In many cases "to iu" may be deleted just like "that" in English.
_I think you are right._
_I think *that* you are right._
_I think it is almost the same as "that" in English__._
_I think *that* it is almost the same as "that" in English._

I would agree with you if this Akutagawa's work were non-fiction.
Just telling the fact, と云う might be redundant.
関山から山科へ、参*ろうと云う*途中でございます
関山から山科へ、参*る*途中でございます　is better.
関山から山科の途中でございます　might be even better.

And if you or I wrote this sentence, many Japanese would claimed that it is redundant expression like you said. But they don't say so. Why?
I think Ryuunosuke Akutagawa's name value is one thing.
And the second is (that) language for science or nonfiction and language for art are different things.
Sometimes redundant expression makes the writer's taste.
And it is the matter of reader's feeling of agree or disagree with that taste.

I don't like 関山から山科へ、参*ろうと云う*途中でございます at all. 
To me , 関山から山科の途中でございました　is enogh.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Flaminius

Sōseki used 参ろう, a volitional form, because reaching Yamashina is realised in a relative future point in time.  Classical Japanese had the notion of the future tense expressed by volitional/inferential elements such as む (which is the origin of the _-yō_ irrealis).

Susumu Ōno explains this point in『日本語で一番大切なもの』:


> 君がゆく道のながてをくりたたね焼きほろぼさむ天の火もがも
> 作者:狭野弟上娘子 出典:[万葉集15]3724/3746
> 
> 「む」にはテンス(時制)がある。「天の火もがも」という文末の表現は、まだ天の火を得ていなくて、将来にそれを希望しているわけで、その未来の表現と「む」とが呼応している。現代日本語には、こういうテンスの感覚がなくなった。


----------



## Starfrown

Flaminius said:


> SōsekiAkutagawa used 参ろう, a volitional form, because reaching Yamashina is realised in a relative future point in time. Classical Japanese had the notion of the future tense expressed by volitional/inferential elements such as む (which is the origin of the _-yō_ irrealis).


 
Thank you, Flamini.  It appears that I was justified in translating 参ろう as "(I) will/would go."

However, what do you think of my earlier literal translation of the phrase 関山から山科へ、参ろうと云う途中:

"the midway point [through which] (I) say (I) will/would go from Sekiyama to Yamashina" ??

I suppose I'm wondering exactly how と云う is functioning in this sentence--is it required because of the volitional form?  Should we see 参ろう as a true utterance as Ocham suggested?


----------



## Flaminius

Salve Sidus,

I see that you are tackling という with the same tactics you applied to と.    It should draw a good parallel because the latter is the quotative that creates an adverbial clause and the former is the quotative that creates an attributive clause.

I have qualms about translating 途中 as a "point."  I will try translating it as literally as possible (道の中):
On the way [via which] (I) say (I) will/would go from Sekiyama to Yamashina.

I am sorry but this does not help me so much answering your question (You, being a native English speaker, are more than entitled to benefit from this  ).  Let me for a while consider a similar usage of という.

「欲望という名の電車」[the Japanese title of theatre play _Streetcar Named Desire_]
首相という大任に相応しい傑人
In both instances, という links the first noun with the second in apposition.  That is, they are meant to say _Desire_ is the name [of the streetcar] and being Prime Minister is an important service.  Apposition is called for because a. 欲望の電車 does not sound right (collocation) or b. one wants to add more information (The office of Prime Minister is serious).

The topic sentence can be, with a slight stretch of syntactic categories, understood as having an appositional relation: "être en train d'aller de Sekiyama à Yamashina" (Excuse my French) is equal to, or at least the content of, 途中.

Now, why Akutagawa (≠ Sōseki; thank you) needed という while Modern Japanese can do without as in 関山から山科へ行く途中?  It is helpful to note that his contemporaries could use べき to mark the end of a future attributive clause; 将来東洋の覇権を掌握すべき端緒 (this is still possible in MJ but not popular).

べき is the adnominal form of べし that the noun 端緒 requires.  We can assume that 行く as in 行く途中 is in adnominal even if it has no morphological difference with the conclusive form 行く.  It follows that 参ろう cannot directly connect to 途中 because it does not have an adnominal form albeit identical to the conclusive form.

It is a major change from its ancester む, which had an adnominal form to make an attributive clause (Cf. #6 _supra_).  In the modern conjugation paradigms, it is no longer regarded as an element independent of the verb but part of the verb stem and lumped with the irrealis form.  Even in Classical Japanese む had only three forms (conclusive/adnominal む and realis め).  The instability of the む paradigm may have motivated the assimilation.

Historical casuistry aside, nowadays one is safe to say that 参ろう is on a par with 行くぞ in that it expresses modality by a morphological means.


----------



## Starfrown

Flaminius said:


> The topic sentence can be, with a slight stretch of syntactic categories, understood as having an appositional relation: "être en train d'aller de Sekiyama à Yamashina" (Excuse my French) is equal to, or at least the content of, 途中.


 
So you see the "to iu" here as indicating the content of "tochuu" rather than a true utterance.  The distinction between those uses has always seemed very fine to me.


----------



## Flaminius

Direct and indirect speeches often insensibly merge in Japanese literature.  This one, however, hardly strikes me as a true utterance.  Is it the use of honorific expression (参る) that confuses you? Modern Japanese has managed to kick honorific code switching out of subordinate clauses but it has been a normal thing in older Japanese.  And even today it occasionally raises its (insert the adjective that best describes your attitude) head.


----------



## Starfrown

Flaminius said:


> Is it the use of honorific expression (参る) that confuses you? Modern Japanese has managed to kick honorific code switching out of subordinate clauses but it has been a normal thing in older Japanese.


 
Now that you mention it, the use of 参る in the subordinate clause may have been the reason I wanted to see the phrase as an utterance rather than as the "content" of 途中.


----------

