# 政治権力を掌握させる



## Pavel Bond

現代の政治用語を用いれば、頼朝は武勲者に政治権力を*掌握さることなしに*、巧みに政局を操ったと言える。
I get the meaning, but not the grammar.
In my view it lacks a verb, something like 頼朝は武勲者に政治権力を*掌握をさせる*さることなしに...?
Or may be just 治権力を*掌握させる*ことなしに？


----------



## Flaminius

You are right.  The text suffers from ungrammaticality, which can be fixed by correcting a typo:
政治権力を掌握させることなしに
掌握させる is the causative version of 掌握する, a simple transitive verb.

*掌握をさせる may be derived from a verb phrase *掌握をする, which is unfortunately non-existent.


----------



## Pavel Bond

Thank you!
A rather funny typo, as it's just a grammar example from my textbook for the construction 然ることなし 。


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

*掌握さることなしに* =*掌握されることなしに　＝ 握られることなしに　（受け身）　*なのでは？　
「ら抜き言葉」的なのかもしれませんが、文語で「れ抜き言葉」が使われることはアリなんじゃないかと直感的には思うのですが、文語の単語の活用的にはいかがでしょうか？　「掌握さる」という受け身は存在しませんでしょうか？

（追記）
https://www.seijo.ac.jp/pdf/falit/229/229-2.pdf

（『承認さる』のくだり　２ページの上部分）
文法的には正しくはないが、俗な使い方としては存在する（存在していた）、ということでしょうか。

使役でも受け身でも文脈的には可能かと思いました。


----------



## Pavel Bond

So, it's even more complicated case than ら抜き言葉, just a thing you should know that it exists and sometimes you can run across it 
Thanks a lot!


----------



## Pavel Bond

But would it be correct here to use させる or される?


----------



## Flaminius

Yes, both are possible.  Having said that, I prefer させる (not just "force someone" but also "let them") in this context because the subject stands the agent throughout.


----------



## Pavel Bond

And if case if it is させる, we are dealing with the same situation as with される? 
I mean, 掌握させる can be transformed, as 掌握される, in 掌握さる, or in case if in the original phrase the speaker used 掌握させる (not 掌握される), so the transforming it 掌握さる should be still regarded as a typo?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Good point!
掌握される can be described as 掌握さる commonly, although it is grammatically incorrect.
However, 掌握させる cannot be described as 掌握さる, in my humble opinion.

So,
Flam thinks that it should be regarded as a typo, because he prefers させる in that context.
I think that it should be されるーー＞さる because I want to explain it without regarding it as a typo.
Besides, I think させる and される mean more or less the same in this context, although he doesn't.
We have a different viewpoint, if I understand it correctly.

cf)
信長は本能寺で(割腹)自殺した。自決した。
信長は本能寺で(光秀に）殺された。
I think the both sentence state the same historical fact, although "he killed himself" and "he was killed" are different, literally.
It's rather a matter of philosophy, not language.
Likewise, it depends on each individual's knowledge about the Kamakura era's history.
(I've forgotten almost all about who 頼朝 was and what he did. So I should respect Flam's opinion.)


----------



## Pavel Bond

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Pavel Bond

Still one more question. This transforming 承認され る in 承認さる is regarded as 俗な使い方 or 口語. Is it really used in modern spoken language?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

No.
It is 俗に、誤った使い方をされた*文語(古語）.*
Modern people don't know well about the old Japanese grammar, so they may make mistakes when they pretend to use the old style.


----------



## Pavel Bond

Thanks!


----------

