# パパにたいしてひどいことをかきましたごめんなさい



## vermeer1675

_*Merci pour votre aide à traduire ce texte en français ou en anglais / Thank you for your help to translate this text in English or French*_

おてがみありがとう
パパにたいしてひどいことをかきましたごめんなさい
いまやっとわかりました。
わたしにもわかりやすいぶんしょうでいみがわかりました。
ありがとう
パパがんばってね
またかきます
らなより


----------



## frequency

_Thank you for your letter.
I wrote about you badly. I'm sorry.
Now I have finally understood.
You wrote me in the words understandable to me,
so I understand what you mean.
Thank you, hang in there daddy.
I'll write you back again.
From Rana
_


----------



## Tonky

vermeer1675 said:


> パパにたいしてひどいことをかきましたごめんなさい


a small correction, "I have written something horrible to you", not "about you"


----------



## frequency

Tonky said:


> "I have written something horrible to you", not "about you"


これじゃあひどく書いた内容はパパのことじゃなくてもよくなりますょ


----------



## Tonky

"I wrote about you badly"だと、他の人にパパの悪口を書いた、と間違われるかも。ちょっとおかしいかなと思いますよ。


----------



## Flaminius

aboutをつかうなら、to write something bad about youでしょう。メッセージを読んだのがだれかは、文脈で分かるので気にしなくていいと思います。


----------



## Tonky

自分の文を修正、something horrible ではなくて、horrible things の方がしっくりきますね。
→I wrote/have written horrible things to you.

ところで、英語では I wrote about you と言うと、相手に書いたのではなく、たとえば、ブログなどで（又は他の人に宛てて）相手のことを書いたというニュアンスが生まれてしまうはずです。娘さんがそう勘違いされるのは本意ではないと思いますし、この英語の文脈で分かることには私には思えませんが。


----------



## Firewall

badlyの…広い(wide? ambiguous?)意味のせいで　"he rode the bike badly"　みたいに、下手にした　という意味が勘違いされるかもだと思いますが、やっぱりもっと的確な単語を使ったほうがいいでしょうか、Tonkyがいった"horrible things" みたいな。

そして、日本語のほうの「たいして」についてですが、その意味はただ「について」じゃなくて、「について+に向かって」の二つの意味が含まれていると思ったのですが、違いますか？
そのことによって英語の意味がちょっと変わるかもしれないと思って


----------



## Flaminius

Tonky said:


> この英語の文脈で分かることには私には思えませんが。


文脈といったのは、一つ前の質問のことです。削除したものなので議論の対象にはしませんが、質問者は何を聞いたか覚えているので、「だれに向かって」いったかで迷うことはないでしょう。



Firewall said:


> badlyの…広い(wide? ambiguous?)意味のせいで　"he rode the bike badly"　みたいに、下手にした　という意味が勘違いされるかもだと思いますが、やっぱりもっと的確な単語を使ったほうがいいでしょうか、Tonkyがいった"horrible things" みたいな。


そうですね。



> そして、日本語のほうの「たいして」についてですが、その意味はただ「について」じゃなくて、「について+に向かって」の二つの意味が含まれていると思ったのですが、違いますか？
> そのことによって英語の意味がちょっと変わるかもしれないと思って


はい、この文ではそうです。ただしわたしは、「たいして」の基本の意味は「向かって」で十分だと思います。「について」も意味するのは、この文で他に「ひどいこと」と関連する名詞がないからだとおもいます。


----------



## frequency

Firewall, yes mine is ambiguous and I know this could be 'I wrote about you but my writing was poor.' And selecting an adverb 'nastily' or 'derogatorily' would be nicer. But see, this is a letter from the very young daughter and this daddy is a french guy. My instinct just selected 'badly'; I wanted to make it easier, aside from the matter of English grammar and if it's really easier or not.



Tonky said:


> ところで、英語では I wrote about you と言うと、相手に書いたのではなく、たとえば、ブログなどで（又は他の人に宛てて）相手のことを書いたというニュアンスが生まれてしまうはずです。



書く人・読む人、聞く人・言う人から遠いトピックにはaboutを使うと思ってませんか？
そうならば、どこぞの作家が'I want to write about you.' と言うこともないし
Flamが美女から'I want to hear about you.' と言われることもなくなりますw

Further, cf.
I wrote about you badly. That is, I was stolen 100,000 yen and injured.
vs
I wrote horrible things to you. That is, I was stolen 100,000 yen and injured.

前者はちぐはぐです。そして、
to youだと後者が成り立ってしまいます。　Horrible, unpleasant newsを伝えることもできるからです。
To correct the second one so that it can convey the original meaning? I know you all know that!


----------



## Tonky

う～ん、どう説明すればわかりやすいでしょうか。
英語の"write" というのは、人目的語を取らない場合、読者を限定せず、かつ、"write about~"は特定のトピックについて書き記す(語る)ことを意味します。
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/write+about
"write someone about something"の形であれば、誰に書いたかという誤解はありませんので読んだ人が判断できるでしょうが、書いた内容がnarrativeやdescriptionとなってしまうことは変わりませんので、「ん？何のこと？」となる可能性はあります。日本語でも「パパのことを書きました」といわれると、「え？どこに？」と思われるのではないでしょうか？

ここでは、"I'm sorry for what I said to you"（in the previous letter）の意味ですから、パパについて語ったとは言っていませんし、その「ひどい」内容自体には言及していません。おそらく、この前に送った手紙に＜ひどいこと＞＝＜パパを傷つけるようなこと、パパを責める言葉＞を書いてしまい、今回パパからもらった手紙で誤解がとけたのでそれを謝っているのだと推測されます。ところが、"I wrote about you"とすると、その前の手紙に書いた＜ひどいこと＞とつながらなくなってしまいます。つまり、前の手紙に書いたであろう＜ひどいこと＞とは別に、新情報として、パパのことをひどくdescribeした文が存在すると言っているかのように聞こえてしまうのです。

基本的に英訳の多少の誤用は無視しています（他の不自然な部分は、誤解がないと判断して触れていません）が、こういう繊細な内容の手紙で、誤解は喜ばしくないと思って指摘した次第です。"what I wrote about you"と"what I wrote to you"はかなり大きな違いです。そして「～にたいして書いた」というのは後者です。また、ここでは「『パパに書いた』こと」、と「『パパにたいしてひどい』こと」、の二種類の意味があります。（最初に私が "something horrible to you" としたのは "horrible" と "to you" をつなげたためです。ちなみにアメリカ人の若い女の子に訳させてみたら、"I apologize for my sh*t talking, daddy." と言っていました。）


----------



## frequency

じゃあ特定のトピックは「あなた」ですよ
パパのことを書きました、どこに？前の手紙に。実際書いてます

この日本語は「あなたのことを悪く書いた・あなたについて悪いことを書いた」と同じです。

＞I wrote about you"と"I wrote to you"はかなり大きな違いです
何を書いたか？あなたのことを（前の手紙で）書きました。何がおかしいのかわかりません。
あなたへ書きました。何を？もっと幅広くなります。

よって、
＞前の手紙に書いたであろう＜ひどいこと＞とは別に、新情報として、...

「たいして」にこだわってtoでやると、あなたの言うようにもっと
１．パパを悪く書いた
２．他のひどい情報　のどちらかになる可能性が広くなります。

（ちなみにhorribleはto youとくっつきません。horribleはsomethingとくっつきます。）


----------



## Firewall

frequency said:


> Firewall, yes mine is ambiguous and I know this could be 'I wrote about you but my writing was poor.' And selecting an adverb 'nastily' or 'derogatorily' would be nicer. But see, this is a letter from the very young daughter and this daddy is a french guy. My instinct just selected 'badly'; I wanted to make it easier, aside from the matter of English grammar and if it's really easier or not.



Ah okay, I see your point, sorry, that's just the one thing that caught my eye when I read your translation.  

Also,
I think the purpose of the girl saying ひどいことを書きました is not for her to _inform_ her dad that she wrote something bad, but is rather for her to _admit_ to her dad that she wrote something bad.
And then, after she stated what she did wrong, she says, 「ごめんなさい」

In English, though, especially for a young child, I think you usually say "sorry" first.
What makes me think that is the "I'm sorry for [doing something]" pattern.

I have a hard time imagining a little girl saying "I wrote about you badly.  I'm sorry."
but I can easily imagine one saying "I'm sorry for writing about you badly," or "I'm sorry I wrote about you badly"
Maybe part of it has to do with what I mentioned earlier, not sure.  

I think another issue might be the the fact that it's broken up into two phrases, and in English, that's not something a child would usually do (this is mostly me guessing, though).  
I don't know if it was a typo or if this is common usage, but even in the Japanese version it was ひどいことを書きましたごめんなさい。  How does that compare to 「ひどいことを書きました。ごめんなさい」 and 「ひどいことを書いてごめんなさい」 and 「ごめんなさい、ひどいことを書きました」in terms of whether you can imagine a little Japanese girl saying it in this context?


----------



## frequency

Firewall said:


> ひどいことを書きました is not for her to _inform_ her dad that she wrote something bad, but is rather for her to _admit_ to her dad that she wrote something bad.
> And then, after she stated what she did wrong, she says, 「ごめんなさい」


Yes sure

'I wrote about you badly. I'm sorry.' vs I'm sorry for xxx.'?
The first one is my free choice, and I did faithfully to the original, in which the sentences should correctly be separated into two* lol. That's all. Sorry for your time.


All
ひどいことを書きましたごめんなさい。
ひどいことを書きました。ごめんなさい。
ひどいことを書いてごめんなさい。
ごめんなさい、ひどいことを書きました。
are quite the same to me. *The first one is the version omitting punctuation. You don't see a pause at all in it and therefore the flow of this speech goes fast, don't you think? Funny? That's true. Strictly speaking, it's less grammatically correct and casual.
In the second one, these two sentences are more stand-alone because of the punctuation 。. Therefore they have the clearer, stronger impact than the first one does. I like this way.

How does a little Japanese girl say? That's her free choice―this is as well to you. Select any according to your feeling.


----------



## Flaminius

ひどいことを書きましたごめんなさい。

This is merely a punctuation error.  In the spoken language, きましたごめんなさい surely has a hiatus after た just like た。ごめんなさい。


----------



## Strutter

> I think another issue might be the the fact that it's broken up into two phrases, and in English, that's not something a child would usually do (this is mostly me guessing, though).
> I don't know if it was a typo or if this is common usage, but even in the Japanese version it was ひどいことを書きましたごめんなさい。  How does that compare to 「ひどいことを書きました。ごめんなさい」 and 「ひどいことを書いてごめんなさい」 and 「ごめんなさい、ひどいことを書きました」in terms of whether you can imagine a little Japanese girl saying it in this context?



That letter gives me an image of a 6~7 years old girl. I would go with "ひどいことを書きました。ごめんなさい。" and I would start to say "ひどいことを書いてごめんなさい" when I've turned 10. This is pretty arbitrary tho.  I just wanted to say "ひどいことを書いてごめんなさい" is somewhat advanced in grammar. For "ごめんなさい。ひどいことを書きました。" I consider it to be inverted (unlike in English, where you normally start with I'm sorry ...). When it comes to how to use that inverted version I can't find a clear answer and I rather think it's up to your personal charactaristics and such. A little girl could say that intentionally or because of lack of linguistic sense either.


----------



## Tonky

frequency said:


> じゃあ特定のトピックは「あなた」ですよ
> パパのことを書きました、どこに？前の手紙に。実際書いてます
> 
> この日本語は「あなたのことを悪く書いた・あなたについて悪いことを書いた」と同じです。
> 
> ＞I wrote about you"と"I wrote to you"はかなり大きな違いです
> 何を書いたか？あなたのことを（前の手紙で）書きました。何がおかしいのかわかりません。
> あなたへ書きました。何を？もっと幅広くなります。
> 
> よって、
> ＞前の手紙に書いたであろう＜ひどいこと＞とは別に、新情報として、...
> 
> 「たいして」にこだわってtoでやると、あなたの言うようにもっと
> １．パパを悪く書いた
> ２．他のひどい情報　のどちらかになる可能性が広くなります。
> 
> （ちなみにhorribleはto youとくっつきません。horribleはsomethingとくっつきます。）


「あなたに対してひどいことを書いた」
「あなたについてひどいことを書いた」
この二つの違い、わかりませんでしょうか。何がおかしいのかわからないということは、最近の若い方はこの区別をされないのかもしれません。
なお、手紙には、どんなひどいことかという内容には一切触れておらず、「対して」であれば、その前に受け取った手紙に書かれてあった「ひどいこと」というのは読み手が読んだことからたやすく判断できることですので、その他の無関係な「ひどい」情報を想定させることはありません。

ちなみにSomething horrible to youの「くっつけました」は私の説明が悪かったですね。初級者用の文法的な問題ではなく、ニュアンスについて書いただけですので、気にしないでください。いずれにせよ Something horrible to you よりも horrible things to you の方がきれいにおさまるようですし。


----------



## Strutter

パパについてひどいことを書きましたは、「パパのばか野郎」とかそういう、パパの悪口のような感じで
パパに対してひどいことを書きましたは、内容は割と自由で、パパが読んだら「なんじゃそりゃ！」て思うことのような感じが僕はします。たとえば、親から支援を受けている大学生の息子が、父親に対して「今日も学校をサボって、朝から晩までパチンコをしていました。10万負けました。早くお金を送ってください。」て書いたら、これは父親/両親についてひどいことではないですが、父親/両親に対してひどいことだと思います。

なので、
パパについてひどいことは、パパに対してひどいことだと思いますが
パパに対してひどいことが、必ずしもパパについてひどいことだとは思いません。


----------



## frequency

だから
日本語の、パパについて悪く書きました、というのは
パパにたいしてひどいことを書きました、になれるのです。こういう言い方をすることが多々あるということです。
しかし英語だとそうはさせてくれません。そう簡単な話じゃないんです

英語だと、
「たいして」だからと言ってto(you)を選ぶと、
あなたへ書いた、に文法上どうしてもなってしまい、
したがって「あなたへひどい内容のことを書いた」、になり、
他のひどい情報を伝えることがもっと可能になります。

ちなみに、やるなら　I wrote bad(horrible)things about you
ですよ



Strutter said:


> 「今日も学校をサボって、朝から晩までパチンコをしていました。10万負けました。早くお金を送ってください。」


wwww


----------



## Tonky

ひどいことの内容については、娘さんはこの手紙では何も触れていません。「パパについて」というのは皆さんの推測にすぎません。
（想像たくましくして例えをあげたいのであれば、パパの新しい奥さんについて悪く書いたということもあり得るのです。）
ここで書かれているのは「パパへひどい内容のことを書いた」であって、英語でいう「about you」というのとは異なる意味です。

英語の "about you" と "to you" の大きな違いに、間接的vs直接的というのがあります。
I talked about you behind your back.
I wrote a book about you.
どちらも直接「あなた」に話したり書いたりしたものではありません。同じことがこの手紙にもあてはまるのです。

I wrote horrible/bad things *about* you.
I wrote horrible/bad things *to* you.
この二つは読んだときの印象がまったく変わってしまいます。一度、英語Nativeの方にどう違うか聞いてみてください。


----------



## frequency

Tonky said:


> I talked about you behind your back.


こりゃあ直接しゃべってますねw


残念ながら「パパのことを悪く書いた」彼女の一通目の手紙は、もうすでにわたしら見てるので。
この父さんはその一通目でスレッドを立てているからです。それがなければ to youを選ぶ可能性は増えてきます。

「パパへひどいことを書いた」、(to you) だと
その一通目を示唆することもできますが、
父さんは違うひどいニュースを探す可能性が出てくるわけです。
「ひどいことって何だ？あの手紙のことか？他のことか？」というように。
悪く書いた事実かもしれないし、パチンコのことかもしれません。
まあ当事者同士ですからわかると思いますが。
しかしどうせ一通目もポストしてきてわたしらが知ってるならば、「パパのことを悪く書いた」としてあげる方が親切でしょう。


----------



## Tonky

frequency said:


> こりゃあ直接しゃべってますねw


行動と発話の時点を整理してください。
陰口を言った時点では直接言ってません。直接言うのは陰口(behind your back)ではありません。
過去の時点で陰口を言った（間接）ことを、その後の発話時点で本人に告白（直接）しています。



> 残念ながら「パパのことを悪く書いた」彼女の一通目の手紙は、もうすでにわたしら見てるので。
> この父さんはその一通目でスレッドを立てているからです。それがなければ to youを選ぶ可能性は増えてきます。
> 
> 「パパへひどいことを書いた」、(to you) だと
> その一通目を示唆することもできますが、
> 父さんは違うひどいニュースを探す可能性が出てくるわけです。
> 「ひどいことって何だ？あの手紙のことか？他のことか？」というように。
> 悪く書いた事実かもしれないし、パチンコのことかもしれません。
> まあ当事者同士ですからわかると思いますが。
> しかしどうせ一通目もポストしてきてわたしらが知ってるならば、「パパのことを悪く書いた」としてあげる方が親切でしょう。


寧ろ、逆です。本人に書いたものであるからこそ、自分が受け取ったものの中から思い当たる「ひどいこと」がわかります。しかし、本人に宛てて書いたわけではないものを漠然と探すのは大変です。また、知っていることだからと故意に原文を変更して訳すのは親切なことではありませんよ。


----------



## Tonky

Strutter said:


> パパについてひどいことを書きましたは、「パパのばか野郎」とかそういう、パパの悪口のような感じで
> パパに対してひどいことを書きましたは、内容は割と自由で、パパが読んだら「なんじゃそりゃ！」て思うことのような感じが僕はします。たとえば、親から支援を受けている大学生の息子が、父親に対して「今日も学校をサボって、朝から晩までパチンコをしていました。10万負けました。早くお金を送ってください。」て書いたら、これは父親/両親についてひどいことではないですが、父親/両親に対してひどいことだと思います。
> 
> なので、
> パパについてひどいことは、パパに対してひどいことだと思いますが
> パパに対してひどいことが、必ずしもパパについてひどいことだとは思いません。


これは日本語的におもしろいですね。最後の「パパに対してひどいことが必ずしもパパについてひどいことではない」の部分は大賛成ですが、最近の人は「～について」という言葉を皆さんこのように理解されているのでしょうか？

ちなみに、私の感覚では、
「パパについてひどいことを書きました」は、たとえば「パパは私に嘘をついてごまかそうとした」など、日記や作文（最近ならブログやツイッター）でパパの具体的な言動や行動を批判的に述べることで
「パパに対してひどいことを書きました」は、内容は割と自由という点は同じですが、「パパのばか」「裏切り者」などのname-calling（これは必ずしも事実ではない）から、パパ（とパパに近い人間）の言動や行動に対する一方的な非難、パパがひどいと思うこと全般、と受け取ります。


----------



## frequency

あなた宛の手紙であなたのことを書いた、とき
aboutを使うことはなんらおかしくないですよ。
私（freq)はあなた(Tonky)へ言います。
I wrote about you in the letter before.
おかしくないです。
Listener: Tonky
書いた内容: Tonky

I wrote about dinosaurs.
これは聞いている人に「わたしは恐竜のことを書いた」と説明してるだけで、
別にこれもおかしくもなんもないです。ただ書いた内容と聞いてる人が上のように一致してないだけです
Listener: Tonky,　または誰か
書いた内容: 恐竜

Do you remember I wrote about you in the letter before?
Do you remember I wrote about the dinosaurs in the letter before?
どっちもおかしくありません。どっちのaboutも働き方は同じです。

ちなみにto writeはイントランシティブ・トランシティブなので
writeのあとに前置詞を要求することがあります。じゃ何の前置詞がふさわしいか？aboutでよいのです。underとかにしますか？
なぜなら、I wrote youは I wrote to youなので、こうしないためにaboutを入れるんです。それだけです。
あまり間接・直接だとか関係ないです。


I wrote [bad things about you]
I wrote [bad things] [to you]
英語の　To you, I wrote bad things　は幅が広いとパチンコの例のように・・
まあ本人同士ですから内容は確かにわかりますが。


----------



## YangMuye

面白い議論ですね。



Tonky said:


> これは日本語的におもしろいですね。最後の「パパに対してひどいことが必ずしもパパについてひどいことではない」の部分は大賛成ですが、最近の人は「～について」という言葉を皆さんこのように理解されているのでしょうか？
> 
> ちなみに、私の感覚では、
> 「パパについてひどいことを書きました」は、たとえば「パパは私に嘘をついてごまかそうとした」など、日記や作文（最近ならブログやツイッター）でパパの具体的な言動や行動を批判的に述べることで
> 「パパに対してひどいことを書きました」は、内容は割と自由という点は同じですが、「パパのばか」「裏切り者」などのname-calling（これは必ずしも事実ではない）から、パパ（とパパに近い人間）の言動や行動に対する一方的な非難、パパがひどいと思うこと全般、と受け取ります。


どうやら、Tonkyさんの感覚は私と一致しているようですね。
最初「パパに対してひどいことを書きました」を読んだとき、やはり「パパのバカ」とか思いました。
「name-calling」だけでなく、「大嫌い」「もういや」「パパなんて要らない」とかも十分可能でしょう。
「パパに対して」のほうがパパを聞き手として言っているように見えると思うんですが、どうでしょうか。

私は、パパを主題としていろいろ述べることよりも、「バカ」とか書くことのほうが、１０歳のこどもにふさわしい行動ではないかと思います。
こういう状況だとするなら、英語で普通どう伝えるのでしょうか。

Tonkyさんが英語ネイティブの方に聞いているようですが、その答えは、「I wrote horrible/bad things to you」でしょうか？


----------



## Tonky

frequency said:


> to writeはイントランシティブ・トランシティブなので
> writeのあとに前置詞を要求することがあります。じゃ何の前置詞がふさわしいか？aboutでよいのです。underとかにしますか？
> なぜなら、I wrote youは I wrote to youなので、こうしないためにaboutを入れるんです。それだけです。
> あまり間接・直接だとか関係ないです。


自動詞と他動詞について英語の文法書などをご参照ください。どこからどう説明したらご理解いただけるかわかりません。
先に述べた間接的、直接的とは全く別の問題です。


----------



## Tonky

YangMuye said:


> Tonkyさんが英語ネイティブの方に聞いているようですが、その答えは、「I wrote horrible/bad things to you」でしょうか？


その方達は日本語がわかりませんので「答え」とはいえませんが、 "I wrote horrible things to you" が無難だろうという話に落ち着きました。
（が、私の説明がその文に誘導させている可能性も否定はできませんので、念のため。）


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> 面白い議論ですね。
> 
> 
> どうやら、Tonkyさんの感覚は私と一致しているようですね。
> 最初「パパに対してひどいことを書きました」を読んだとき、やはり「パパのバカ」とか思いました。
> 「name-calling」だけでなく、「大嫌い」「もういや」「パパなんて要らない」とかも十分可能でしょう。
> 「パパに対して」のほうがパパを聞き手として言っているように見えると思うんですが、どうでしょうか。
> 
> 私は、パパを主題としていろいろ述べることよりも、「バカ」とか書くことのほうが、１０歳のこどもにふさわしい行動ではないかと思います。
> こういう状況だとするなら、英語で普通どう伝えるのでしょうか。
> 
> Tonkyさんが英語ネイティブの方に聞いているようですが、その答えは、「I wrote horrible/bad things to you」でしょうか？



Ah, sorry to interrupt, but regarding 「パパにたいしてひどいことをかきましたごめんなさい」 we’d say "I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things about you." when speaking English naturally. We say "about" instead of "to" because the letter is receiving the action of writing.

If you want to use "to" you can say, "I said horrible things to you." but with the "write/wrote" verb we use "about" in this case.

"I wrote horrible/bad things to you." can be understood, but it's not the best choice in this case, and it's not something we'd usually say.

I hope this helps! ^_^


----------



## YangMuye

yukitoshuu said:


> Ah, sorry to interrupt, but regarding 「パパにたいしてひどいことをかきましたごめんなさい」 we’d say "I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things about you." when speaking English naturally. We say "about" instead of "to" because the letter is receiving the action of writing.
> 
> If you want to use "to" you can say, "I said horrible things to you." but with the "write/wrote" verb we use "about" in this case.
> 
> "I wrote horrible/bad things to you." can be understood, but it's not the best choice in this case, and it's not something we'd usually say.
> 
> I hope this helps! ^_^


You comment is very helpful, yukitoshuu.
Do you mean you don't choose "wrote to" because you are writing a letter in this situation, which may cause confusing, e.g. it may sounds like I wrote a letter to you? Or the verb phrase "write to" itself doesn't work like "say to".
I don't understand here.


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> You comment is very helpful, yukitoshuu.
> Do you mean you don't choose "wrote to" because you are writing a letter in this situation, which may cause confusing, e.g. it may sounds like I wrote a letter to you? Or the verb phrase "write to" itself doesn't work like "say to".
> I don't understand here.



Ah, kind of ^_^

It's not the verb choice, it's the direction of the action.

We'll call the writer of the letter "Person A" and the recipient of the letter "Person B".

Since Person A wrote on paper, the action wasn't direct. The paper received the action first. Person B then received the letter.

When using "said" we bypass the paper (even though it was written on paper) because what was "said" was intended for Person B anyway, but the action of saying rather than writing is more direct (because there's no paper medium in between).

However, if Person A had verbally said the words to another person (Person C) and Person C then said the words to Person B, we would use "about", because Person A said the words directly to Person C, even though they were about Person B.

Sorry, did that answer your question? ^_^; It's a difficult concept, because native English speakers tend to know it instinctively, but when we break down ourselves, it can be hard to explain, lol.


----------



## YangMuye

Oh, I see. English is very different from Japanese and Chinese here.

The combination of " I wrote badly things to you " is just impossible in English because you don't think writing is a direct action even though the content is direct(such as パパのバカ) and is intended for the listener to see.

The constraint seems to be much more relax in Chinese and Japanese.

If A had said the words to B and asked B to pass the words to C, I think it would be possible to refer that event as "I said to C" in Chinese. B could be considered as the medium.

This might lead me to another question, why "writing a letter to you" would be fine? It seems to be an exception. Replacing "a letter" with "words" will cause an illegal sentence.

Thank you, yukitoshuu.


----------



## Tonky

Hmm, thanks, yukitoshuu for your tips.
4 of my friends in my chat channel who are all English natives agreed and said "to you" instead of "about you" though. Do you think it has something to do with my misleading explanation, or them being young and/or no language experts? (I'll ask them later again.)

*edit*
I just asked another and he (journalism major) said "about you" sounds wrong, too. He says "about is more appropriate in a situation where you talked about him without him being there." He asked another friend of his and he confirmed.
Could it be possibly British vs American?


----------



## yukitoshuu

Ah, well I don't know how you presented the question to your friends, but I did get my degree in Writing and took many grammar classes during university, so I can say with 100% certainty that in _this case _it's "about you". It all depends on the context surrounding the sentence, though.

Hmm, British vs American thing? In this case I'm not sure that it would be. We do have some differences (for example, Brits say "I'm in hospital" and Americans say "I'm in the hospital") but I don't think this is one of them. It seems, though, when your friend said, "about is more appropriate in a situation where you talked about him without him being there." it's similar with what I'm trying to explain, because the reader of the letter is not present when the letter is written, so it's the same kind of concept.


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> Oh, I see. English is very different from Japanese and Chinese here.
> 
> The combination of " I wrote badly things to you " is just impossible in English because you don't think writing is a direct action even though the content is direct(such as パパのバカ) and is intended for the listener to see.
> 
> The constraint seems to be much more relax in Chinese and Japanese.
> 
> If A had said the words to B and asked B to pass the words to C, I think it would be possible to refer that event as "I said to C" in Chinese. B could be considered as the medium.
> 
> This might lead me to another question, why "writing a letter to you" would be fine? It seems to be an exception. Replacing "a letter" with "words" will cause an illegal sentence.
> 
> Thank you, yukitoshuu.



Yeah, I mean I can certainly understand the sentence "I wrote badly things to you" but it doesn't sound natural at all. I mean, writing is a direct action, but only when it's on paper, or on a letter, because the paper or letter receives the action of writing, and then the paper or letter is then given to someone to read. The thing that was written was _about_ someone. That's where the distinction lies.

Yeah, it's not one of those things that we really cover in our native English language classes so it's difficult to explain, and I also agree with you and I think that the direction objects take can differ between languages, which makes it even more difficult, lol! ^_^

And English has a lot of exceptions, as you said.

Ah, how to explain...it's difficult, because in English we have this whole web system that used to be taught regarding sentence structure in grammar classes, but isn't really taught anymore. 
Ummm, so "to you" and "about you" have two different meanings. "To you" is more direct, and "about you" is more indirect. "To you" is something that's being done/has been done to the recipient (the action is writing the letter, which is a concrete thing) where as "about you" is something that includes the recipient, but in a more indirect manner (the action is thoughts and feelings, which is less concrete). 

So "writing a letter to you" is fine because "writing a letter" is a concrete action. "Writing words" is not incorrect by itself (not in a sentence), but it doesn't sound natural to us. Actually, in English we don't have a concept word for "something that's been/is being written" so I think that might also be a difference between languages.

Does that help? ^_^;


----------



## Tonky

yukitoshuu said:


> Ah, well I don't know how you presented the question to your friends


Here is how I presented this time around and made it very simple to avoid any kind of misleading.


> Here is a letter from a young daughter to her father.
> She has sent a letter to him before and she is apologizing what she said in the previous letter.
> "I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things ___ you."
> Would you put "to"? or "about"?


and his answer before any of my explanation on what is discussed here,


> If she is apologizing for saying bad things about him somewhere else, it's about
> If it's directed at him
> like if in the letter she said "I hate you father, you are the worst"
> it would be to


Then I showed him your explanation, he took some time thinking and asking around, and said he would stick with his statement.



yukitoshuu said:


> It seems, though, when your friend said, "about is more appropriate in a situation where you talked about him without him being there." it's similar with what I'm trying to explain, because the reader of the letter is not present when the letter is written, so it's the same kind of concept.


Yes, I also understand the concept, but it seems the end result is different to you here. The last line, "the reader of the letter is not present when the letter is written", but I could also say "the reader of the letter is present when the letter is read".

Friends I asked are all Americans and I learned English(or American) in the states too, that is why I asked if possibly British vs American.
I'm just trying to understand why there are two different answers here, both by native speakers. (And it happens a lot in these language discussion threads as well, just like we had different opinions of the original Japanese meaning here in this very thread.)


----------



## Flaminius

Is the question here, syntactically, if a "to PERSON" phrase is necessary in order to give to "write" a sense of writing to communicate as opposed to writing to take notes, even when it is clear from the context that the purpose of writing is communication?


----------



## yukitoshuu

Tonky said:


> His answer before any of my explanation on what is discussed here,
> 
> "If she is apologizing for *saying *bad things about him somewhere else, it's about
> If it's directed at him
> like if in the letter she *said* "I hate you father, you are the worst"
> it would be to"
> 
> Then I showed him your explanation, he took some time thinking and asking around, and said he would stick with his statement.



I stand by my "about" statement. I've tried twisting around the sentences in my head, trying to find any way that "to" can work in _this instance_, and it just doesn't sound natural to me. Not when using the verb "write/wrote". 

Like I said, if you want to use the verb "say/said", "to" can work in _that _instance, but it seems the letter is important in this case, so the verb "write/wrote" is important here.  I also assume your friend maybe didn't know the verb "write/wrote" is an important case here because he used the verb "saying/said" twice in his response (I've bolded them in the quote for easy reference). In that instance, the word "to" would be appropriate, but we're not talking about that verb because we're talking about the verb "write/wrote". I've brought the verb "say/said" up previously to give an alternate option if you really want/need to use the word "to". 



Tonky said:


> The last line, "the reader of the letter is not present when the letter is written", but I could also say "the reader of the letter is present when the letter is read".



It seems I did not explain it well enough, and to be honest, I'm better at saying "this is how it is" than to try to explain it. Let me try again: the focus (in English) is on the original action, not the end action in this case. The* original action *is _*writing*_ (the verb of choice here) and the *end action *is_ *reading*_. The person *reading *the letter is the *reader* and "reader" is a noun. The reader is receiving the letter. The reader is not present during the writing. So the letter went from being written, to being sent, to being received, to being read. We're focusing on the writing part, which the reader wasn't present for.



Tonky said:


> Friends I asked are all Americans and I learned English(or American) in the states too, that is why I asked if possibly British vs American.
> I'm just trying to understand why there are two different answers here, both by native speakers. (And it happens a lot in these language discussion threads as well, just like we had different opinions of the original Japanese meaning here in this very thread.)



Well, I'm American, so I'm speaking regarding _American English_. As it stands, I'm still sticking by this translation: _"I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things about you."  _Again, if we were to use the verb "say/said" _then_ you can use "to" in _that_ instance (I'm sorry, I said horrible things to you), because that is a direct action _to_ the reader.  It's really up to whomever is going to use this information whether or not they want to listen to me or not. If you don't want to take my advice, don't take it.


----------



## yukitoshuu

Flaminius said:


> Is the question here, syntactically, if a "to PERSON" phrase is necessary in order to give to "write" a sense of writing to communicate as opposed to writing to take notes, even when it is clear from the context that the purpose of writing is communication?



Ah, yes, if we take out the recipient, in that case to say "I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things." is absolutely grammatically correct. ^_^

I guess what I'm saying is that the letter goes one step further to say the horrible things are _about_ the father. The part 「にたいして」 as I see it translates to "toward", "against" or "regarding" in English and in natural spoken/written English, those three words have the same feeling as "about" in this sentence (which would be the best grammatical choice in this example if a recipient is important).

But, if you want to leave the recipient of the letter out "to you/about you" in this case, the sentence would be much more general, and could hold the meanings, "I'm sorry I used bad language in my last letter" or "I'm sorry I spoke to you inappropriately (using bad language)" or it could mean "I'm sorry I wrote bad things about you." However, if the original Japanese is that broad, then I think "I'm sorry, I wrote horrible things." would be  a perfect translation.


----------



## Tonky

yukitoshuu said:


> and to be honest, I'm better at saying "this is how it is" than to try to explain it.


Ha ha, I know that feel  It happens a lot when explaining Japanese grammar too.

I just have some trauma when I was young, of being taught "alot" as one word (instead of "a lot") by a native girl tutor (this is no joke!) and she went like, "Don't take my advice if you don't like it, but I'm the native speaker here and I'm telling you this is how it is!" Ever since, I need to dig further enough till I'm convinced. This case, I'm not yet convinced, and I'll keep on searching till I'm convinced. I hope you take no offense, it's not that I refuse to take your advise, but rather because you are the first native speaker who said "about" fits better here out of all I have chatted with, and it seems that the different answers are not the result of my misleading explanation.  So I'll search for another native speaker who agrees with you now.

Anyways, I really appreciate your tips and explanations and I do mean it. Thanks!


----------



## yukitoshuu

Tonky said:


> Ha ha, I know that feel  It happens a lot when explaining Japanese grammar too.



I never really started learning English grammar until I began to learn Spanish, so it's instinctual, but not always something I can use jargon for.  And even when there are rules, there are always exceptions to the rules. I've taken many syntax and grammar classes to get my degree in Writing from a university, but I end up using my own jargon in the end, lol.



Tonky said:


> I just have some trauma when I was young, of being taught "alot" as one word (instead of "a lot") by a native girl tutor (this is no joke!) and she went like, "Don't take my advice if you don't like it, but I'm the native speaker here and I'm telling you this is how it is!" Ever since, I need to dig further enough till I'm convinced.



Unfortunately, I believe something like that could've happened. Plus, "alot" instead of "a lot" is a _very_ common error many English speakers (at least Americans) make.  I'm working as an ALT right now in Japan and during my training I met a few people like that who didn't know the first thing about grammar even though they speak American English as a native language. Some American English speakers don't know grammar very well, so it's sad. However, I didn't say "this is how it is and you have to accept it", I said "This is what I'm sticking to and you can accept it or you can reject it" so really, it's up to you. English can be flexible, but this is one topic that I'm going to stand firm on.

I think many Americans end up learning proper grammar (if ever) on their own, or if they decide to pursue an English/Writing/etc degree in university. I can't say the same for Canadian English, British English, Australian English or South African English, because I don't know their school systems, but I do know how the American public school system works, and right now it's depressing in terms of grammar.



Tonky said:


> This case, I'm not yet convinced, and I'll keep on searching till I'm convinced. I hope you take no offense, it's not that I refuse to take your advise, but rather because you are the first native speaker who said "about" fits better here out of all I have chatted with, and it seems that the different answers are not the result of my misleading explanation.  So I'll search for another native speaker who agrees with you now.



No offense taken. Like I said, some (though not all) American English speakers don't know proper English sentence structure (or have difficulty breaking down sentence structure), and this is because we aren't taught it anymore in public schools.  In fact, most people I know don't even know how to use a semi-colon ( correctly. To make matters worse, I actually learned how to use a semi-colon from a classmate rather than my teachers! 

Many years ago they would teach grammar sentence structure (called "sentence diagramming"), but they decided to cut that from many public schools because they probably thought "Hey, we _speak_ English, so we can cut out these grammar intensive classes and put in more science and math, right?" I personally think it was a poor decision (our nation's grammar is suffering because of it) but to the country math and science seem to come first, which is difficult for people like me who love grammar. I'm not saying you should _never_ trust Americans when it comes to grammar, but definitely be careful who you ask.



Tonky said:


> Anyways, I really appreciate your tips and explanations and I do mean it. Thanks!



Sure, no problem  I only hope that I can help. Good luck in your English journey


----------



## YangMuye

I have been watching the discussion and it seems that you have reached a conclusion.
Thank you all for the helpful information and detailed explanations.

----
A little bit off topic...


> I never really started learning English grammar until I began to learn Spanish, so it's instinctual, but not always something I can use jargon for.


I used to think learning the grammar of one's first tongue is strange if he hasn't learnt other foreign languages. (No offense.)


> Some American English speakers don't know grammar very well, so it's sad.


Don't be sad. I will be happy to ask a native "how do you express this situation" if he doesn't know grammar at all.
They seem to be less affected by the “proper grammar” taught at school and more likely to be honest with their own feeling.


> they probably thought "Hey, we speak English, so we can cut out these grammar intensive classes and put in more science and math, right?" I personally think it was a poor decision


I personally think it's the right decision, isn't it? Many people have spent dozens of years on linguistics but can't explain many common grammatical phenomenon well.

Unfortunately, if you happen to major in a subject like Computer Science, you will sadly find you have to spend a lot of time studying how to deal with "grammar" and "logic" formally in your math and science classes.

I have learnt Japanese through reading linguistic papers since the very beginning. Thanks to the fact that Japanese academic writings tend to use a lot difficult Chinese words.
But the more I learn, the deeper I believe that grammar should not be taught in class. 

Now I'm strongly against to many traditional approaches, such as traditional grammar, generative grammar, formal semantics, etc.
It's ironical that these theories are very important and naturally fit well in computer science, which happens to be my major.
When I tried entered the natural language processing laboratory of my university, the first presentation I gave was to justify that there was no need to recognize part of speech...

Tonky once said that I seemed to be an adherent of Cognitive Linguistics, and I totally agree.

I especially concern myself with questions like "how do you usually express it in this situation", "do you use this expression in this situation" "do you have the feeling that ..." rather than "what does it mean" or "why does it mean that..." and carefully keep my distance from "rules".
I see nothing wrong with saying "this is how it is and you have to accept it". It is much better than a problematic explanation.


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> A little bit off topic...



Yeah, sorry, I've gotten a bit off topic ^_^;



YangMuye said:


> I used to think learning the grammar of one's first tongue is strange if he hasn't learnt other foreign languages. (No offense.)



No offense taken. The reason I say that is because many Americans don't use correct grammar (I'm not talking about the more detailed discussions we have here, I'm talking about very basic grammar) so when people like me see other native American English speakers misuse "their/they're/there" I can't _not_ correct it, and people like me get labeled "grammar nazi" lol. Their/They're/There is a very simple concept, (to me it's on the same level as multiplication and division in math) and my students here in Japan understand it better than many English speakers I know, so that's what makes me sad. I see where you're coming from, but from what I've seen in the US, even basic grammar isn't taken seriously. I mean, we have classes all the way through Calculus available in high schools, but not advanced grammar classes. We learned the difference between Their/they're/there (just using this as one example of many) but it's just kind of grazed over, and maybe I just had bad English teachers, but I see people misusing simple grammar all over the internet, so I tend to think that's not the case. I guess I'm also passionate about putting more grammar back into schools because they're cutting so many things when it comes to English. Now they plan to not even teach cursive anymore, and I think _that's_ a huge mistake, too, but I digress...lol.



YangMuye said:


> Now I'm strongly against to many traditional approaches, such as traditional grammar, generative grammar, formal semantics, etc.



I agree with you on being against traditional approaches, but I also think that we need to revamp the approaches, not get rid of them entirely, and that's what's happening in the American school system. They decide that programs like math and science are more important (and for someone like me who's not a math or science person, that made school twice as difficult) and so they cut other stuff. I agree with your earlier statement, that sometimes you need to just trust your gut when you say "oh, this is how we say it" but I also feel at a disatvantage because I wasn't given the vocabulary to explain _why_ for people that need to know why. So, I agree but I disagree, lol.



YangMuye said:


> I especially concern myself with questions like "how do you usually express it in this situation", "do you use this expression in this situation" "do you have the feeling that ..." rather than "what does it mean" or "why does it mean that..." and carefully keep my distance from "rules".
> I see nothing wrong with saying "this is how it is and you have to accept it". It is much better than a problematic explanation.



I definitely agree that trusting your gut is very important when you learn languages. I've been doing some Japanese to English translations with help from a Japanese friend, and since Japanese often does not translate directly, I need to use my gut "how would we say this?" I think there needs to be a healthy balance, though, of grammar knowledge and intuition, and I guess that's where I stand on the opinion. Just as I'm not a math person, I know that there are also people that are not grammar people, but as an American, I think that the level that American schools offer their students doesn't help for those people that aren't grammar people. That's my humble opinion ^_^


----------



## frequency

YangMuye said:


> why "writing a letter to you" would be fine?


YangMuye, there are the verbs that take two objectives: give, show, and more. 'Write' is as well (See 2).
_I wrote a letter to you_ is _I wrote you a letter_.
_I gave money to you_ is _I gave you money_.

See in 'I wrote you a letter', 'you' is an *indirect object* (sb) and 'a letter' is a *direct object* (sth).

Tonky,　あなたの直接･間接とやらはこのことと履き違えてないか？


In those verbs and in a connection of write---you, this 'you' results in indirect object. See this write---you is different to the case 'I love you'. Verb love doesn't take two objects.

2つのオブジェクトを取る動詞があるよ。Writeもそうだよ。 I write youはインダイレクト・オブジェクトになって to youのようになるんだ。I love youの、love と youのあいだにあるのは、を、だね。これはSVOで、「を」を使うね。
I gave you money―例は悪いけど、これって中国語でも確か似たようなやり方をしないかい？違うならごめん。YangMuyeなら知ってると思うけどな・・？


----------



## frequency

yukitoshuu said:


> but with the "write/wrote" verb we use "about" in this case.


Yes sure. In 'I wrote horrible things about you', I see 'things about you' at the same time.

A prep 'to', which is → in this case, is the most powerful one among various preps. I understand that you feel some differences when hearing _write xx to you_ vs _write xx about you_. See we don't say 'I wrote to you on the wall', but do 'I wrote about you on the wall.' I am not sure if my mention could explain about which we have to select 'to' or 'about' in this case, or have no time to check today, sorry lol!



> "about is more appropriate in a situation where you talked about him without him being there."



I post a message from my 師匠, a McGill University PhD of linguistic. Unfortunately, I don't have any proof to show him my friend. But at least his English fully proves him PhD.

I said:
1.  In a letter to you (Doc), I (freq) write 'I wrote about you before.' Is  this okay? Is this intransitive 'I wrote' + 'about you'?
2.  When using 'about' in this case, do you think 'about is more  appropriate in a situation where you talked about him/her without  him/her being there.'? If so, my question in 1. is incorrect.


_The  verb 'write' works very much like 'eat', so that whether it's  transitive or intransitive depends on whether it has a direct object.  Since your sentence in question 1 has no explicit direct object for the  verb, it has to be construed as intransitive. But if the sentence was :  "I wrote a letter/story/book about you", then the verb would be  transitive. Regarding question 2, *we can always talk about a third party  in the presence or absence of the third party*, unless there is a  concern that what is said might displease or offend the third party; in  which case the propriety involved is not a matter of grammar but of  social behaviour.

_Therefore, Flam is still have a chance to be said 'I want to write a book about you' from a beautiful woman who is a writer. Congrats!


----------



## YangMuye

yukitoshuu said:


> The reason I say that is because many Americans don't use correct grammar (I'm not talking about the more detailed discussions we have here, I'm talking about very basic grammar) so when people like me see other native American English speakers misuse "their/they're/there" I can't _not_ correct it, and people like me get labeled "grammar nazi" lol. Their/They're/There is a very simple concept, (to me it's on the same level as multiplication and division in math) and my students here in Japan understand it better than many English speakers I know, so that's what makes me sad.


I'm sorry I must have mistaken the "basic grammar" you referred.
We learn Chinese Grammar in middle school. Most are about recognizing part-of-speech, parsing sentence structures into S-V-O, and so on.
Real Chinese is not that simple and cannot be easily analysed in that way. So the grammar knowledge we learn does not help at all.
A student who has made mistakes like "their/they're/there" will definitely be required to correct them.


yukitoshuu said:


> Now they plan to not even teach cursive anymore, and I think _that's_ a huge mistake, too, but I digress...lol.


Yeah, I just found I have a bias here. Although the rationale behind the decision, that typing is just more common than writing, is justifiable, I like cursive better.
Last week when I was going to teach my colleague's child cursive, his mother stopped me after I presented the cursive "r". She was worried because the cursive "r" looked so different from the printed version that Chinese teachers might not be able to recognize it.


yukitoshuu said:


> I agree with you on being against traditional approaches, but I also think that we need to revamp the approaches, not get rid of them entirely, and that's what's happening in the American school system.


Yes, I agree. As I said before, they naturally fit well in computer science, and they fit so well that I sometimes think we should delegate them to computers completely, and select a more "human-friendly" approach.


yukitoshuu said:


> I definitely agree that trusting your gut is very important when you learn languages. I've been doing some Japanese to English translations with help from a Japanese friend, and since Japanese often does not translate directly, I need to use my gut "how would we say this?" I think there needs to be a healthy balance, though, of grammar knowledge and intuition, and I guess that's where I stand on the opinion. Just as I'm not a math person, I know that there are also people that are not grammar people, but as an American, I think that the level that American schools offer their students doesn't help for those people that aren't grammar people. That's my humble opinion ^_^


I fully agree.


----------



## yukitoshuu

frequency said:


> Yes sure. In 'I wrote horrible things about you', I see 'things about you' at the same time.
> 
> A prep 'to', which is → in this case, is the most powerful one among various preps. I understand that you feel some differences when hearing _write xx to you_ vs _write xx about you_. See we don't say 'I wrote to you on the wall', but do 'I wrote about you on the wall.' I am not sure if my mention could explain about which we have to select 'to' or 'about' in this case, or have no time to check today, sorry lol!



Yes, yes, it _feels_ very different. Maybe the feel of it is different between English and Japanese, because while the letter is _to_ the father, the writing is _about_ the father, and I may have confused myself before trying to explain it, but that's the feeling I get when I see "write xx to you" vs "write xx about you".



frequency said:


> I post a message from my 師匠, a McGill University PhD of linguistic. Unfortunately, I don't have any proof to show him my friend. But at least his English fully proves him PhD.
> 
> I said:
> 1.  In a letter to you (Doc), I (freq) write 'I wrote about you before.' Is  this okay? Is this intransitive 'I wrote' + 'about you'?
> 2.  When using 'about' in this case, do you think 'about is more  appropriate in a situation where you talked about him/her without  him/her being there.'? If so, my question in 1. is incorrect.
> 
> _The  verb 'write' works very much like 'eat', so that whether it's  transitive or intransitive depends on whether it has a direct object.  Since your sentence in question 1 has no explicit direct object for the  verb, it has to be construed as intransitive. But if the sentence was :  "I wrote a letter/story/book about you", then the verb would be  transitive. Regarding question 2, *we can always talk about a third party  in the presence or absence of the third party*, unless there is a  concern that what is said might displease or offend the third party; in  which case the propriety involved is not a matter of grammar but of  social behaviour._




Yes, I agree with him. Intransitive vs. transitive verbs, this concept is very tricky, and I'm gonna leave it up to Doc's explanation because mine would confuse even more, lol. It's a concept I understand, but it's not one I can explain well, so this is a good explanation.


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> I'm sorry I must have mistaken the "basic grammar" you referred.



No, it's okay, I wasn't specific to begin with ^_^



YangMuye said:


> A student who has made mistakes like "their/they're/there" will definitely be required to correct them.



Absolutely! The problem is that some Americans don't think that's an issue. They can just get someone to proof it for them, and that's fine if they actually _do_ go through a proofreading process, but when they start posting things all over the internet before getting it proofed, that's where I get frustrated.



YangMuye said:


> Yeah, I just found I have a bias here. Although the rationale behind the decision, that typing is just more common than writing, is justifiable, I like cursive better.
> Last week when I was going to teach my colleague's child cursive, his mother stopped me after I presented the cursive "r". She was worried because the cursive "r" looked so different from the printed version that Chinese teachers might not be able to recognize it.



I love cursive, because I can write twice as fast, and sometimes I'm the only one who can read my handwriting, lol. That's unfortunate about your student, but maybe you can present it to the mother this way: there are computer fonts that are written differently than the alphabet we're taught. For example, "g" "g" and "a" "a". Plus, there are many computer fonts that use the cursive "r" so in my humble opinion, I think it's important to be taught them so at the very least they're recognizable.


----------



## YangMuye

frequency said:


> YangMuye, there are the verbs that take two objectives: give, show, and more. 'Write' is as well (See 2).
> _I wrote a letter to you_ is _I wrote you a letter_.
> _I gave money to you_ is _I gave you money_.
> 
> See in 'I wrote you a letter', 'you' is an *indirect object* (sb) and 'a letter' is a *direct object* (sth).


ええと、すこし書き方が悪かったと思うんですが、誤解されてしまったようですね。
元の質問は、「I wrote a letter to you/貴方に手紙を書いた」がいいのに、「I write horrible things to you/貴方に酷いことを書いた」がダメな理由がわからないと聞いているのです。「horrible things」も「a letter」も、それを書いている時点で「you」がいないことは変わらないでしょう。ならば、なぜ「I wrote a letter to you」だけがよいのでしょうか。

「Why」と言っても、私は、特に理由を聞いているわけでもありません。ただ文法現象を挙げただけです。
「write a letter」と「write」は別の動詞と見なしているので、「exceptionかな」とは言いましたが、実は特に予想外とも思いませんでしたよ。




frequency said:


> 2つのオブジェクトを取る動詞があるよ。Writeもそうだよ。 I write youはインダイレクト・オブジェクトになって to youのようになるんだ。I love youの、love と youのあいだにあるのは、を、だね。これはSVOで、「を」を使うね。
> I gave you money―例は悪いけど、これって中国語でも確か似たようなやり方をしないかい？違うならごめん。YangMuyeなら知ってると思うけどな・・？


中国語の場合も、なかなか複雑そうです。
I gave you money―例だけですが、
「I gave you money」は「我给你钱」（私は貴方に金を上げる/I give you money）と言うのが普通です。
特定の文脈では、「我把钱给你」（私は金を以て、貴方に上げる/*I give you with money）というような言い回しを使って、SOVの語順に変換することも可能です。
また、中国語の「给/give」は前置詞のように使うことができます。故に「我给钱给你」（私は貴方の爲に、金を上げる/I give money to you）にもなるわけです。

中国語は語順を最も重視して、複数の言い方があっても、語順によって、文法機能を表すことができ、英語の「give」とは違うものだと思います。
目的語を取らない動詞も、一定の条件が満たされれば、二つの目的語を取るようになります。


----------



## YangMuye

yukitoshuu said:


> I love cursive, because I can write twice as fast, and sometimes I'm the only one who can read my handwriting, lol. That's unfortunate about your student, but maybe you can present it to the mother this way: there are computer fonts that are written differently than the alphabet we're taught. For example, "g" "g" and "a" "a". Plus, there are many computer fonts that use the cursive "r" so in my humble opinion, I think it's important to be taught them so at the very least they're recognizable.


I hadn't realized that not being able to read cursive is a problem until I found I couldn't read many foreign students' handwriting several years ago. I didn't even know cursive exists. I wrote letters separately and couldn't join them together. When I write fast, I can't even read my own handwriting. That why I decide to teach that boy.
English textbooks published in China, if they intend to look like handwriting, usually use the Century Gothic font, where g and a are similar to cursive, but r is not.


----------



## yukitoshuu

YangMuye said:


> I hadn't realized that not being able to read cursive is a problem until I found I couldn't read many foreign students' handwriting several years ago. I didn't even know cursive exists. I wrote letters separately and couldn't join them together. When I write fast, I can't even read my own handwriting. That why I decide to teach that boy.



Yeah, there are people's writing that I can't read, but sometimes it doesn't even matter if it's cursive or not, lol. We call bad handwriting "chicken scratch" lol. Here's a definition:



"Incredibly messy handwriting that is nearly impossible to read. Usually the only person who can read it is the person that wrote it. Sometimes not even they can read it after a while. The writing looks like the footprints and/or scratches chickens leave in the dirt hence the name."





YangMuye said:


> English textbooks published in China, if they intend to look like handwriting, usually use the Century Gothic font, where g and a are similar to cursive, but r is not.



Ahhhh, I see. With my students in Japan, sometimes the English teachers will print worksheets with varying fonts, so the students end up learning both. Yeah, with Century Gothic "r" wouldn't look the same as the cursive "r". We do have many "handwriting fonts" though that emulate the cursive "r" but they must not be used in China.


----------

