# She went to the market to buy apples



## Nino83

Minasan konnichiwa.

I know that with verbs of movement, purpose clauses have two different constructions, _suru tame ni_ and _shi ni_.

彼女はりんごを買うために市場に行きました。
彼女はりんごを買いに行きました。

What I want to ask you is if these two verbs must be placed one after the other or if between the two we can insert another complement, in this case with the particle _ni_.

彼女は市場にりんごを*買いに行きました*。
彼女はりんごを*買いに*市場に*行きました*。

Is the second sentence natural, or should I use _tame ni_ in these cases?
彼女はりんごを買うために市場に行きました。

Arigatō


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> 彼女はりんごを買う_ために_市場に行きました。


This is fully correct. But 買いに can fully work too, so people don't need to choose ために, longer one, especially in casual conversation. But if you want to strictly be formal, ために is good and possible.


----------



## DaylightDelight

Unlike many European languages such as English, French, German (I have no idea about Italian, sorry),
word order in a sentence is not so important in Japanese because particles such as は, を, に tell us
each word's function is the sentence.
Of course some are more natural and some ordering simply doesn't work, but we can construct a
sentence much more freely:

彼女は市場にりんごを買いに行きました (good)
彼女はりんごを買いに市場に行きました (good)
りんごを買いに彼女は市場に行きました (good)
りんごを買いに市場に彼女は行きました (maybe?)
市場に彼女はりんごを買いに行きました (maybe?)

All of the above more or less work.
It becomes even more arbitrarily in song lyrics and poetry.

〜ために and 〜しに are interchangeable in almost all cases, though 〜ために sounds more formal
as frequency already pointed out.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, frequency!
Does it happen also when there is a long phrase (like a relative clause or a genitive phrase)?
For example, are these sentences natural or are there too many words between _kai ni_ and _ikimashita_?
She went to the market about which we spoke yesterday, to buy apples. 彼女はりんごを*買いに私達が昨日話した市場に行きました*。
She went to every single market of the town to buy apples. 彼女はりんごを*買いに街のあらゆる市場に行きました*。


DaylightDelight said:


> All of the above more or less works.


Thank you, Daylightdelight.
I read that if there are too much elements between _shi ni_ and _iku_, the _tame ni_ form is more clear. What do you think about the two sentences above?


DaylightDelight said:


> Unlike many European languages such as English, French, German (I have no idea about Italian, sorry)


In Italian you can say _è *andata* al mercato di cui abbiamo parlato ieri *a/per* comprare le mele_, _è *andata* in tutti i mercati della città *a/per* comprare le mele_.
The preposition *a* (only with verbs of movements, equivalent to the Japanese _ni_) or *per* (in order to, equivalent to the Japanese _tame ni_) plus the infinitive form of the verb is so clear that you can change the order as you like, and between the verb _andare_ (iku) and the purpose clause _a/per comprare_ (_kai ni/kau tame ni_) you can put long and complex clauses.

In Italian, Spanish and Portuguese word order is freerer than in Germanic languages and French (which is how Franks, a Germanic population, spoke Latin) and it is more similar to the Slavic ones.


----------



## DaylightDelight

Nino83 said:


> 彼女はりんごを*買いに私達が昨日話した市場に行きました*。
> 彼女はりんごを*買いに街のあらゆる市場に行きました*。


They both sound natural to me.


Nino83 said:


> I read that if there are too much elements between _shi ni_ and _iku_, the _tame ni_ form is more clear.


I've never thought of that. Although I have no reason to deny that, when the distance between 〜しに/ために and いく is so big that the whole sentence becomes unclear, I think it's time you reconsider the whole structure of the sentence.


Nino83 said:


> What do you think about the two sentences above?


I think they are fine (I mean, not long enough to be unclear or ambiguous)


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, DaylightDelight.
So it is a mere difference of register (_tame ni_ formal, _shi ni_ informal).


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> _shi ni_ informal).


Informal? Well, not quite. When we compare the two, I'd say _-tameni_ is more formal than _-ni_.



> 彼女はりんごを*買いに私達が昨日話した市場に行きました*。


I think you're talking about a matter of style. If you think this is a long sentence that contains too much information, separate it into two. As you wonder, in speech it may be less understandable to a hearer.



> I read that if there are too much elements between _shi ni_ and _iku_, the _tame ni_ form is more clear.


I don't understand what the writer wants to say, either. I think you already know, but 買いに行く and 買うために行く are a kind of verb combination. If you align the verbs in parallel like 買う行く, since this set has two main verbs, it's less understandable to audience. So 買う needs to be changed （買う＋に＝買いに）.
買うために is as well.

I suppose that you, based on this idea, do also in Italian: 





> the verb _andare_ (iku) and the purpose clause _a/per comprare_ (_kai ni/kau tame ni_)




The two don't differ in their functions and in how they work.


----------



## Nino83

Hi frequency! 


frequency said:


> As you wonder, in speech it may be less understandable to a hearer.


Yeah, this was my doubt, i.e when there is a long clause between _ni_ and _iku_, maybe (in speech) _tame ni_ is more understandable (and then, more used in these situations). 


frequency said:


> I suppose that you, based on this idea, do also in Italian:
> The two don't differ in their functions and in how they work.


So it seems that there is no difference, i.e when a clause (inserted in the middle) is too long for _ni...iku_, it is too long for _tame ni...iku_ as well, isn't it?


----------



## frequency

Hi Nino 


Nino83 said:


> too long for _ni...iku_, it is too long for _tame ni...iku_ as well, isn't it?



Ah, you are talking about the separation between ni...iku/tameni...iku. 

彼女はりんごを*買いに街のあらゆる市場に行きました*。彼女はりんごを*買うために（、）街のあらゆる市場に行きました*。
They are very okay. Note that they're lighter than the others.

彼女はりんごを*買いに私達が昨日話した市場に行きました*。彼女はりんごを*買うために（、）私達が昨日話した市場に行きました*。
They have one more verb 話した than the others, so they're heavier. In other words, they have three verbs in one sentence, being heavier. This is the reason why I recommend you the separation into two sentences. But notice that these two are not wrong at all!


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> In other words, they have three verbs in one sentence, being heavier. This is the reason why I recommend you the separation into two sentences.


Clear! 
Thank you


----------



## Wen24

助詞の連続使用をできるだけ避けますように
「ために」と「に」は違う助詞であるため、「彼女はりんごを　買うために　市場に　行きました。」は自然な日本語だと思っています。
「彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場に　行きました。」より、「彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場へ　行きました。」のほうが自然に感じています。


----------



## DaylightDelight

Wen24 said:


> 「「彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場に　行きました。」より、彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場へ　行きました。」のほうが自然に感じています。


「自然」というよりは「正しい」あるいは「適切」といったほうが良いでしょう。
「～買いに市場に～」より「～買いに市場へ～」のほうが確かに混乱は少ないですし、
助詞の重複を避けるというのも正しい考え方だと思います。

ですが、日常の話し言葉では「～へ」よりも「～に」のほうが多く使われるような気がします。
地方や世代によっても違うと思いますが、私は普段しゃべるときには「～買いに市場に～」と言ってしまいます。
その意味で、ネイティブとして聞いて「自然に」感じられるのは「市場に～」のほうかもしれません。
普段の会話で「市場へ～」と聞くとちょっと堅苦しい、あるいは通常より上品な印象を受けます。

ちゃんと考えながら文章を書くときは「市場へ～」と書くかもしれません。


----------



## Wen24

DaylightDelight said:


> 「自然」というよりは「正しい」あるいは「適切」といったほうが良いでしょう。
> 「～買いに市場に～」より「～買いに市場へ～」のほうが確かに混乱は少ないですし、
> 助詞の重複を避けるというのも正しい考え方だと思います。
> 
> ですが、日常の話し言葉では「～へ」よりも「～に」のほうが多く使われるような気がします。
> 地方や世代によっても違うと思いますが、私は普段しゃべるときには「～買いに市場に～」と言ってしまいます。
> その意味で、ネイティブとして聞いて「自然に」感じられるのは「市場に～」のほうかもしれません。
> 普段の会話で「市場へ～」と聞くとちょっと堅苦しい、あるいは通常より上品な印象を受けます。
> 
> ちゃんと考えながら文章を書くときは「市場へ～」と書くかもしれません。



そうですよね。
日常会話の立場に見ると、「自然」というよりは「上品な印象を受ける」といったほうが良いですよね。

私が受けた教育は、正しい日本語＝自然な日本語であるため、「自然」という言葉に対する理解はまだ浅いです。
DaylightDelightさんのコメントが勉強になりました。


----------



## Nino83

So it's a matter of "style", "elegance", but in everyday speech it's frequent to repeat the same particle, isn't it?


----------



## DaylightDelight

Yeah, we don't really think much when we usually talk, do we?


----------



## Wen24

Nino83 said:


> So it's a matter of "style", "elegance", but in everyday speech it's frequent to repeat the same particle, isn't it?


Yes, it is. But case by case.

If you use the sentence without mistakes, people would think you are "high education", "elegant", "just normal", "camouflage", etc.
If you use the sentence with mistakes that is same as other people, what they would think? "Nothing"
If you use the sentence full of the mistakes, people would think you are "low education", "stupid", "just normal", "funny", etc.

It depends your dialogist is in which Class, Group, Position, and what you want to show him/her/them.


----------



## Nino83

DaylightDelight said:


> Yeah, we don't really think much when we usually talk, do we?


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> but in everyday speech it's frequent to repeat the same particle, isn't it?


This understanding is possible, but

Compare:
りんごを買うために、ニーノはローマに行った。
In this sentence, tameni and the location of the adverbial are emphasising your purpose.
りんごを買いに、ニーノはローマに行った。
This is less emphasised. But it is still successful in showing your purpose. I mean this に is working for showing your purpose.

In emphasis, tameni is more successful. And both can occur in casual speech.



Nino83 said:


> So it's a matter of "style", "elegance",



In the first pair in your OP, ni and tameni are showing the purpose. In this case, the difference between them makes the difference in the formality.


----------



## Nino83

Hi, frequency! 


frequency said:


> ni and tameni are showing the purpose. In this case, the difference between them makes the difference in the formality.


I and DaylightDelight (as well, I think) were speaking of Wen24's statement


Wen24 said:


> 「彼女はりんごを　買い*に*　市場*に*　行きました。」*より*、「彼女はりんごを　買い*に*　市場*へ*　行きました。」の*ほうが*自然に感じています。


----------



## frequency

Hi Nino,
I know! But I'm missing the point and about this one:


Wen24 said:


> 「彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場に　行きました。」より、「彼女はりんごを　買いに　市場へ　行きました。」のほうが自然に感じています。


And I think you have solved it.

I was talking about your two quotes in my #18. So read the two as another different topics from the comment by Wen24 (above).

I mean that "In casual speech we _always_ choose an easier particle or fragment" is not quite right, but it's possible (okay).


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> "In casual speech we _always_ choose an easier particle or fragment" is not quite right, but it's possible (okay).


Ah, ok. Your quote deceived me.  
Thank you for the info!


----------

