# 逆に in this sentence?



## aksk97

"妻たちや子供たちともほとんど会えずじまいで、逆に妻たちがローテーションで付き添っているぐらい。"  
I can't fully understand what this sentence means. I know that "逆に" should be translated as "on the contrary", but I don't understand what it's trying to say in this sentence, the usage of "on the contrary" in here make little sense to me.
Can someone help me with the translation, please?


----------



## frequency

That 逆に sounds like その代わりに to me. The wife does 付き添い, not the speaker. Indeed, the 逆に might be slightly odd or wrong. I agree with you. You can understand the whole of the sentence without it, I think.


----------



## Schokolade

Could you provide some context?


----------



## aksk97

Sure! The context is about a man who married multiple women and has childrens with them, but he is stated to be always extremely busy with his job as a politician, to the point that his childrens basically never see him.
I originally took for granted that he basically never see his wives too, but the sentence I posted confuse me, because I understand 逆に as if it say that he actually meet his wives (at least once in a while) while he almost never meet his childrens.
If 逆に was replaced by something like "moreover" the sentence would mean that he hardly meet his famiy, and meet his wives even less because they even have to take turns for meeting him, and I could understand it. But "on the contrary" confuse me.


----------



## Schokolade

"妻たちや子供たちともほとんど会えずじまいで、*逆に*妻たちがローテーションで付き添っているぐらい。"

I think it's close to それどころか ("as if it's not enough already", "not to speak of that" or "far from that"?)

(He is so busy that) he can rarely return home, and _as if that isn't enough already, / not to speak of that,_ (he is so busy to the point that) his wives even need to take turns to accompany him (to support his work).

Perhaps you could interpret it this way..
Does he come home once in a while? -- No, actually his situation is_ far from _/ _the contrary to / the reverse of_ that; he's soo busy that he even has his wives accompany him and help his work.


----------



## aksk97

I see, thank you very much, if "逆に" can also be translated as "as if it's not enough already" then the sentence has more sense. 
I'm trying to understand whether he neglect more his wives or his childrens, but sadly I know very little of japanese. Do you think that the sentence can be translated as "he hardly meet his wives and childrens, as if it's not enough already his wives have to take turns for accompany him." (meaning that his wives meet him even less than just "hardly", because in the very rare occasions they meet him they even have to take turns one at a time for meeting him.)
Or this isn't what this sentence means?


----------



## frequency

That sentence wants to say that because he can't visit or come up to see them, his wives instead come and see to accompany with him. 

それどころか is right and valid. That 逆に maybe wants to mean Not like/contrary to the situation: 妻たちや子供たちともほとんど会えずじまいで.
The word 逆に itself isn't wrong, but in your OP that 逆に isn't just a good choice.


----------



## aksk97

I'm a little confused right now... is your interpretation of the sentence the only way to interpret it? or it's only one of the possibilities?
Because if 逆に can be translated as "as if it's not enough already" then the sentence means that each of his wives will see him very very rarely, almost never. (less than "hardly").
But the way that you translated it the sentence means the complete opposite, that his wives see him more often (more than "hardly").

Are both of them valid possibilities? Sadly the author of that book chose to use 逆に, complicating the meaning of this sentence.


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> "as if it's not enough already"


This doesn't make sense.


aksk97 said:


> it the sentence means the complete opposite, that his wives see him more often (more than "hardly").


I think you want to say "He says he can't see them, but his wives accompany with him. Therefore he can't say he can't see them." In this sense, you're right. That verb 会えず isn't also good.
Don't forget the original sentence isn't good. Probably the focus is "I can't _go_ to see them. So my wives come to accompany with me."

Try 妻たちや子供たちともほとんど会いに行けずじまいなので、妻たちが来てローテーションで付き添っているぐらい。
If I were you, I'd still say, "I can't go to see my wives and children, so my wives instead come to accompany with me in turn."

Using that 逆に, he wants to say Not like me/Contrary to me, my wives do (=come).


----------



## aksk97

But for the sentence to have such a meaning I have to change the words of the original sentence, right? while all I would like to do is translating the sentence and understand it's meaning. 
It also seems a bit forced, and it even say that he see his wives but not his childrens, which seems even more strange.

I know for sure that in english "on the contrary" can be used either for contrasting OR as a synonym of words like "in addition, also, furthermore, moreover etc..." or even as a synonym of "in fact".
That's why I'm trying to understand if 逆に can be used in the same way. Because if it can be used to say one of the words I just listed (or one similar) the sentence would be good.


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> t even say that he see his wives but not his children


The detailed information about if he really sees his children is omitted. But as a whole the OP can suggest that he hasn't seen them. His wives only, as you said, because it says they accompany with him at least.


aksk97 said:


> contrasting


Yes. Therefore "I can't go. My wives come."


----------



## aksk97

frequency said:


> Yes. Therefore "I can't go. My wives come."


But since "on the contrary" in english can be used also in the other way that I mentioned, then could the sentence say this?

"I hardly meet my wives and childrens, in addition (or something similar) my wives meet me in turns" (which say that he spend even less time with his wives than what "hardly meet his wives and childrens" suggest, since he meet only one of his wives at a time)


----------



## frequency

In addition     English Only


----------



## aksk97

Thank you, I appreciate that you even created a new thread.

But, you two have changed the original sentence using words that weren't used by the author of the book. For example the first part of the sentence was changed from " I hardly meet my wives and childrens" to "_I can seldom find time to visit my wives and children",_ which changes a lot the meaning of the sentence.
Sadly, I'm just trying to figure what "on the contrary" means in that context, so I can't modify in any way the original sentence.
Thank you anyway.


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> "I hardly meet my wives and childrens


This is wrong. Because


Copyright said:


> “I hardly meet my wives and children” tells me that he does meet them all, but very infrequently.


The original Japanese sentence says "I can't meet my wives and children."

Try considering,
I can't meet my wives and children, _______ my wives accompany with me in rotation.
If you are not sure, reread Copyright's comments.


aksk97 said:


> but I don't understand what it's trying to say in this sentence, the usage of "on the contrary" in here make little sense to me


You were right in the OP, unfortunately. "On ths contrary" would sound a bit awkward, but understandable.


----------



## Kenshiromusou

frequency said:


> This is wrong. Because
> 
> The original Japanese sentence says "I can't meet my wives and children."
> 
> Try considering,
> I can't meet my wives and children, _______ my wives accompany with me in rotation.
> If you are not sure, reread Copyright's comments.
> 
> You were right in the OP, unfortunately. "On ths contrary" would sound a bit awkward, but understandable.


Why does this happen?


----------



## frequency

> "On ths contrary" would sound a bit awkward, but understandable.


If you use _I can't come_ and _My wives accompany with_, this isn't a good contrast. Then "but" is better.

If you want to make contrast using "on the contrary", _I can't meet_ and _My wives can come_ is better. The original sentence hasn't done so. This is the reason that the awkwardness arises.


Kenshiromusou said:


> Why does this happen?


Contradiction (but) and contrast (on the contrary) are similar, so "on the contrary" is understandable.
Japanese 逆に also can work to make contrast.


----------



## aksk97

Doesn't ほとんど mean "hardly"?
Well, "I can't meet" is still different from "I can't go/ I can't visit". The first say that he never/almost never see his wives (in general), while the second leave open the possibility that his wives maybe go to see him. They are vastly different, in my opinion. The same for the second part of the sentence.
Also, I'm pretty sure that in this case "I can't meet" mean that he almost never/ very infrequently meet them, and not that he really never ever see them.


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> "I can't go/ I can't visit"


They're alternatives.


aksk97 said:


> I can't meet" mean that he almost never/ very infrequently meet them, and not that he really never ever see them.


No.


----------



## aksk97

frequency said:


> They're alternatives.


You mean that in the original sentence there's a word that is translated in all these 3 ways? then how can we know which one the author wanted to use, since these words imply different things?



frequency said:


> No.



In the book one of his kids said that they have very little interaction with him, and not that they never ever see him. Which means that "I can't meet" is probably used to say "hardly" in that sentence, and not "never".


----------



## frequency

The original sentence says "I can't."
In your example any of "I can't meet, I can't go to meet, or I can't visit to meet" is okay.


aksk97 said:


> almost never/


This is okay, but you need 'can'


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> kids said that they *have very little interaction *with him, and not that they never ever see him. Which means that "I can't meet" is probably used to say "hardly"


Ah okay, then that sounds "can almost never".  Practically he would have met the children in a short time, but he evaluated and said "almost no".
You know the OP uses a negative tone, whatever you use "can almost never, hardly, I can't". I just used "I can't", because I thought it was easier to understand than other alternatives when I explained, especially about that contrast. That's all. Sorry for that and lack of understanding and explanation. Therefore,


> "I can't meet" is probably used to say "hardly" in that sentence, and not "never"


About this, I agree with you.


----------



## aksk97

Maybe I'm wrong, but there's probably a huge misunderstanding about the sentence. 
Both the sentence I posted, and what the kids said about their interactions with him doesn't refer to a single event, but to a situation that has been continuing for more than 20 years and is continuing in the present.
It's not "tomorrow I can't meet my wives and childrens".
It's "for 20 years I couldn't meet my wives and childrens, and even in the present and in the future I will not be able to meet them, because I'm always extremely busy".

I understand the matter about "I can't" now, thank you.
Also, if I understood, the original sentence say only "meet", and not "go" or "visit", right?


----------



## frequency

aksk97 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong,


No, no, you're not.


> It's not "tomorrow I can't meet my wives and children".


No, exactly. That story isn't like that.


> continuing for more than 20 years and is continuing in the present. It's "for 20 years I couldn't meet my wives and children


Hmm, yes not impossible. He just hasn't given us the information how long it is, though.
His very infrequent presence made his wives come to accompany with him after all, and this is the present situation, provided he has chosen correct tense. (I'm talking about 付き添って*いる*.)


> in the future I will not be able to meet them, because I'm always extremely busy".


Likely. Therefore his wives come up to accompany with him. But note that he hasn't especially talked about his future there.



> the original sentence say only "meet"


Exactly.
Personally, I think the OP needs a bit more words. When you feel that you need to add some, the alternatives might help you.


----------



## aksk97

The informations about how the situation continued for 20 years, and will continue in the future, is not in that sentence, but it's stated in the book.

In all honesty I'm not convinced that the sentence want to say "I can't go to them, so they come to me", to me it feels forced both grammatically and logically.

In these days I researched about "on the contrary", and I can confirm that one of it's usages is for say "in addition, moreover".
So I'm more inclined to think that the sentence wants to say that he almost never meet his wives and kids, and that in addition he see his wives even less because he meet them one at a time, in turns.
Or something like that.


----------



## Contrafibularity

Sorry for cutting in.  Just a small observation.  

To me, the original Japanese sentence makes complete sense and I find nothing wrong with it.
I think Schokolade's interpretation fits very well to the sentence.  



aksk97 said:


> In all honesty I'm not convinced that the sentence want to say "I can't go to them, so they come to me", to me it feels forced both grammatically and logically.


The sentence doesn't sound like that to me.  There's no strong logical connection between the two parts.  

To me, the sentence seems to be talking about a man's duty as a husband.​It means something like "He should come home and see his family more often, but he is too busy.  _On the contrary_ / _In fact / In addition_, he even has his wives take turns to accompany him."  In other words, he is not fulfilling his duty as a husband by not coming home often already, and in addition to that, he is further from fullfiling it by having his wives away from home.   How does this sound? 

​


----------



## Flaminius

The original Japanese sentence is poorly written in that it misuses the verb _au_.  The construction "X-to au" means that the subject of the verb (here, the polygamous man) and X come to a face-to-face contact.  It does not matter much who visits whom.  Since the construction that uses the verb is negated in the OP's sentence, the most rational understanding of the first part is that the man does not see his wives and children (yes, this is the plural form) at all.  This is contradicted by the second part when it says that his wives take turns to take care of him.

Every one of previous posters to this thread has interpreted the sentence in the kindest light possible to make sense out of it.  Still, it must be said that the sentence is faulty at best.


----------



## aksk97

Contrafibularity said:


> How does this sound?



Thank you very very much. It sound perfect to me. It's also very similar to what I said (that in addition to almost never seeing his wives, the fact that even in the rare occasions he has time for his wives he has to meet them in turns, one at a time, mean that each of his wives meet him even less than "almost never"). I also think too that he is a neglectful husband.

A few days ago I discovered something bad though: the sentence I posted in the OP is actually a summary made by someone of the original sentence.
I just found the true original sentence, please, could you tell me if after reading it you are of the same opinion, or if you think differently now?

「“一百年先までスケジュールが埋まってますからね。 うちの母親たちともほとんど
会えずじまいで、 逆に母たちがローテーシヨンで付き添っているぐらいです」


----------



## Contrafibularity

aksk97 said:


> A few days ago I discovered something bad though: the sentence I posted in the OP is actually a summary made by someone of the original sentence.
> I just found the true original sentence, please, could you tell me if after reading it you are of the same opinion, or if you think differently now?
> 
> 「“一百年先までスケジュールが埋まってますからね。 うちの母親たちともほとんど
> 会えずじまいで、 逆に母たちがローテーシヨンで付き添っているぐらいです」



So the narrator here is one of his children, and "うちの母親たち" means the narrator's mother and mothers-in-law, I guess.
And to your question, I say I'd interpret it the same way as I did.


----------



## aksk97

Contrafibularity said:


> And to your question, I say I'd interpret it the same way as I did.



I see, thank you. From what I understood until now, it seems the sentence is worded in a way that we can't tell exactly what it want to say, but we can only give interpretations. It's a pity. I also can't understand 逆に, since some say it can mean "in addition", while some say it can't.
Still, I believe that your (and Schokolade's) interpretation is the most likely to be correct. Even more after Flaminius explained how it does not matter who visits whom.


----------



## Contrafibularity

I understand your confusion.  Some people (mostly young people) use 逆に in a way that I’d never use it, and it’s almost impossible to translate it or you need many words to explain it.  And I know a guy who always says 逆に before he starts talking. It's just his favorite phrase and doesn't mean much.  I don't know if I'm too ready to accept an easy interpretation, but those sentences still make sense to me.


----------



## aksk97

I didn't expect 逆に to have so many meanings. But since you said that "in addition" is one of it's meanings, then I'm 99% sure that "in addition" is what 逆に means in that sentence.
I have a question about your explanation of the sentence: I agree with everything you said, but what did you meant when you said that "he is further from fulfilling his duty as a husband by having his wives away from home." ?


----------



## Contrafibularity

aksk97 said:


> what did you meant when you said that "he is further from fulfilling his duty as a husband by having his wives away from home." ?


Sorry if I made a clumsy sentence.  I just meant he is _doubly_ undutiful, first by not coming home often, and second by having his wives away from home.


----------



## aksk97

Contrafibularity said:


> Sorry if I made a clumsy sentence.  I just meant he is _doubly_ undutiful, first by not coming home often, and second by having his wives away from home.



I expressed myself badly, the part that I don't understand is "having his wives away from home", why does this make him even more of a bad husband?  
Initially, I understood that you were saying he is even more of a bad husband because seeing his wives in turns means spending even less time with each of them, but maybe you meant to say something different?


----------



## Contrafibularity

aksk97 said:


> Initially, I understood that you were saying he is even more of a bad husband because seeing his wives in turns means spending even less time with each of them, but maybe you meant to say something different?



Sorry for the late reply.  I did mean to say something different.   

In my eyes, the question here is not so much about how much time he spends with his wives as how willing he is to do so.  Obviously he is giving higher priority to his work over his family, and having his wives away from home in this context doesn't make him any less neglectful.  It is his wives who bother to come and support him.  You can say the wives are dutiful, but not he.  Given that the narrator in the original sentence is one of his children, I might have added his duty _as a father_, not just as a husband.  He is virtually depriving his wives of their opportunities to look after their children by having them away from home.  There is no severely reproachful tone in those sentences so perhaps the narrator understands the situation he was put in, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a neglectful husband / father.


----------



## aksk97

Contrafibularity said:


> There is no severely reproachful tone in those sentences so perhaps the narrator understands the situation he was put in, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a neglectful husband / father.



I see, yes, what you said is certainly true.
So, in the end, what the sentence is saying is:
"His kids never/almost never see him, his wives never/almost never see him except those rare times where they bother, in turns, to help him with his work. (So, in addition to almost never seeing him, they also spend the very rare time together just working, and doing nothing else)."
So it's confirmed that both his wives and kids are very neglected, which means that the wives are in a bad and unhappy marriage, since thay are left alone pretty much always.
Something like that, right?


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Is the object of 付き添っている "him"? Or "children"?

What country's politician is he? Is the country accept "the polygamy"?

Who is the writer? Are they Japanese?



aksk97 said:


> The context is about a man who married multiple women and has children with them, but he is stated to be always extremely busy with his job as a politician, to the point that his children basically never see him.



Is this context （＃４）correct or wrong?
This thread is very confusing.

オリジナルの文章や文脈が正しいと仮定すると、私は、
"本来、筆者から*かまってもらって（受動）*しかるべき妻たちが、*逆に*、（子供、またはその男）を*かまっている（能動）*。”
または、
”本来、*敵対*するはずの妻達が、*逆に*、*協力*している。”
といった意味を込めた逆接の「逆に」と思います。だから訳はon the contraryで良いと考えます。

その男に付き添うのではなく、子供に付き添うのではないでしょうか。
ファーストレディーが、交代で代わる代わるに付き添うようでは政治家としてはダメでしょう？
前妻や今の妻が、いがみ合うのが一般的であるが、この男があまりにも家庭をかえりみず、本妻であろうと前妻であろうとどちらも平等にかえりみない。だから、逆に、妻たちが仲良くなって、どちらの子供たちもまとめて交代で面倒みている、といった極めて特殊な状況が語られているのではないかな、とも思います。


----------



## aksk97

SoLaTiDoberman said:


> Is this context （＃４）correct or wrong?



Very sorry for the late reply. 

Sadly I don't know japanese, so I don't understand the part in japanese that you wrote. For your other questions:
He's from a fictional country, he's basically a mix between a politician and a celebrity who constantly travels the world.
Yes, the country accept poligamy, and he is legally married to multiple women.
Yes the author is japanese.

Yes, the context of the sentence said by me that you quoted is correct, it was said in a previous part of the book.


----------



## Contrafibularity

aksk97 said:


> So, in the end, what the sentence is saying is:
> "His kids never/almost never see him, his wives never/almost never see him except those rare times where they bother, in turns, to help him with his work. (So, in addition to almost never seeing him, they also spend the very rare time together just working, and doing nothing else)."
> So it's confirmed that both his wives and kids are very neglected, which means that the wives are in a bad and unhappy marriage, since thay are left alone pretty much always.
> Something like that, right?


Two comments:
First, I don't know if the husband and wives spend their very rare time together just working.  They could be doing something else.
Second, though the amount of time he spends with his wives is certainly scarce, it does not necessarily mean the wives are in a bad and unhappy marriage.  They could still feel happy and satisfied being a wife of such a prominent politician, couldn't they?

Other than these, yes, that is my take on this.


----------



## aksk97

Contrafibularity said:


> Other than these, yes, that is my take on this.



Well, I took it for granted because if he never see his own childrens because he is always working then if his wives visit him at work he still shouldn't have any time for them and will spend all their time together just working.
Also, I find it hard to believe that they feel happy and satisfied with being married to someone who neglect both them and their childrens so much, and they all come to prominent families themselves, so they souldn't care about being the wives of a prominent figure.

But it's true that we don't know anything for sure, after all we can't even be sure of what the sentence want to say, and we can only rely on ours hypothesis, sadly.


----------

