# ...に...に



## KaleNovice

「これから行くおすし屋さんは、おすし(に )カレー(に)、ラメン、なんでもありますよ。」

What's the use of に in the sentence above? Can someone shed some light? Googled it up but to no avail..


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

に＝and


「に」の意味 - Google Search


５．あるものに更に他のものを添えたり、同類のものを並べあげたりするのに使う。「六畳―四畳半の間取り」「好きな食べ物は鰻(うなぎ)―テンプラ―寿司(すし)」「谷風―は小野川じゃぞえ」。次のように特定の組合せを示すのにも使う。
 「月―むら雲、花―風」

ラメンーー＞ラーメン


----------



## kimko_379

1. Maybe it's a shorthand/abbreviation/omission of
... ni shite mo ... ni shite mo,  ...  .
= even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ..., or even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ...  :   you name it/whatever, they have it!

2. Or perhaps it's a series of additions:
... ni kuwaete, ... ni kuwaete, nan demo.
= adding to ..., (and) adding to ... , whatever you name.
(I guess this is the best explanation; in the early days of Japanese movie theaters or modern Western-style-plays theaters, which you see in TV dramas, the vendor walked around inside, between the aisles, shouting: 
"Ee!  Osen [= o-senbei = flat baked rice cakes] ni kyarameru [= "caramel-ed" sugar candies]!" 
= Hey/Everybody, how about baked rice cakes and/or candies?!  )

3. Or it can be the omitted old form of de < ni atte/arite as/like in:
... de sho?, ... de sho?, = ... daro?, ... daro?, .
You often use the above form in showing (to the listner) what you are counting and asking for the confirmation of his/her understanding.

(Of course you meant ラーメン.  The vowel lengths differences could cause some trouble in the listner's understanding.  Beware!)


----------



## KaleNovice

kimko_379 said:


> 1. Maybe it's a shorthand/abbreviation/omission of
> ... ni shite mo ... ni shite mo,  ...  .
> = even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ..., or even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ...  :   you name it/whatever, they have it!
> 
> 2. Or perhaps it's a series of additions:
> ... ni kuwaete, ... ni kuwaete, nan demo.
> = adding to ..., (and) adding to ... , whatever you name.
> (I guess this is the best explanation; in the early days of Japanese movie theaters or modern Western-style-plays theaters, which you see in TV dramas, the vendor walked around inside, between the aisles, shouting:
> "Ee!  Osen [= o-senbei = flat baked rice cakes] ni kyarameru [= "caramel-ed" sugar candies]!"
> = Hey/Everybody, how about baked rice cakes and/or candies?!  )
> 
> 3. Or it can be the omitted old form of de < ni atte/arite as/like in:
> ... de sho?, ... de sho?, = ... daro?, ... daro?, .
> You often use the above form in showing (to the listner) what you are counting and asking for the confirmation of his/her understanding.
> 
> (Of course you meant ラーメン.  The vowel lengths differences could cause some trouble in the listner's understanding.  Beware!)


"and"の意味とすれば 私にとって 分かりやすいです

"and"の意味として考えれば 私にとって 分かりやすいです

どちが正しいですか？
二つも正しければ どちのほうがいいですか？

*ps: Do let me know if I made any mistake in the sentence above..Thanks!


----------



## kimko_379

Excuse me, but I would completely re-word that into:
"and" の意味なのだったら・意味なのだとしたら・意味だというのなら・意味な（である）のなら（ば）、私にもよくわかります。

のだ・のです・のか・ので・のに　＜　もの　（only semantically/in_meanings, ＝  わけ・真相・本質・本性）　だ・など , which forms are used to show things's essence different or opposite from their superficial appearances/phenomena/facades:
あっ、お金持ってたの(  ＝　わけ）  (ですか・ですね)？　＝　You failed to seem to have any money, but in reality, you do have some, don't you?

ー　なんで、きのう休んだの？　Why were you absent (from work) yesterday?
ー　母が田舎（いなか）から出てきましたので（もので）。（＝出てきましたわけでして。 idiomatic) 　（しかた・仕方・しよう・しょう　がなかったのです。）
Because (= By the objective/unavoidable cause that) my Mother came to our home out of our country home (home countryside) and I was so busy at home, although you might think that my absence were avoidable.

≠　(not equal)

ー　母が田舎から出てきましたから（です）。
For my personal/subjective/voluntary/purposeful/initiative/arbitrary/active reason that my Mother came to our home out from our country home and Ｉ　　wanted to stay away from work to be with her, and I did so on/in my own judgement; what on earth is wrong with that?

（The ので・から　difference is as perilous as that; do be careful!)

わかりやすい　＝　has/have an/the easy-to-see attribute,
so it would be usual to use more "readable" style of setting yourself as the topic/subject/主語.  Namely, it is universal to use I-subjects whenever possible, not it/he/she/they/etc-subjects:  you can never say, "He was hit by me.", but you must say, "I hit him." in any ordinary/natural/non-artificial languages.

By the way, tianwang never let the Kyoo-Ani get away with their secular works:  I'd like to talk you out of their way.

どち　has a different meaning from どっち.  We go by moras, not by syllables; you risk high probabilties of getting misunderstood when you mis-pronounce j-moric words as k-moric ones: here, j and k are two different natural numbers).  Some people do that and I thought their "ryokan" pronounced as "ryookan" was "yookan" (Their R was also the English one.);  and I failed to get/understand their "Shi-n-nyo-do-o" 真如堂　temple pronounced as "Shinyodo"　シニョド.

Say 二つとも or 両方とも.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

KaleNovice said:


> "and"の意味とすれば 私にとって 分かりやすいです。


In my personal view, this sentence is acceptable and understandable easily. Even a native Japanese speaker may write like this.



KaleNovice said:


> "and"の意味として考えれば 私にとって 分かりやすいです。


In my personal view, this sentence sounds a little more "formal" and "clearer."



KaleNovice said:


> どっちが正しいですか？　or どちらが正しいですか？


The both are fine with me.



KaleNovice said:


> 二つも正しければ どっち（どちら）のほうがいいですか？


I think they're more or less the same.
The both are "perfect" in a certain point of view.
If you want to be proofread to make something "more than perfect," there would be a lot of expressions to choose.

My version would be:
『”And" という意味である』という説明が私にはわかりやすいです。
”And" という意味である、という説明が私にはわかりやすいです。
”And" の意味、という説明が私にはわかりやすいです。


----------



## kimko_379

Mr. SoLaTiDoberman may or must be right:  we often mix up subjectivity and objectivity, so, 私にも分かりやすいです　can be OK. But after all, I personally would avoid Mx. KaleNovice's original-two-sentences-as-they-are.
The 説明が　sentences seem all OK, I would submit.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Yeah, I understand *kimko_379's *opinion.
It depends on each individual's way of thinking. And I don't think it's a matter of "who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong."
I think there is another difficulty concerning that question in #4, which is not the original topic, so this might be against the forum rule.
And *kimko_379* and I gave different explanations for the first question. So we might have different viewpoints from the beginning.


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> 1. Maybe it's a shorthand/abbreviation/omission of
> ... ni shite mo ... ni shite mo,  ...  .
> = even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ..., or even when you assume it's the case of/the case you name ...  :   you name it/whatever, they have it!
> 
> 2. Or perhaps it's a series of additions:
> ... ni kuwaete, ... ni kuwaete, nan demo.
> = adding to ..., (and) adding to ... , whatever you name.
> (I guess this is the best explanation; in the early days of Japanese movie theaters or modern Western-style-plays theaters, which you see in TV dramas, the vendor walked around inside, between the aisles, shouting:
> "Ee!  Osen [= o-senbei = flat baked rice cakes] ni kyarameru [= "caramel-ed" sugar candies]!"
> = Hey/Everybody, how about baked rice cakes and/or candies?!  )
> 
> 3. Or it can be the omitted old form of de < ni atte/arite as/like in:
> ... de sho?, ... de sho?, = ... daro?, ... daro?, .
> You often use the above form in showing (to the listner) what you are counting and asking for the confirmation of his/her understanding.
> 
> (Of course you meant ラーメン.  The vowel lengths differences could cause some trouble in the listner's understanding.  Beware!)



Now I think I got it:  1. and 3. are compatible and entail 2.:

にする　often gets expressed as  になる　or である（＜にある　in the ancient form).

That phenomenalizes our tendency toward the non-discernment of the subjectivity from the objectivity:
Read 池上嘉彦『「する」と「なる」の言語学』、金谷（かなや）武洋『日本語に主語はいらない』 with the blatantly wrong conclusion (A language without any subjects/topics?!)、中津燎子『未来塾って何？』 or 『But 　と　けれども　考（こう）』（if I remember the title right/correctly) on 「自然現象語」：　「そうすることになっております。It is (decided/ordered) that we do so.  」　instead of 「そうすることに、(政府が/私たちは/etc.)しております・してあります。The government/We/They have decided that we do so.」

Confer:
一にも二にも練習（が大事）だ。 (As) the No.1/first thing to do and (as) the No.2/second thing to do, it's practice (that counts/matters).

一に練習、二に練習、三・四がなくて、五に練習。 (As) No.1:  practice!  (As) No. 2:  practice!  Nos. 3 and 4, forget them.  (As) No.5:  practice!

彼女は陰に陽に（＝　かげ　になり、ひなた　になり）彼を支援した。 She assisted him both as a ying/hidden supporter and as a yang/obvious supporter.

思いますに、・・・。　＝　私の考えといたしましては、・・・。　＝　As the_thing/what I think, ... = I think ...  (This is the simultaneous interpreters' amazing way of putting "I think ... ." into Japanese.)

驚いたことに、・・・。　＝　As a_thing/what surprised me/him/etc., ... . = To my/his/etc. surprise, ... .

As for the 「になる ＝ である」 cases, see:

当年とって、７０(歳）になります。I'm (going to be) 70 (yrs old) this year.
２千円になります。That'll be/make/constitute/represent 2,000 yen.
こちら、天津飯になります。Here is//This is/constitutes/represents the tianjin-fan for you, sir/ma'am!
「～。」と言われることが、彼女にとっては、プレッシャーだった　＝　プレッシャーになった・なっていた。
"To err is human, to forgive divine." （と） は、和訳すると、「過（あやま）つは人の常、赦すは神の業（わざ）。」ということになります　＝　～　ということです。

So,  Aに、Ｂに、Ｃに、・・・、何でもあるよ。　would be:
Even if it_be/you_make_it A, B, C, ...., or whatever in your assumptive/imaginary list, they have it.
＝
Ａ（である）にしても、Ｂ（である）にしても、Ｃ（である）にしても、
＝　Ａ（である）にせよ、Ｂ（である）にせよ、Ｃ（である）にせよ、
＝　Ａであれ、Ｂであれ、Ｃであれ、　（in olden days:  　・・・　にあれ、）

And when you list items, you are also adding them to the list.  Thus,
1. = 3. ⊇　(include and/or equal) 2.


----------



## kimko_379

Please take my apologies:  my "comprehensive theory," you just don't need for this issue; you can simply see the "A ni B (ni C ni ... nan de mo)" as "(whatever added/as_an_addition to  ...  ,  [added] to C,  [added] to) B, (added) to A" or "A (combined/matched) with B (, with C   ...  , with whatever)" because you can look on "ni" as mere "to/with".  You said it too:  you can practically/substantially regard it as "A and B (and C and ... and whatever)" as well!


----------

