# とられる



## kaven-ever

Hi!
Context: 「ホストの男性を野口さんにとられると思った」などと供述していることが新たに分かった。 From Livedoor.
What does it mean? I think とられる is the passive form of 取る, but it seems there isn't any of its meaning fit here.

教えていただけませんか、ありがどうございます。


----------



## wind-sky-wind

"とられる" is certainly the passive form of "とる."
This passive is unique to Japanese, though there's an equivalent in English, that is, "have ... done, as in:
"I had my bag stolen," which means *not* "I made someone steal my bag," but "Someone stole my bag."

In this case, the girl (I know about this murder case) was afraid she would have her favorite "host" stolen.

I mean, what would be stolen is the "host."
So, normally, the subject of the passive "to be stolen" is the "host."
However, the sentence is "ホストの男性*を*　とられる," and the hidden subject is the girl.
This subject shows the victim of the theft.

In short, she was afraid Ms. Noguchi would steal the host.


----------



## frequency

とる in this case is that when a gigolo (not always) switches from person to another person. From the view of the speaker, the gigolo is 'taken' or 'deprived' from her by Noguchi san. 私は彼を彼女からとった in a relationship matter, it is _I got him from her._ 奪う is replaceable. 

This sentence is not 野口さんがホストの男性を取る, in which it spotlights 野口さん. By making the passive, the sentence spotlights ホストの男性. 中国語でもだいたい同じじゃないかな？


----------



## icefire112233

frequency said:


> This sentence is not 野口さんがホストの男性を取る, in which it spotlights 野口さん. By making the passive, the sentence spotlights ホストの男性. 中国語でもだいたい同じじゃないかな？



英語も中国語も同じだと思います。

簡単に言うと、「取る」は“to take” と“to steal”二つ意味があります。


----------



## frequency

icefire112233 said:


> 英語も中国語も同じだと思います。



あ、ごめんね。不明瞭だったかな？

野口さんがホストの男性をとる
ホストの男性を野口さんにとられる

上は野口さんを強調しているのに対して、下はホストの男性を強調してるんだ。こういう方法は、中国語でも同じだと思う


----------



## YangMuye

Umm, I repeated the two sentences in Chinese many times, and I found the first one is more likely to be heard.
I think it's simply a matter of perspective. When I start to talk, I tend to begin with something close to me and the listener (the topic/subject/～は), then I say 私は面白い本を読んだ (in Chinese 我读了一本有趣的书), and people will definitely focus on 面白い本 and expect me to go on talking about it. Then I will continue to say この本は～で～で面白かった, etc.
私が読んだ本は (in Chinese) as a topic to begin with seems abrupt because people are not familiar with what you did, you may need some device like ところで to make it sound smooth.
But 昨日見た映画は面白くなかった(in Chinese) seems fine, because both the speaker and the listener are involved in the topic. 

(I have drifted from the topic.)
I think とられる has to be used because it is said from the point of view of the victim. They are trying to analyze the how the victim thought.


----------



## frequency

YangMuye and icefire,
I'm sorry for my awfully poor examples. I rewrote them. Really sorry for confusion. 忘れてください><


----------



## wind-sky-wind

ここで大切なのは「野口さんがホストをとる」と「野口さんにホストをとられる」の違いというより、
普通の受身なら「ホストがとられる」のはずが、「（彼女が野口さんに）ホストをとられる」
という受身の使い方だと思います。

日本語ではきわめて普通で、これを英語の have my bag stolen とすると日本の英語では教えるのですが、
実際にはこれは「私のかばんを盗ませる」という使役に感じられることが多く、
日本人の方が好んで用いる英語だとも言われます。
実際には have を強く読めば使役、stolen を強く読めば「盗まれる」という被害と区別されますが、
書き言葉では区別できません。

英語はおいておき、この「～は～をとられる」という言い方をする、ということが大切で、
わかりやすくすると「ホストがとられる」という関係だと説明することが必要であり、
何に焦点が当てられているか、という違いはとりあえず無視してこの表現を理解することが大切だと思います。


----------



## frequency

YangMuye said:


> I think とられる has to be used because it is said from the point of view of the victim. They are trying to analyze the how the victim thought.



YangMuye, for what it's worth and I'm not going to correct strictly, this is a statement by the woman who killed? Noguchi san. It is enclosed by 「」, which picks up the real speech by her.

Again, 野口さん・・とる shows the behaviour of Noguchi san. This a bit could imply her resentment or accusation for the Noguchi san's behaviour, because of the verb とる sb from sb, which may sound shocking especially in a man and woman's relationship.
ホストの男性・・とられる focuses on capture of the gigolo, matching her viewpoint. In these cases, the center of her interest is Noguchi san and the gigolo, respectively.


----------



## kaven-ever

So this woman had a morbid mind, she thought if she killed the "host" and kept his remains, then nobody would have "him".
Thanks, wind-sky-wind, your explanation is quite plain and easy to understand, and also thanks for all of your contributions.


----------



## frequency

No, Noguchi san is a girl who was killed by the woman. The statement in 「」 is the reason that the woman killed Noguchi san.


----------



## YangMuye

Sorry for the confusion. I hadn't read all the posts when I wrote the comment. By "victim" I was refering to the girl who said the line because I thought this is an example of 迷惑の受け身.

My point is, we use the passive differently in Chinese and Japanese, for different purposes, in different situations.

I believe in this case, when reporting an event the speaker is involved in or affected by, there is a strong tendency in Japanese that certain markers like られる, てくれる, てくる, etc. should be used if the speaker is not the actor. I think it is not a matter of focus, but a convention, a rule that must be learned by heart.

This is not the case in Chinese. We use the passive often because we want to emphasize the importance, impact, influence, unexpectedness, etc. of an event.
For example, we may say someting like 謎が俺に解かれた or やっとお前が俺に捕まえられた which is considered as an achievement. (In Japanese, I think you would probably say 謎が解けた, やっと追い詰めた) We may also choose the subject-object-verb word order to express the same thing, and I think they are often interchangable.



> ここで大切なのは「野口さんがホストをとる」と「野口さんにホストをとられる」の違いというより、
> 普通の受身なら「ホストがとられる」のはずが、「（彼女が野口さんに）ホストをとられる」
> という受身の使い方だと思います。


中国語だと、
　　（彼女が）野口さんにホストをとられる
　　（彼女が）ホストが野口さんにとられる
　　（彼女の）ホストが野口さんにとられる
　　（彼女が）ホストが野口さんにとらせる
どちらも言えそうです。ただ最初の「迷惑の受身」は、理論的には可能ですが、実際にはどれほど使われているか疑われます



> 日本語ではきわめて普通で、これを英語の have my bag stolen とすると日本の英語では教えるのですが、実際にはこれは「私のかばんを盗ませる」という使役に感じられることが多く、
> 日本人の方が好んで用いる英語だとも言われます。
> 実際には have を強く読めば使役、stolen を強く読めば「盗まれる」という被害と区別されますが、書き言葉では区別できません。


英語には詳しくないですが、中国語の場合は、giveの意味の前置詞「給」とpermitの意味の「譲」を使うことによって、使役と受身を表すことができます。日本語では getの意味の「してもらう」も受身と使役の区別がつかないことが多いでしょう。


----------



## frequency

YangMuye said:


> I believe in this case, when reporting an event the speaker is involved in or affected by, there is a strong tendency in Japanese that certain markers like られる, てくれる, てくる, etc. should be used if the speaker is not the actor.


あ、そうか。受身を使うことで「男をとる」という行動は、私（殺した女性）ではないと、距離を取ることができるね。される（されそう）になった立場だと。立ち位置を明確にできるね。
By using the passive, the woman (who killed Noguchi san) can have the distance from the action of 'stealing a man', as if she implies that the actor isn't her. The passive works to identify the position where she wants to stand.




YangMuye said:


> （彼女が）野口さんにホストをとられる
> ただ最初の「迷惑の受身」は、理論的には可能ですが、実際にはどれほど使われているか疑われます



This is a famous story though, the active covers all. We don't need the passive especially, but it's essential for most of all languages. If all sentences were: The dog ate a bone; We tested the device; They visited the garden, you would fall asleep soon while reading. The woman of the Noguchi san's case can't be at the position where she wants to stand. The active vs the passive is just the shift in a viewpoint, which works for giving a text variation.
有名な話だけど、能動態で全部済むんだよ。受動なんてやろうと思えばしなくていいんだけど、ほぼすべての言語において必要だよね。もし、すべて能動だったら、単調で眠くなっちゃうでしょ。あの事件の女性も望む立場に立てないわけさ。能動 vs 受動とは結局視点の変化であって、そして文章にバリエーションを持たせることができるんだよ。


----------

