# 手伝わせなければならなかったら



## Nino83

Hello everybody.
Someone in a forum said that Japanese verb forms can be very long, and he made this example:
手伝わせなければならなかったら / tetsudawa-se-nakereba-naranakatta-ra / help-can-must-if, it should mean something like "if he must can help", then I googled and there are no results for this form.
Is it grammatical and is it possible to use both "can" and "must" in the same verb? It seems very strange to me.  

Thank you


----------



## jamesh625

I believe it's the causative of 手伝う along with the common construction なければならない which must "must" or "needs to" and the conditional たら.

The potential for 手伝う is 手伝える.

Literally, it's something like "If (he) must be made to help". Some context is needed for an adequate translation.


----------



## Nino83

Ah, true, it's the causative!


----------



## jamesh625

Nino83 said:


> Ah, true, it's the causative!


I forgot to respond to your original question! Silly me.

I think it sounds okay, from a purely grammatical viewpoint.
Does it sound odd from an idiomatic one? Well, that would depend on the phrase it's used in.
I can't see any reason not to have the causative (or the potential, for that matter) and なければならない in the same conjugation.


----------



## Nino83

jamesh625 said:


> I can't see any reason not to have the causative (or the potential, for that matter) and なければならない in the same conjugation.


In Italian it is possible, for example "gli devo far finire quel lavoro" or "Je dois lui faire déplacer le prisonnier" in French.
Probably it's common also in Japanese. What sounds strange is to use must/have to + causative in a conditional sentence. 
In that forum they were discussing about which language was the most agglutinative. 
In this case I'd say that ならない is not a suffix, because it can be used also without any verb, it's an independent word.


----------



## karlalou

Yes, 手伝わせなければならなかったら is grammatical meaning "If you have to make someone help do something".

You can make it longer by making it a reason: 手伝わせなければならなかった*か*ら. Just one letter though.


Interestingly (to me), I think 手伝わせなければならなかった*のな*ら says a past event, and would be translated to "If you had to make someone help do something".
手伝わせなければならなかったら and 手伝わせなければならないなら both say a present conditional, and they can be used interchangeably.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, karlalou, jamesh.


----------



## jamesh625

It is an independent word in that sense. For example, 私は犬にならない "I won't become a dog".

But at the same time, just because a phrase can be cut up doesn't mean that the whole equals the sum of the parts. If it did then a sentence like 行かなければならない would literally mean "if (I) don't go, (it) doesn't become". This is useful as a way of learning the construction, but it means something different, i.e. "(I) must go".

In French, there are certain words that are similar (I'm not too sure about the case in Italian, sorry).
Words like _parce que, puisque, autant, sinon_ do not really mean "by it that", "then that", "to the such", "if no", respectively.

In a video I saw during one of my Japanese courses (a long time ago...) they presented a sentence to Japanese people in the street and asked them to cut it up into "words" 言葉. The results were... interesting. The phrase was 

毎日食べなければならないよね。

I personally made the argument that it could be cut as follows if we obey the principle of dividing it into the smallest units that have some meaning.
|毎|日|食べ|な|ければ|ならない|よ|ね。

But some Japanese people only cut it like this
|毎日|食べなければならないよね。
|毎日|食べなければならない|よね。
毎日食べなければならないよ|ね。 <--!? (This was a young boy if I remember.)

Anyway, I've gotten a bit far away from the point, so これで!


----------



## Nino83

Yes, jamesh, some words change their meaning, there are compound words and so on.
But I think, here, the point is if these words are suffixes (like the imperfect -av- in _cantava_, _cant_-_av-a_, sing-used to-he/she) or if it is a perifrastic construction (like the Latin _iturus est_, _iturus_ = who will go, _est_ = he is, _iturus est_ = he's going to go). The difference is that _-av-_ is not a word while _iturus_ and _est_ are.

I've found this definition:


> (Literally, the -なければ _-nakereba_ conjunction is the negative conditional form, "if not (this action)"; ならない _naranai_ is "to not become", the plain negative of なる _naru_. The literal implication is that if the action is not done, nothing else can proceed.)


Japanese/Vocabulary/Phrases and Idioms - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
It seems more similar to a perifrastic constructon but I don't know how the Japanese consider it.
I'm curious to know what you think.


----------



## jamesh625

Well, unfortunately you've reached the limited of my linguistic knowledge but I can still offer my opinion, if that's alright with you.

For me, I will pretty much always recognise なければならない as a construction to tack onto the end of a verb stem to express the idea of "must". When the word ならない is written by itself, especially if it's not preceded by なければ and/or it's written in kanji as 成らない/為らない/生らない it will always be a discrete word with its own particular meaning. (Older texts will still write the construction with kanji sometimes, but normally as 無ければ成らぬ or similar.)

It probably wouldn't be considered a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb, seems to correspond with your definition of suffix) by Japanese people. Therefore, it's probably more prudent to consider it as periphrastic, as you put it.


----------



## karlalou

Nino83 said:


> In this case I'd say that ならない is not a suffix, because it can be used also without any verb, it's an independent word.





jamesh625 said:


> 毎日食べなければならないよね。


mm.. I don't think ならない is a suffix nor an independent word. Maybe a postposition. It very much likely a helping verb, but I have to look up a dictionary to be sure. My knowledge is like that.

It's like I've long forgotten about the fact ならない in しなければならない come from 為らない like 犬にならない or 話にならない etc. It's not likely a Japanese salesperson or housewife considers ならない in しなければならない and that in 話にならない are the same.


----------



## frequency

jamesh625 said:


> なければならない as a construction to tack onto the end of a verb stem to express the idea of "must".


Yes, it's _must/have to_. 長いけどね。なければならない is almost a set phrase.




Nino83 said:


> 手伝わせなければならなかったら / tetsudawa-se-nakereba-naranakatta-ra / help-can-must-if, it should mean something like "if he must can help",


You say _I have to have him help_ + hypothesis. I'll cut the hypothesis in it:

See 手伝わなければならない vs　手伝わ_せ_なければならない
In the first one you say I have to help him/her. People are two.
In the second one, there are you and the person who is told by you to help.
Will he have to help you? There's no mention: you or another person. If there is another person, they're three.

See せ in 手伝わせなければならない.
This （わ）せ signals a hearer that there is another person, and you're going to have him or her do something (forcebly).
I don't mean that standalone せ works like that. But compare: 手伝う vs 手伝わせる　（手伝う＋させる）

No errors in 手伝わせなければならなかったら.
Does that answer your question?


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> Does that answer your question?


Yes. It works like in Romance and Germanic languages.
What I'm not sure is if in 手伝わせなければならなかったら, なら and かった, or ならなかったら can be considered affixes.
For example, in Turkish you have gör-üş-tür-ül-mü-yor-muş-s-am (see-reciprocal(each other)-make-passive-not-progressive aspect-past-if-I), and it means "if I was not being made to converse" (see + reciprocal = converse).
You can only attach these particles on a verb, like, for example, the Japanese past marker "-ta", they are not independent words, かった is the past negative form of ある and you can use it independently, for example 彼が私に歌を歌わせられることが*なかったら*.
The same for ならなかった, which is the past negative of なる.
It seems it works like an auxiliary/modal/helping verb, not like a suffix. Seeing that Japanese language is head-final, auxiliary verbs are placed after the other verb, _I *am* doing_ vs. _shite *iru*_.
The person in that forum said that Japanese is higly agglutinative and made this example, but I think that at least *なかったら* (literally "if it is not/if there is not/it it doesn't happen") or  ならなかったら (literally "if it doesn't become") can't be considered suffixes. But, I know, this is a matter of linguistics.
Another thing. Affixes are not declined or conjugated. They have only one meaning.
I'd like what the Japanese native speakers think about it. Do you perceive している or 手伝わせなければならなかったら like a single verb, unit, or like a perifrastic construction?


----------



## frequency

Ahh..as you know, 手伝わせなければならなかったら has three elements.

1 手伝う: a bare infinitive → 手伝わせる: 使役, as jamesh said. You have sb do sth.
2 なければならない is a set phrase. Have to. Don't break it in two.　(Furthermore, yours is in a past form. Therefore it is なければならなかった.)
3 たら: hypothesis.

When you combine these three, some parts are dropped off (but you needn't care about it much).
手伝わせる＋なければならなかった＋たら
＝手伝わせなければならなかったら.
This is okay and possible. A unit? Probably. A perifrastic construction? Not especially, because it's fully possible.

..but I see the biggest problem in yours, which is the past form + たら. Give me a time.



Nino83 said:


> for example 彼が私に歌を歌わせられることが*なかったら*.


1 This なかったら involves the past form + たら. Give me a time.
2 彼 does to you. He has you sing a song. So you needn't use 受身 for him: 彼が私に歌を_歌わせる_ことが*なかったら.*
I think this quick answer may not sufficient for you; answer you tomorrow!


----------



## Schokolade

Nino83 said:


> What I'm not sure is if in 手伝わせなければならなかったら, なら and かった, or ならなかったら can be considered affixes.


To analyse it grammatically, the なら is the imperfective form/未然形 of the verb なる. かった is not a word; なかったら here consists of *なかっ*(continuative form/連用形 of the negative auxiliary verb ない) and *たら**(hypothetical form/仮定形 of the past auxiliary verb た).
*たら is one word, not た and ら, just so you know.
But when we actually use it we never pay attention to its parsing; we just consider なければならない as a set phrase for 'must.'



> かった is the past negative form of ある and you can use it independently, for example 彼が私に歌を歌わせられることが*なかったら*.


You probably meant to type なかった. Yes, なかった is practically the past negative form of ある.
Grammatically speaking, the なかったら here consists of *なかっ*(continuative form of the negative _i-adjective* _ない) and *たら*(hypothetical form of た).
*The ない here is an i-adjective, not an auxiliary verb, just for your information.



> Another thing. Affixes are not declined or conjugated. They have only one meaning.
> I'd like what the Japanese native speakers think about it. Do you perceive している or 手伝わせなければならなかったら like a single verb, unit, or like a periphrastic construction?


I think we normally perceive している just as the progressive form of する (though it'd depend on the context and the verb it follows) and are not even aware that it has three words in it: し(continuative form of する) + て(conjunctive auxiliary verb) + いる(subsidiary verb). Similarly, we just perceive なければならない as a set phrase or one unit meaning 'must', which serves as a _modal verb_ and conjugates like i-adjectives.


----------



## frequency

彼が私に歌を歌わせることがなかったら・手伝わせなければならなかったら
They're different a lot.
手伝わせ・なければならなかった・ら
歌を歌わせる・ことが・なかった・ら


Nino83 said:


> The same for ならなかった, which is the past negative of なる.


If you make なければならない into the past form, it is なければならなかった. Why? We don't know lol.



Nino83 said:


> Another thing. Affixes are not declined or conjugated.


See 手伝う＋させる＝手伝わせる
In a word-and-word connection, the suffix of a verb undergoes its change, which involves a system called renyou. When the bare infiitive 手伝う connects to the aux させる, う changes to わ, and させる changed to せる. And I'm sure you see a piece dropping off. Most languages have this kind of change in the suffix. And you know in 手伝わせる, you see renyou, perhaps conjugation, in わ. I'm not familiar with the knowledge of renyou, but I believe other members know far better.

By the way, 彼が私に歌を歌わせることがなかったら is valid in this case:
You're a drummer. But one day your bandmate had you sing instead of your vocalist. You tried, and you all have found you a sooo good singer; you're now a vocalist.
彼がぼくに歌を歌わせることがなかったら*、ぼくはまだドラマーだった。

Therefore, yours will be:

_If he hadn't had me sing (a song), I would still have been a drummer._

He had you sing a song then, and you're a vocalist now, not a drummer any longer.

Regarding your example, I can't think of other possibilities than the third conditional.
彼がぼくに歌を歌わせることがなかったら、あんなに恥をかかなかったのに！

_If he had me sing a song, I wouldn't have been embarrassed so much!_

You're a bad singer, so you were embarrassed a lot.
*彼がぼくに歌を歌わせなかったら is okay, too.


----------



## Schokolade

frequency said:


> a system called renyou
> you see renyou, perhaps conjugation


It's _katsuyou_ (活用)...


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> You're a drummer.


I play bass guitar! 
Yes, when putting things together some part is lost or modified so it works more like conjugation.  
Thank you for your answer.


----------



## Nino83

I have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなければならない
I don't have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなくてもいいです 
If I have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなければならなかったら (ok) 
If I don't have to write a letter: 私は手紙を書かなかったらもいいです or 私は手紙を書かなくてもよくなかったら(です)?


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> I have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなければならない
> I don't have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなくてもいいです
> If I have to write a letter 私は手紙を書かなければならなかったら (ok) )


Good!
私は手紙を書かなければならないなら　is okay, too.



> If I don't have to write a letter: 私は手紙を書かなかったらもいいです or 私は手紙を書かなくてもよくなかったら(です)?


私は手紙を書かなくて（も）いいなら、～～・・


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> いいなら


Ah, ok, putting the particle after the adjective, thank you!


----------



## frequency

Oops, _have to/must_ is ～なくてはならない, which is a set phrase.
And the antonym of ～なくてはならない is ～なくてもいい or ～なくてもよい, a set phrase, too.

書かなくてもよい・飲まなくてもよい・手伝わなくてもよい. I don't have to write..etc.
書かなくてよい would be a bit more casual but a common use.


----------



## Nino83

Good, thanks!
And which is the difference between なければならない and なくてはならない?


----------



## frequency

Both are okay! No differences at all. But it's really confusing and annoying for all learners that we have these two なければならない and なくてはならない!


----------



## Nino83

Ok, no difference in meaning. How many ways to say the same thing!  
(I've just read that one can use 行けない or ならない, so four ways!)


----------



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

I'd like to ask you if the use of a verb with all these tenses/aspects (causative, passive, volitional, negation and conditional) is usual in speech. Sometimes I've to speak slower in order to remember the right order (maybe it's a matter of practise).
Do you have any problem in pronouncing very fast verbs like these and, if the context allows it, do you tend to avoid or to simplify such long conjugations in speech?

For example, there are two moms speaking about their sons.
Which of these sentences sounds more fluid to you?

If he doesn't want to be forced to eat fruit, you should convince him.
Kare wa kudamono o tabesaseraretakunakattara, settoku-shita hō ga ii desu.
彼は果物を*食べさせられたくなかったら*、説得したほうがいいです。

If he doesn't want to eat fruit, you should convince him.
Kare wa kudamono o tabetakunakattara, settoku-shita hō ga ii desu.
彼は果物を*食べたくなかったら*、説得したほうがいいです。

Do you find forms like *食べさせられたくなかったら* easy to pronounce in fast speech and do you use them very often?

Thank you


----------



## 810senior

Well
To me, I'll translation it like this and say: もし彼*が*果物を食べるのを嫌（いや）がっていたら、しっかり食べるように言い聞かせましょう。


----------



## frequency

Yes, 彼が果物を食べたくないなら、説得したほうがいいです。 would be better. But the point is:



Nino83 said:


> 彼は果物を*食べたくなかったら*、説得したほうがいいです。


This is fine because there are two people who doesn't want to eat and who may convince. And perhaps the relationship between the main and subordinate clauses is fine.

説得したほうがいいです。 This obviously sounds your advice, so it's clear that the hearer is the person to whom you're giving advice.
There are three people: you, the mother, and her son.



Nino83 said:


> 彼は果物を*食べさせられたくなかったら*、説得したほうがいいです。


It's strange but I feel mismatch in the relation between the two.
彼は果物を食べさせられたくなかったら、
This subordinate clause focuses on he more strongly than the other.


彼は果物を食べさせられたくなかったら、泣き叫びます。
This is fine. Who 泣き叫ぶ？ The son does, not his mother.
Notice that this one doesn't allow somebody to "interrupt" in this statement: it keeps describing him without mixing somebody into the sentence.
Therefore, it points only to what he would do when the mother lets him eat fruit.

Perhaps this 食べさせられたくなかったら requires to keep mentioning the receiver of the causative (the son).

Sorry for being a bit unsure. These are what I can say so far.


----------



## Nino83

810senior said:


> もし彼*が*果物を食べるのを嫌（いや）がっていたら、


Thanks, interesting alternative! 


810senior said:


> しっかり食べるように言い聞かせましょう。


This sounds a bit more like an order (tell him firmly to), but probably it's more realistic than mine!  
More often it's a bit more difficult to persuade kids than simply to order them to do something. 


frequency said:


> This subordinate clause focuses on he more strongly than the other.
> Perhaps this 食べさせられたくなかったら requires to keep mentioning the receiver of the causative


Interesting difference. 
Thank you all!


----------



## karlalou

Nino83 said:


> I'd like to ask you if the use of a verb with all these tenses/aspects (causative, passive, volitional, negation and conditional) is usual in speech. Sometimes I've to speak slower in order to remember the right order (maybe it's a matter of practise).
> Do you have any problem in pronouncing very fast verbs like these and, if the context allows it, do you tend to avoid or to simplify such long conjugations in speech?


When there's a need to say 食べさせられたくなかったら (If you don't want to be forced to eat), we would say so, and we don't have any problem saying so. Sure, it takes a little time to finish saying it, but our children should be quite used to hearing されたくなかったら from their parents or teachers like 言われたくなかったら、やりなさい (If you don't want be told, then do it), or されたくなかったら、やらないの (If you don't want somebody do that to you, don't do that to others) or 触られたくなかったら、片づけなさい (If you don't want me to touch them, then put them back to where they belong).


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, karlalou. 
I can say -られたくなかったら but, I don't know why, when I try to say a verb followed by -させられたくなかったら I end up saying -させられ*な*くなかったら, maybe because I got used to say -させられない and -させられなかった. 
It's like a tongue-twister. But if it is a useful combination, I'll try to get used to it.


----------



## karlalou

Right. 食べさせられたくなかったら.
食べさせられたくなかったら… 自分でつくったら？ (why don't you cook by yourself?)

勉強（べんきょう）させられたくなかったら, 掃除（そうじ）させられたくなかったら might be the speaker's choice quite naturally. Though I don't think these are expressions everyone says all the time.


----------



## frequency

Nino83 said:


> It's like a tongue-twister.


Indeed. I agree with you.

されたくない　＋　（た）ら　＝　されたくなかったら
（Or is this されたくない　＋　た　＋　ら？）

聞かされたくなかったら*
食べさせられたくなかったら*
Like these, some are bothersome to say. So as 810 suggested that we can select an alternative:
聞きたくなければ
食べたくないなら
..etc.
They are easier ways.

*You know, especially there are two people: a forcing one and a receiving one (you).


----------



## Nino83

Thank you.


frequency said:


> されたくない　＋　（た）ら　＝　*されたくなかったら*


Is this a reduced/spoken form of させられたくなかったら?


----------



## frequency

About 食べさせられたくない, this can't be changed into any other forms. 食べさせられたくない only.
About 聞かされたくない, I'm not sure very much, sorry. Is this two way?: 聞かせられたくない・聞かされたくない



Nino83 said:


> Is this a reduced/spoken form of させられたくなかったら?


As you said, 聞かされたくない must be more casual and common, I think.

Is 聞かせられたくない valid, too?


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> About 食べさせられたくない, this can't be changed into any other forms. 食べさせられたくない only.


Great! 


frequency said:


> Is 聞かせられたくない valid, too?


I don't know. Many books and dictionaries say that -せられる is the normal conjugation for godan verbs, then -せられたくない *should* (theorically, I don't know if it is so) be, consequently, the expected conjugation (unless there were some exceptions).


----------



## frequency

Oh~ I'm sorry that I really don't know, either Do you Flam and Wind know it?


----------



## 810senior

I can't imagine the situation where we use the 聞かされたくない(or 聞かせられたくない) in the sentence. Come what may 聞きたくない or 聞かれたくない is much simpler isn't it?


----------



## frequency

810senior said:


> 聞きたくない or 聞かれたくない is much simpler isn't it?


Yes, of course.

Well, I'm a horribly poor singer. But I frequency want to take you 810 to a Karaoke box! You can't say no and don't you think?:
_ああ～、あの下手糞な歌を聞かせられたくない・・_
This is, of course, interchangeable with 聞きたくない.


----------



## Nino83

frequency said:


> ああ～、あの下手糞な歌を聞かせられたくない・・


Yeah, that is a good example! 
So, do you tend to avoid such constructions (causative + passive + to want to)?


----------



## 810senior

Yes it's possible, expect for the fact that we would not have the way like that habitually. But its non-negative alternative またあの下手くそな歌を聞かされるのか。勘弁してくれよ。 is okay with me and I can't explain why...

At least, google the great tells to us that 聞かせられたくない only hits six.


----------



## frequency

810senior said:


> But its non-negative alternative またあの下手くそな歌を聞かされるのか。勘弁してくれよ。 is okay with me and I can't explain why...


Yes, that's much better.


Nino83 said:


> So, do you tend to avoid such constructions (causative + passive + to want to)?


Yes, I think so. And 810 suggests us



810senior said:


> At least, google the great tells to us that 聞かせられたくない only hits six.


----------



## Nino83

810senior said:


> At least, google the great tells to us that 聞かせられたくない only hits six.


And one of these comes from a grammar book of a famous editor (Routledge, Modern Japanese Grammar Workbook)
Kodomo ni uta o kikaseraretakunai = I don't want to be forced to hear the song by the child.


----------

