?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 

'Love' in the Japanese way - A Recovering Physicist's Apology

About 'Love' in the Japanese way

Previous Entry 'Love' in the Japanese way Sep. 21st, 2004 @ 05:11 pm Next Entry
I read an interesting language essay in the Daily Yomiuri last week. You learn something about the Japanese language and the Japanese way of thinking and relating to the world. I find it really interesting to think about aspects of language as a way of figuring out how different cultures orient themselves to the world. Anyways, I wanted to put a link up but I could not locate it online. So I am typing it verbatim. Please rememeber it is NOT my work, it was done by Shigekatsu, I don’t want to take credit for his work. Any mistakes you catch are probably my "typing verbatim" skills rather than his errors

‘Love’ in the Japanese way. By Shigekatsu Yamauchi
About 20 years ago when I was a manager for a Japanese trading company in London, I remember joining a business lunch with some British executives. One of them was curious about the Japanese language and asked me a question:
“What is the Japanese language like, Mr. Yamoauchi? I mean, how would you say, ‘I love you’ in Japanese, for instance?”
My first response was:
“Well, we would not say such a thing because it is something we should feel intuitively rather than express verbally. Once we say it, it sounds rather cheap.”
He was not very convinced by my answer:
“Come on, Mr. Yamauchi. I’m sure there must be occasions where you’d need to say that. What would you say in Japanese?”
I gave in and said:
“Well when push comes to shove, you might say: aishitemasu.”
He was pleased and asked me further:
“All right. Now, please tell me which part of aishitemasu means ‘I,’ which part ‘love,’ and which part ‘you.’”
Asked this, I was at a loss. Feeling I had no alternative, I said:
“Well, aishitemasu does not contain any words equivalent to ‘I’ or ‘you.’”
He was very puzzled by my answer, but as I was not yet a teacher of Japanese, I could not explain properly beyond this.
However, now I can.
His puzzlement comes from the conviction that there must be a subject to construct a sentence. This error is virtually unavoidable to Westerners, because English and most European languages all believe in the necessity of a subject to make a sentence. Moreover, these languages also say that if the verb in a sentence is transitive, there must be an object, too. However, these are by no means universal rules shared by all languages.
Forget which language you use for a second, and just think of the situation in which “I love you” might be said. Generally, just you and your partner are present. Given such a situation, why do you have to say “I love you?” Aren’t the subject and object redundant?
While an English verb is just a word and cannot constitute a sentence unless there is a subject (even in imperatives like “Eat!” or “Go!,” the subject “you” is deemed to be implied and omitted), a Japanese verb constitutes a valid, perfect and proper sentence on its own. Unless the situation calls for designating who the subject is and what the object is, words to describe these things are not uttered; similarly, additional information such as when, where, how, to what degree or why are not included unless there is a reason to do so. For whatever reason, English treats the subject (and the object of the verb is transitive) as special and indispensable. Japanese, on the other hand, treats all information equally – i.e. things are said only when that information is thought to be necessary.
Let’s relate thins back to “I love you.” If the situation calls for it, there are, of course, ways to indicated “I” and “you” in Japanese as well. So, we could say watashi wa anata o aishiteimasu. But we would need a special situation to make this appropriate. For example, a group of boys sit on one side with a group of girls on the other, and someone asks who loves whom. In such a highly unlikely situation there would be a need for the speaker to say watashi wa anata o aishiteimasu. A literal translation for this would be: “(As far as I’m concerned) I (choose to) love you (among the others, and I am not responsible for who else loves who else).”
Japanese is a language in which a sentence is formed by either a verb on its own, an adjective on its own, or a noun followed by da. A word equivalent to an English subject is not necessary. This rule applies not only to the spoken language, but is found in writing as well. One of Japane’s Nobel Prizie0winners, author Yasunari Kawabata, started his famous Yukiguni (Snow Country) by writing: Kunizakai no nagai tonneru o nukeru to yukiguni deatta. In this, the very first sentence of a famous book, there is no subject! We have a verb, nukeru, which means “pass through,” but the sentence does not tell us what passes through. Later, we find out that it is in fact a train, but the real meat of the sentence is the last two words, which translate to: “(it) was the snow country.” Here again, there is no subject. To make a close translation of the original into English, I must avoid using the subject.
For instance: “Upon passing though the tunnel of the country boarder, it was snow country.”
Probably this English sounds a little odd to native English speakers. In that case, you could restate the sentence in this way:
“When the train passed through the tunnel of the border, there was snow country.”
Or: “Passing through the long tunnel at the border led to snow country.” (I don’t have room here to cover why I chose to use “led to.”)
Edward G. Seidensticker’s well-known translation of the book has a more traditional English subject for this sentence:
“The train came out of the long tunnel into snow country.”
Talking about subjects some more, think about English statements like “you never know.” Here although you use “you” as the subject it could reasonably be replaced by other pronouns. So:
You never know.
We never know.
One never knows.
They never know.
People never know.
Despite completely different word choices for the subject, these all mean virtually the same thing. Here again, an illustration that very often, mentioning the subject is redundant. And yet English demands it, and Japanese simply does not.
Add a corollary
[User Picture Icon]
From:superpastelgirl
Date:September 21st, 2004 04:21 pm (UTC)

ah, but

(Link)
yet if you say "you never know" versus "I never know" they have different meanings. The second is made vastly more personal by the substitution of the I. All of the words he used "you, we, one, they, people" can all mean the same thing in English; the collective human race. Whereas "I" or "he" or "she" are very specific, and therefore saying "you never know" and "she never knows" mean different things based on the subject. If you removed the subject, then this differentiantion would not be possible. Just food for thought.
[User Picture Icon]
From:biggrumpy
Date:September 22nd, 2004 01:31 am (UTC)

Re: ah, but

(Link)
I agree, what I have come to realize about English is it is a wonderful multi-facetted language, with subtleties abound. It also makes it a real pain to learn, but what a pay off! English just has so many words from so many different places compare: angry, mad, rage. All have different origins (angry - Scandinavian, mad - Old English, rage - French/Latin) and all mean more or less the same thing, at least on the surface. But by nuance it is a vastly different thing for me to say "I am angry." vs. "I am in a rage." Japanese just doesn't have that. English has the largest word stock of any language and that rocks extra hard. I love the nuanced nature of English, to me it is what makes English such a beautiful language. But I find the Japanese approach interesting too, as somewhat of a lingual minimalist, the idea that subjects are superfluous strikes me as interesting. Sometimes I think English allows writers to be too wordy. English can allow writers to go on and on and never really say anything. Academic prose comes to mind as a good example. But to go the other way and minimize the concept of a sentence to merely a verb, would be a massive blow to the elegance of the English prose. It may be okay in poetry (which I don’t much care for, but that is another rant) but prose is the workhorse of our tongue and I would rather have it a bit wordy but with all the nuance than simple and sterile.

So I am not recommending that English go all out in the direction of Japanese, but the article got me thinking about the nature of the elegance of English and the elegance of Japanese.
(Add a corollary)
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com