View Single Post
(#4 (permalink))
Old
KyleGoetz's Avatar
KyleGoetz (Offline)
Attorney at Flaw
 
Posts: 2,965
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
08-22-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xajron View Post
Woops! I made it bold when I wrote it on Wordpad. Sorry.

" 'The computers that were expensive have become cheaper. '

高かったコンピューターが安くなった.

Takakatta konpyuutaa yasuku natta

Here the relative (modifying) clause features an adjective instead of a verb. The tense of this clause may be present or past, and may be either affirmative or negative. However, it must be in the present tense if the state presented in it is concurrent with the action or state presented in the main clause (example 4)[...]4. My daughter wanted a doll that had blue eyes. 娘 は目が青い人形を欲しがった."
It means your relative clause has to be in the present tense if the "wanting the doll" and "doll has blue eyes" happened at the same time. That is to say, if when she wanted it, the doll had blue eyes, then you have to have a present tense clause.
If she wanted a doll that no longer had blue eyes when she wanted it, but had blue eyes, say, 100 years ago, you'd use the past tense in the clause.

Example sentences:
目が青い人形を欲しかった。 She wanted the doll that had blue eyes [when she wanted it].
目が青かった人形を欲しかった。 She wanted teh doll that had had blue eyes [in the past but no longer had blue eyes when she wanted it].

Put another way, if the doll was new and had blue eyes in the store
目が青い人形
If the doll was 100 years old and her eyes had lost the blue color due to age
目が青かった人形

Combining this with a twist on the tense of 欲しい:
目が青い人形が欲しい。 She wants the doll w/blue eyes.
目が青かった人形が欲しい。 She wants the doll that had had blue eyes [in the past but no longer has blue eyes].
目が青い人形が欲しかった。 She wanted the doll w/blue eyes [that had blue eyes when she wanted it].
目が青かった人形が欲しかった。 She wanted the doll that had had blue eyes [in the past but no longer had blue eyes by the time she wanted the doll].

Note that this is a great example of the past perfect tense in English, and its subtlety. Note the "had had" in two of the translations. I think non-natives often would miss this, and many natives might lazily exclude one of the "had"s as well. This mistake would introduce ambiguity into the sentence, potentially solvable via context, but maybe not.

Last edited by KyleGoetz : 08-22-2010 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote