Japanese Modality Constructs

and How They Relate to Their English Counterparts

R Daniel Guédry Ⅱ

May 2010, Louisiana State University

© 2010. R Guédry
 Japanese Language Overview

Japanese a SOV style language with particles that mark the case or role of the word or

phrase they take scope over. They often translate to English as prepositions. Japanese also has

what you might call prepositions, but those are actually nouns; for example if you wanted to say “on

the table,” you’d have to say something like “at the over of the table” (minus the articles). It might

seem odd to say “on the table” like that, but as far as weirdness in Japanese expressions go, that

one is tame. Verbs and one of the two classes of adjectives have inflections which denote tense,

mood, and voice. All other words, including all nouns and the other class of adjective, are

uninflected except to the extent where you might consider applying particles to a word as an

inflection. However, if you bring Japanese honorifics into the fold, all bets are off; it almost seems

like a different language with similar grammar, but lots more of irregular inflection.

Japanese sentences can have both a topic and a subject, but often the two will be the same,

and usually only the topic is specified. Some predicates do require different topics and subjects. For

instance, to express “like” in Japanese, there is an adjective. The best way I find to translate it to

English is as the past participle or passive form “liked.” The topic is that which is doing the liking,

and the subject is that which is liked. The idea is that the subject and adjective form an attribute

which may be ascribed to something or someone, which can be specified as the topic.

Japanese writing is composed of three sets of characters. Kanji are logographic characters

borrowed from China to express the Japanese language. However, with Chinese and Japanese being

as different as they are in every way, it proved problematic write Japanese using the Chinese

characters by their meanings alone. Ways were developed to use the characters phonetically, and

these methods eventually produced simplified versions of those characters for phonetic use. The

end result is two 46 character syllablaries: hiragana and katakana. In modern Japanese, all three
character sets, the two syllablaries and the kanji, are used together to form the Japanese writing

system. Roughly about kanji, they have multiple readings of Chinese and Japanese origin alike. The

possible Chinese readings are disambiguated by context, and Japanese readings are disambiguated

by trailing hiragana. When kanji take on Japanese readings, they can take a consistent root

pronunciation which is the first part of any words they make. Words they make will differ in the

endings, which are written in hiragana. An example,

oso re oso ra ku oso ro shi i

恐れ - fear 恐らく - (very) likely 恐ろしい - dreadful

While hiragana is used for word endings like these, as well as for writing out inflections on verbs and

adjectives, for writing particles, and writing Japanese origin words without kanji; katakana is used for

writing foreign loan words and names. Hiragana has a notably cursive-like and rounded look, while

katakana is more print-like and angular.

For most of my examples, I had laid out the Japanese text with a Romanized phonetic on a

per word basis. This is so that word borders can be seen in spite of Japanese being written without

spaces. Below each Japanese example will first be a word by word translation, which will be

formatted so that words in English are hyphenated if they correspond to more than one word in the

Japanese, particles start with a hyphen. When adjectives and verbs are inflected with tense, mood,

and/or voice, this will be expressed in square brackets after the word. Possible inflections to be seen

include polite vs. plain, nonpast vs. past, negative, potential, tentative, desiderative, conditional, and

potential.

Lastly, interpreting what Romanized Japanese should sound like as you read it, should be

similar to reading Spanish. There are five vowels, A I U E O, which are pronounced like in Spanish or

short quick versions of “ah ee oo ay oh” with little or no diphthong. An exception to the Spanish

pronunciation is that the U is pronounced closer to English short oo as in “book,” or to the French
sound for e as in “le”, probably closer to our local Acadian variety of French e than the Parisian

version. The vowels can be made into long vowels, which may be represented in the Romanization

by AA II UU EI OU. These are pronounced for a longer duration, approximately double the duration of

a short vowel. Furthermore, vowels I and U are whispered or completely dropped when they are in

between two unvoiced consonants, or are at the end of a word immediately preceded by an

unvoiced consonant. Some examples are (Japanese in italics, pronunciation in quotation marks),

desu as “dess,” sukiyaki as “skiyakh,” uchi as “uch,” ashita as “ashta,” hito as “hhto,” osoraku as

“osorak,” watashi as “watash,” and last but not least, mushi-atsukute as “mushyatsk’te.”

Modality in Japanese

Let’s start with a simple means of expressing uncertainty. The following construct in

Japanese is translated as “may” or “might” in English. Here is the format of the construction,

ka mo shiremasen ka mo shirenai
(1) Plain form clause + かも知れません or かも知れない (polite and plain, respectively)

And here is an example of its usage,

ashita wa yuki ka mo shiremasen

(2) 明日は 雪 かも知れません。

Tomorrow -topic snow -KA -MO know[polite-nonpast-potential-negative]

It might snow tomorrow.

There is a question of what the -ka particle with the -mo particle means together. The -ka

particle here is unmistakably the question marking particle. The -mo particle has multiple uses. It

can be used with nouns to mean “also” or “too.” When it is applied to a topic, subject, or direct
object noun, it simply replaces the normal particle. For it to be applied to a noun which would be

taking another particle, it is added after the particle.

watashi wa akai pen mo arimasu

(3) 私 は赤いペンもあります。

I -topic red pen -also(subject) be-exist[polite-nonpast].

I also have a red pen. (lit. As for me, a red pen also exists.)

(Notice there is no ambiguity such that we could take a meaning like “Also for me,

a red pen exists,” since the -also particle is applied to pen.)

watashi wa uchi de mo tabemasu

(4) 私 はうちでも食べます。

I -topic home -at -also eat[polite-nonpast].

I also eat at home (among other places).

The -mo particle also has in interesting meaning when used with interrogatives in a negative

sentence.

watashi wa nani mo shirimasen

(5) 私 は 何 も知りません。

I -topic what -also know[polite-nonpast-negative].

I don’t know anything.

So the transformation we see here is as follows: -also (with a negative verb) turned “what” into

“anything.” The -also particle also turns “when” into “always,” and in that case a negative verb is
not required, but if it is used with a negative verb, it is translated as “never.” There is yet another

way it can be used.

tenki wa mushiatsukute mo kuuraa wo zenzen tsukaimasen

(6) 天気は蒸し暑くてもクーラーを全然使いません。

Weather -topic sultry[connective] -also air-conditioner -direct-object

at-all use[polite-nonpast-negative].

(a) Even if the weather is sultry, I don’t use the air conditioner at all.

(b) Be it sultry the weather, and I still don’t use the air conditioner at all.

I find (6)(b) to be an interesting translation, because the connective form usually behaves

like the conjunction “and” has been inflected into the verb, which has also been left in a non-finite

form. Since we can account for the “and” in the translation as coming from the verb in connective

form, we might consider that the meaning of “still” comes from the -mo particle. Even with this

seemingly nice example, it is still difficult to figure out a felicitous translation for the pairing of the

particles -ka and -mo. For the snow example (2), we might make a translation based on this idea: “Is

it going to snow tomorrow? We still cannot know.” We might also be able to rationalize using the

word “if” in our English translation to cover the question marker particle. The question marker

particle in this case is not located at the end of the sentence, where it is located for a normal

question; when the question marker particle is in its usual final position it takes scope over the whole

sentence. This one happens to be located earlier and as a result takes scope only over the phrase

directly in front of it. In the snow case from (2), the question marker particle has scope over “snow

tomorrow,” and so we can say there is a question of whether or not it will snow, and this might be

expressible in English with the word “if.” So then we get a translation along the lines of: “We cannot

know if yet it will snow tomorrow.” I have chosen the word “yet” because it is defined as “in

addition; on top of everything else.” The particle -mo in its most basic meaning means “also,” which
is in line with the definition of “yet” I quoted. The particle -mo can also express the notion of “even

if” when used with a verb or adjective in connective form. When we say “even if,” we are specifying

a condition above and in addition to everything else, which is also fits in well with the “yet”

definition. Moving back to our translation of “We cannot know if yet it will snow tomorrow,” we can

get a hypothesis for the meaning of the combination -ka -mo: “if yet.” Yet another candidate might

be “if even,” as in “We cannot know if it will even snow tomorrow.” The rationale for using “even”

is that it is present in the translation of constructs like in (6). Perhaps the real meaning is somewhere

between these attempts. Let’s explore some examples to elucidate the situation.

kare wa hayaku uchi ni kaeru ka mo shiremasen

(7) 彼 は早くうちに帰るかも知れません。

He -topic early home -dative return -KA -MO know[polite-nonpast-potential-negative].

(a) He might go home early.

(b) Is he going to go home early? Still, we cannot know.

(c) We cannot know if yet he will go home early.

(d) We cannot know if he will even go home early.

ano niku wa betsu ni atarashikunakatta ka mo shiremasen

(8) あの 肉 は 別 に新しくなかったかも知れません。

That meat -topic special -ly fresh[plain-past-negative] -KA -MO

know[polite-nonpast-potential-negative] .

(a) The meat might not have been too fresh.

(b) Was the meat not so fresh? Still, we cannot know.

(c) We cannot know if yet the meat wasn’t fresh.

(d) We cannot know if the meat wasn’t even fresh.

 junubiebu san wa eigakan ni itta ka mo shiremasen
(9) ジュヌビエブさんは映画館に行ったかも知れません。

Genevieve -san -topic movie-theater -dative go[plain-past] -KA -MO

know[polite-nonpast-potential-negative] .

(a) Genevieve might have gone to the movies.

(b) Did Genevieve go to the movies? Still, we cannot know.

(c) We cannot know if yet Genevieve went to the movies.

(d) We cannot know if Genevieve even went to the movies.

In our examples here, the use of “yet” in examples (c) seems rather strange in the cases

where the embedded clause is in the past tense, that is, in (8) and (9). In each example (b), “still”

seems to be having similar problems to “yet,” where the translation is less felicitous than we might

like when there is a past tense involved. (d) examples sound best when they aren’t forced to contain

a double negative, although even with the double negative, it’s not all that bad. I could envision

saying something like each of the (d)’s if English suddenly were to lose words like “might” and “may.”

Another interesting tidbit to consider is that in informal speech, the shiremasen verb can be dropped,

leaving only the -ka -mo to give the meaning of “might.” In that case we could see that one way to

handle the contingency would be to say the literal English translation of the short version is (using

the example (9)) literally, “If Genevieve even went to the movies…” and it would be fully qualified

as a figurative expression meaning “Genevieve might have gone to the movies,” but it would only

mean that figuratively because it is part of a full expression which expresses the meaning fully.

Another resolution would be to say that -to -ka carries all the meaning of “might,” and the

shiremasen part is there only as a formality. In that case, we’d have an English translation, again

using example (9): “Genevieve might have gone to the movies; we cannot know.” I’m inclined to

believe that the “we cannot know” part is an integral part of the meaning of the statement, and so

what I’ve decided on for now, is to give a tentative victory to “if even” as the literal English
translation of -ka -mo, and explain the shortened colloquial form as just that, a shortened form,

whose real meaning comes form the full form from which it is derived.

Having our first Japanese modal construct under our belts, the “kamo shirenai might”

construct, we’re prepared to move on to explore some more Japanese modality. Let us explore then,

how we can vary the certainty of our modal statements, with “kamo shirenai might” as our staging

point. Our first departure will be a change of the strength of our statements, moving into a higher

certainty of “probably” or “should.” For this we use the following construct:

de sho u da ro u
(10) Plain form clause + でしょう or だろう (polite and plain, respectively)

Deshou and darou are the tentative (a.k.a. volitional) forms of the copula. Let’s take a look at some

examples of the tentative form in Japanese so we can get a feel for its basic meaning.

benkyou shimashou
(11) 勉強 しましょう。

Study do[polite-tentative]

Let’s study.

I’ll study.

watashi ga sono hon wo yomou

(12) 私 がその本を読もう。

I -subject that book -directobject read[plain-tentative].

I’ll read that book.

Even though the tentative form is primarily used to express intentions, its version of the

copula is used to express the meaning of “should” or “probably,” and without the notion that the
statement is based in any way in the speaker’s intentions. Although this tentative copula as a modal

auxiliary looks like the perfect outlet for bouletic type modals, its actual use is in a much more

general domain, covering a wide range of modal statements. Furthermore, while bouletic modal

statements are covered and can be made with deshou, there is in no way a compulsory bouletic feel

involved with using deshou. Let’s have a look at a couple basic statements with deshou.

junubiebu wa furansu jin deshou

(13) ジュヌビエブはフランス人でしょう。

Genevieve -topic France person copula[polite-tentative].

Genevieve is probably French.

kare wa nihongo no gakusei deshou

(14) 彼 は日本語の学生でしょう。

He -topic Japanese(language) -genitive student copula[polite-volitional]

He’s probably a Japanese language student.

The potency of deshou can be modified by adverbs such as,

tabun osoraku kitto
(15) 多分 - Probably 恐らく- Very Likely きっと- Definitely

The adverbs in (15) increase in certainty from left to right. Let’s take a look at the origins of

these words. Tabun is made of a pair of kanji characters, the first means “much” or “many” and the

second has a variety of meanings, but one of its meanings is “chance,” leaving tabun to mean “much

chance.” Osoraku’s kanji character means “fear,” “dread,” or “awe” (the other two characters are

hiragana which are purely phonetic). So then what osoraku literally means is “fearedly,” “dreadfully,”

or “awfully.” Unfortunately, even though those are its literal meaning, the English counterparts of
“dreadfully” and “awfully” are in the same grammatical business as the degree modifier “very”; to

be sure, they are not in the business of expressing probability. And it turns out “fearedly” isn’t even

a real word (yet); it has just 687 search results on Google. So that makes all three of these a bad idea

for a translation. So that still leaves a problem: most sources define tabun and osoraku to both mean

probably, but admit osoraku expresses a higher degree of certainly. [1] Tohsaku’s book uses the

following description of the meaning of these three, in order: (tabun: probably); (osoraku: possibly,

in all likelihood); (kitto: certainly, surely). My personal issue with this is that “possibly” sounds less

certain than “probably”, whereas “in all likelihood” sounds more certain than “probably.” So then

that gives us osoraku which is defined by a pair of terms, one of which is more certain than

probably/tabun, and one of which is less certain than probably/tabun. Unless the strength of osoraku

varies wildly by context, it can’t be both stronger and weaker than probably/tabun. It is perhaps my

personal view on the strength order of “possibly,” “probably,” and “in all likelihood” that leads me

to find this translation problematic, and even self-contradictory under my strength order and barring

any wild contextual variations. It seems that for the sake of my own ability to comprehend these

adverbs, I must make a change what the words mean in English, to me at least. My simple solution is

to discard any other translations, and just say that osoraku means “very likely.” But, Japanese has a

word for “very,” and a word for “likely,” so would my osoraku translation make “very likely”

ambiguous to translate into Japanese?

Incidentally, Japanese don’t seem to say totemo tabun (lit. very probably/likely), or at least

they say that about as much as we say “fearedly;” totemo tabun fetched a mere 1792 results on

Google. The search was done in two forms of Japanese spelling: the one previously used, and one

which replaces the kanji characters with their phonetic representation in hiragana. Checking our

next candidate, we can see it’s no better with a Google search for totemo osoraku. The total haul

came to a scant 1,631 results. Perhaps we can use as a baseline test totemo kitto (very certainly, very

surely, very definitely). This phrase shouldn’t really make sense since kitto is already the most
probable, and so having “very” applied to it should be superfluous. Entering its only spelling

(phonetic) into a Google search somehow managed to scrape out 1,110 results. Upon examining the
to te mo ki t to
results, I can see that even though I put the search query in quotation marks, as in “とて も きっと”,

there were a lot of the cases where totemo was with a previous sentence, followed by some

punctuation like exclamation points and periods, and kitto was the start of the next sentence, so any

matches like that have clouded the results. Let’s take up a final basis for comparison. We will take a

common expression that should call forth an immense cache of results so that we might know the

scale of our previous results. Let’s use totemo omoshiroi (very interesting or very funny). I searched

the two spellings (one in kanji characters, and the other in hiragana characters), and the results

flooded en masse as expected, producing 969,000 pages. Based on that last result, I believe we can

expect that Japanese don’t modify their modal adverbs with “very.” Now that we have found that

it’s likely that Japanese rarely if ever use “very” to modify modal adverb strength, there is no need to

worry about out whether or not other Japanese phrases will translate into English as “very likely”

and thereby conflate their meanings in English. Thus, I have fortified my stance that osoraku should

be taken as “very likely” in English.

So far we haven’t explored any Japanese modality that was overtly deontic in nature; and so

then, that’s what we’ll move onto now. Consider the following Japanese modal construction which

expresses admonition, and translates into English as “you must not do …”

i ke na i i ke ma se n
いけない / いけません
(16) wa na ra na i na ri ma se n
Connective Form Verb + は + ならない / なりません
da me da da me de su
だめだ / だめです
ko ma ru ko ma ri ma su
こまる / こまります
da me da na ra na i i ke na i
Strength order for endings: だめだ > ならない > いけない
Here’s an example using the construction.

mori no oku ni itte wa dame desu

(17) 森 の奥に行ってはだめです

Forest -genitive depths -dative go[connective] -topic bad copula[polite-nonpast].

You must not go into the depths of the forest.

(lit.) Going into the depths of the forest is bad.

First you might have noticed that komaru is absent from the strength ordering. The reason

for its absence is that it has a different basic meaning from the others. Komaru is the verb for “to be

troubled” and so using it in this construction will imply that regarding the thing that you’re telling

someone that they mustn’t do, you’re telling them that they mustn’t do it because it will cause you

to be troubled. From (17), we can see that the strongest ending means “to be bad.” One interesting

note is that in (17) you can see that I translated the connective form of “to go” as the gerund “going,”

and it happens that the connective form is also sometimes called the gerund or gerundive due to its

capability to act as one. In this case, it provides a spectacularly felicitous direct literal translation,

which is rare between Japanese and English. Let’s look at some more examples so that we can

observe the meaning of the other endings.

te de tabete wa narimasen
(18) 手で食べてはなりません。

Hand -instrumental eat[connective] -topic become[polite-nonpast-negative]

You must not eat with your hands.

(lit.) To eat with your hands does not become it.

 Narimasen (polite-nonpast-negative) and naranai (plain-nonpast-negative) are forms of the

verb naru, to become, and as a result, the both literally mean “not become.” However, narimasen

and naranai have a common figurative usage which means “must not do; bad; wrong; not good.”

Moreover, the plain form naranai can modify nouns like an adjective, in which case it is a near literal

translation to the English word “unbecoming.” Also above, you might catch a hint in (18) as to which

language I studied (for two years in high school) to learn about grammatical cases. Let’s continue

onto the next example.

ofuro ni haitte i nagara headoraiyaa wo

(19) お風呂に入っていながら、ヘアドライヤーを

tsukatte wa ikemasen
使ってはいけません。

Bath -dative enter[connective] aux-progr[conjunctive] while, hair dryer -direct-object

use[connective] -topic go[polite-nonpast-potential-negative].

You must not use a hair dryer while taking a bath.

(lit.) While you are having entered a bath, using a hair dryer cannot go.

This third ending exemplified in (19) carries a literal meaning of “cannot go.” It reminds me

of the expression in English, “(that) won’t fly…” I imagine that if a native Japanese speaker got a

literal translation of English where it was said something like “That kind of behavior won’t fly with

me!”, that would probably sound as strange to them as the literal translation of (19). Now, let’s take

a look at the final ending, which sets itself apart from the others, komaru.
 watashi no inu ni nigesasete wa komarimasu yo
(20) 私 の犬に逃げさせてはこまりますよ！

I -genitive dog -dative run-away[causative-connective] -topic

trouble(v)[polite-nonpast] -exclamatory

(a) You must not let my dog run away!

(b) (lit?) You letting my dog run away troubles me!

(c) (lit?) You letting my dog run away would trouble me!

(d) (lit?) If you were to let my dog run away, it (would) trouble me!

(e) (lit?) A letting of my dog to run away (would) trouble me!

(f) (lit?) Letting my dog run away is trouble.

(g) (lit?) Letting my dog run away would be trouble.

It is proving more difficult on this example to derive a good literal translation, because the

first thing the literal translation appears to be is “Letting my dog run away troubles me!” This sort of

sounds like people habitually let your dog run away, and it is become bane of your existence. I keep

feeling like I’m being forced to introduce a “would” before “trouble” because I don’t think this

sentence would be most likely used in the case where someone is always letting your dog run away,

and you keep telling them (20), but to no avail, because they still keep letting your dog run away. It

seems like it would be used in a more common situation, something like where people who perhaps

don’t know you have a dog, are visiting your place of residence, and you warn them beforehand so

as to prevent them from accidentally letting your dog out. In this case the result of being “troubled”

is unrealized, and requires a modal, at least in English. Perhaps this is an indication that the clause

ending with the connective verb, possibly in conjunction with the particle -wa, actually confers a

modal to the larger sentence in which it is a part. This implies that this “you must not do…”

construct has a modal hiding in the higher verb phrase, which shows itself when we try to translate

into English. If this hypothesis were correct, it would predict (c) to be an accurate literal translation.
 Let us revisit (17), (18), and (19) in order see how our modal conference hypothesis plays out

in some other examples. Conferring a “would” into the higher verb phrase in (17), our literal

translation becomes “Going into the depths of the forest would be bad,” or “To go into the depths

of the forest would be bad.” I find this even more felicitous than the previously spectacular shining

example of felicitousness that was the original literal translation. Looking back to (18), we apply our

modal conference to the original literal translation to get (21)(18b). This sounds somewhat sensible

in spite of “become” having a pronoun without an antecedent for a direct object.

(21) (17a) Going into the depths of the forest is bad.

(17b) Going into the depths of the forest would be bad.

(18a) To eat with your hands does not become it.

(18b) To eat with your hands would not become it.

(21)(17a) is (17)’s original literal translation, and (21)(17b) is the version produced by

the modal conference hypothesis, and similarly for (18)

Applying our hypothesis to (19) is slightly more complicated since it already contains a modal,

a dynamic modal in the form of a potential form verb, which manifests as “can” in the literal English

translation. The particular modal we seek to confer per our modal conference hypothesis is “would.”

If we were to simply try to throw it in haphazardly, we’d get something like, “While you are having

entered a bath, using a hair dryer would can not go.” And no amount of movement of the “would”

will remedy that situation. So let’s go back and look to see what it is that we had achieved in the

earlier examples by sending the “would” out to the higher verb phrase from the lower one. What

changed after the “would” was nothing more complex than that it served to coerce the higher verb

phrase into a conditional mood. So then, in order to make (19)(lit.)’s higher verb phrase gain the

conditional mood, we change “can” to “could.” This produces (22)(19b) below. As weird as this

sentence is, it does seem a bit better after the “can” was changed into “could.” This example has a
similar feel to the earlier discussion of example (20). Reminiscent of how (20)(a) had served to

compel the concoction of the tragic story of the troubled dog owner, and his persistent problem

with habitual dog releasers, (19)’s “can” version ((22)(19a) below) shows a similar potential for

tragic inspiration.

“While you are having entered a bath, using a hair dryer can not go,” says a shrouded white

figure, as it pulls its head from a tall narrow door, a door that is seemingly alone in a seemingly

endless corridor bound only by the pitch black darkness in the distance; bounds created by the sole

source of dim light emanating rays of pale blue through the only door in sight. The shrouded white

figure starts slowly down the hallway. It walks with a sway from side to side, with its eccentric

movements betrayed by spasmodic tantrums of the white cloths that bind it. Inside its white prison,

it continues forward, on past the end of light, satisfied to know that it has delivered its warning.

What, then, of this warning? If there is a warning, there must be one who is warned. At the door of

light… The sound of flowing water escapes into the voided hallway, dim and dispersed; it is the

anthem of solitude. Inside, someone quietly basks in a fine bath, drawn to perfect warmth, laid back,

relaxing, hair dryer in one hand, cord in the other. The hand with the cord reaches to the wall for a

power socket, and after a decided push, accompanied by splashes of spiced bath water, a torrent of

power enters the cord. Billowing through the cord, it empowers the hair dryer. A warning

neglected, there is no condition on which the forewarned bath tub hair drying act is waiting before it

can commence.

It is easier to see the difference in meaning between the “can” and the “could” versions if

we reword (22)(19a/b) into more felicitous sentences, with sufficiently parallel meaning (these are

reworded into ((22)(19A/B))). This discussion could continue indefinitely, so we’ll wrap it up here. I’ll

leave the status of the modal conference hypothesis as supported by evidence which is as of yet

insufficient.
 (22) (19a) While you are having entered a bath, using a hair dryer can not go.

(19b) While you are having entered a bath, using a hair dryer could not go.

(19A) While you’re in the bath, it’s bad to use your hair dryer.

(19B) While you’re in the bath, it would be bad to use your hair dryer.

(22)(19a) is (19)(lit.), and (22)(19b) is the result after applying the modal conference.

(22)(19A) and (19B) felicitized versions of (22)(19a) and (19b)

We have thus far examined two general/epistemic constructs and one purely deontic

construct, so we’ll take a look at one more deontic construct, which corresponds to English “You

must…” or “You have to…”

i ke na i i ke ma se n
wa
いけない / いけません
Negative Nonpast Connective Form Verb +は+
(23) na ra na i na ri ma se n
ならない / なりません
OR Negative Nonpast Conditional Form Verb + da me da da me de su
だめだ / だめです

We already know the meanings of the auxiliary verbs here, since they are all also used in the

last construct we saw. So let us move into an examples of each of the two possible left parts of the

construct, and we’ll just match them with dame desu.

yasai wo tabenakute wa dame desu

(24) 野菜を食べなくてはだめです

Vegetable -direct-object eat[plain-nonpast-negative-connective] -topic

bad copula[polite-nonpast]

(a) You must eat (your) vegetables.

(b) (lit.) Not eating vegetables is bad.

(c) (Modal conference) Not eating your vegetables would be bad.

(OR) It would be bad not to eat your vegetables.

 otakusen sama wo mitsukenakereba dame desu
(25) お託宣 様 を見付けなければだめです。

Oracle -honorific-title -direct-object find[plain-nonpast-conditional-negative]

bad copula[polite-nonpast]

(a) You must find the Oracle.

(b) (lit.) If you were not to find the Oracle, it is bad.

(c) (Modal conference?) If you were not to find the Oracle, it would be bad.

(OR) It would be bad if you were not to find the Oracle.

otakusen sama wo mitsukenakereba wareware no minasan wa shinu

(26) お宅線 様 を見付けなければ 我々 の皆さんは死ぬ。

Oracle -honorific-title -direct-object find[plain-nonpast-conditional-negative]

Us -genitive everyone -topic die[plain-nonpast].

(a) If you do not find the Oracle, we will all die.

(b) You must find the oracle, or we will all die.

The first choice for the left part of the construct happens to be exactly the negation of the

previously studied “you must not…” construct. In that respect, my previous hypothesis of modal

conference seems to work well with it. Using the conditional rather than the connective with a topic

marker seems to change it a bit when translated literally. The translation in (25)(b) as a result

becomes non-felicitous, and appears to require a modal conference.

Additionally, the pattern of these constructs seems give a general way of representing

modality in Japanese is by way of setting up some sort of condition, and then by putting some kind

of consequential suffix, of which we have seen four: “to be bad,” “to not be able to go,” “to not

become,” and only used with the “you must not…” construct, we have “to trouble me.” Japanese
seem to make some kind of distinction between when these verbs are used as what we might call a

modal auxiliary, and when they are used in their literal meaning. It is evident by that when the verb is

used as an auxiliary, it is written completely in hiragana, and when it is used otherwise, it is written

with its kanji. The kanji bears a meaning, and it seems that writing the word without it would deprive

it of that meaning. Furthermore, inflections are all written in hiragana, and it could represent the

view that the auxiliary is like an inflection on the verb. I actually broke this rule in the first section

and used a kanji for shiremasen. Does the fact that they deprive the auxiliary verb in the modal

statements of its written meaning mean that I shouldn’t bother to explore their literal translations? I

don’t think that’s the case. I find it interesting to explore their composition, and ponder how to

came to mean what they mean. Since my primary language is English, I am better suited to translate

them in the most direct and literal way I can, and ponder it in its English form.

As a going out tidbit, we’ll end with a question about (26). Since the pattern here has been

clause + consequence(auxiliary). What if we actually give a consequence? The statement is still in

the basic form of other modal statements. (26)(a) is a good translation, literal and meaningful.

(26)(b) is not literal, but is it the actual meaning? I suspect (26) may be used to mean either (26)(a)

or (26)(b) depending on the situation. It would certainly be an interesting discussion to have with

native speakers, as to what (26) means to them, and try to figure out which meaning of (a) and (b) it

carries most prominently.

 Bibliography

[1] Tohsaku, Yasu-hiko. Yookoso! An Invitation to Contemporary Japanese. McGraw-Hill, 1994.

[2] Tohsaku, Yasu-hiko. Yookoso! Continuing with Contemporary Japanese. McGraw-Hill, 1995.

[3] Daub, Edward E. et. al. Basic Technical Japanese. University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

Websites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_verb_conjugations_and_adjective_declensions#Te_form
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Japanese/Grammar/More_Particles#The_.22also.22_marker_.E3.82.82
http://www.timwerx.net/language/particles.htm#mo
http://www.japanforum.com/forum/japanese-language-help/27027-te-form-follow-mo.html
http://forum.gaijinpot.com/showthread.php?23087-beki-form
<Beki is a should verb form I just heard about, that I didn’t get a chance to discuss in the paper>

As well as the dictionary at: http://www.df.lth.se/cgi-bin/j-e/sjis/dict

As well as browsing Wikipedia for general information.