29572
A news program announced:

> 〇〇店が入る雑居ビルが全焼した。

I was expecting

> 〇〇店が入った雑居ビルが全焼した。

as in 「水が入ったグラス」. The former seems like it's saying that the shop was going to
be set up in the building sometime in the future, but it was clear from
context that the building already contained the shop. What is the difference?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-30T09:33:28.007
29561
2015-12-01T02:28:33.130
2015-11-30T11:55:45.060
5010
11824
question
grammar tense relative-clauses
飲食店が入る雑居ビル vs 飲食店が入った雑居ビル
When you say

> 〇〇店が入る雑居ビル

It can be interpreted 2 ways.

  1. 〇〇店 plan to set up a store in the building (future)
  2. 〇〇店 already have a store in the building (present)

The sentence itself is ambiguous. It can be mean the future or present. But
you can distinguish one from another according to the context in most cases,
as you did in the news program.

By the way, this is not a special case of verb 入る, but any verb works like
this.

For example

> 私の働く会社

It can mean "The company I works for" or "The company I will work for".

When you say

> 〇〇店が入った雑居ビル

It is clear the sentence only talking about the present, not the future.

In conclusion when you say 〇〇店が入る the sentence itself is ambiguous (but you
usually can distinguish according to the context), 〇〇店が入った is not ambiguous it
only talking about the present. In other words, there is no practical
difference in cases the context is clear.

News program prefer shorter sentences when there is no chance to
misunderstand. I think that's why the news program use 入る rather than 入った.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T02:28:33.130
29572
2015-12-01T02:28:33.130
9608
29561
answer