53685
From the start of 星の王子さま:

> 僕が六歳だったときのことだ。「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、すごい絵を見た。  
>  It was when I was six years old. I saw an amazing picture in a book called
> "Stories that Really Happened" that (someone) wrote about the primeval
> forest.

I'm a bit confused about 書いた here. I would have expected this to be in the
passive form. Since it is not, there must be some implied subject of the verb,
but these are the first two sentences of the book so the only subject I can
imply is "someone".

Is this usual in Japanese? Would 原生林のことを書かれた本 be more, or less natural, or
equally acceptable, and why?

I read [this
question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/43161/difference-
between-%E8%AA%AD%E3%82%93%E3%81%A0%E6%9C%AC-
and-%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8C%E3%81%9F%E6%9C%AC) but I don't think the
answer is applicable in this case.

**Edit:**

I've just realised I'm even more confused, because in my interpretation 本
would have been the **object** of 書く before it was made into a relative
clause. But after making it a relative clause 書く is now taking a second
object: 原生林のこと. So if 原生林のこと is the object then wouldn't 本 have to be the
subject, so I would get "a book that wrote about the primeval forest". But
books don't write things. People write things in books.

In the active sentence I guess I would have said something like 原生林について本を書いた.
So perhaps my alternative should have been 原生林について書かれた本.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T14:58:46.010
53684
2017-10-09T16:12:31.490
2017-10-08T17:48:20.543
7944
question
grammar passive-voice relative-clauses
Difference between ～のことを書いた本 and ～のことを書かれた本
Both Aのことを書いた本、Aのことが書かれた本 are used.

As you understood, Aのことを書いた本 is translated as "a book in which someone wrote
about A" and Aのことが書かれた本 is translated "a book which was written about A".

原生林のことを書かれた本 would be unnatural and 原生林について書いた本 would also make sense.

In the case that you want to refer to a specific writer, it would be usually
said like 村上春樹が戦争のことを書いた本, but not passive(村上春樹によって戦争のことが書かれた本).
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T18:15:50.790
53685
2017-10-09T14:20:33.203
2017-10-09T14:20:33.203
7320
7320
53684
answer
I think your points are all correct, from my understanding of Japanese, this
sentence, 「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを書いた本, sounds a little bit awkward because there
should be a subject, it's omitted. When sentences are passive voice in
English, it don't necessarily have be followed by **'by subject'** in the
grammatical point, it just occurs to this Japanese sentence. As far as a
formal and precise conversation goes, 書かれた本 would be preferred. I more often
hear 書かれた本 in media or serious situations, 書いた本 sounds slightly fancier and
simpler.

Additionally, the omitted subject can be inserted into somewhere in that
sentence, but still it'll result to be wordy and messy.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T18:28:04.383
53686
2017-10-08T18:33:54.827
2017-10-08T18:33:54.827
22412
22412
53684
answer
> (1)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、
>
> (2)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことが **書かれた** 本で、

(1)も(2)も普通に理解できます。ここの文章で大切なのは、このフレーズに続く「すごい絵を見た」ですから、(1)や(2)の部分は読み飛ばすから気にしないのでしょう。
でも、読み飛ばさずに気にしてくれと言われると、確かに、(2)の方が良い文かなと思います。  
それでは、何故(1)でも理解でき、余り問題にしないのでしょうか。
無理に考えろと言われると、それは、読者が、（3）のように、「書いた」の主語である「作者が」省略されているからと理解するからでしょう。日本語では分かっていることは明示しないことが普通であり、「作者を」敢えて書くと文がくどくなるからでしょう。
こういう日本語の習慣から、読者は絶えず隠れた主語を意識して補充することに慣れていますので、(1)で「書いた」となっていても問題にしないのでしょう。ところが、(1)のフレーズの後で「すごい絵を見た」となると、この時点で着目点は「本」に移動しますので、「作者」の存在が邪魔になります。従って、(1)を読み飛ばすことなく何度か丁寧に読むと、着目点が移動しない(2)の方が良いと思えるのでしょう。

> (3)（ **作者が** ）「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、すごい絵を見た。

ところで、私は、(1)に近い表現ですが、「作者が」登場しない(4),(5)なども自然に読めるので好きです。

> (4)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のこと **を書いてある** 本で、すごい絵を見た。  
>  (5)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のこと **が書いてある** 本で、すごい絵を見た。

(4)と(5)なら、(5)の方が好きです。
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-09T05:45:50.373
53691
2017-10-09T05:45:50.373
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
20624
53684
answer
In 「原生林のことを書いた本」, the 「本」 is not the object of the verb 「書いた」 (as in 「私が書いた本」:
"book I wrote") since the object slot for 「書いた」 is already occupied by
「原生林のこと」. (You can say 「本を書いた。」 and 「原生林のことを書いた。」 but not 「本を原生林のことを書いた。」)

There are two ways I can see of looking at the syntax of 「原生林のことを書いた本」.

In the first one, it's one of those Japanese relative clauses where, in
translating to English, you have to fill in the semantic gap that results
between the relative clause and the modified noun by some preposition. And the
required preposition in this case would be "in". In this analysis, the subject
of the clause is "its author" or the like, but is omitted since it is so
obvious that mentioning it would be tedious and even silly.

> 「原生林のことを書いた本」:
>
> "book [which] [its author] wrote about the primeval forest" ← This, though
> grammatical English in itself, does not reflect the syntax of the original
> Japanese very well. (In the Japanese, 「本」 is not the object of 「書いた」.)
>
> ↓
>
> "book [ _in_ which] [its author] wrote about the primitive forest" ← Now
> that's what I'm talking about.

Alternatively, it is possible to think of the 「本」 as the subject. (In fact I'm
more partial to this interpretation.):

> 「原生林のことを書いた本」: "book that wrote about the primitive forest"

True, books don't write their contents, their authors do -- but by virtue of
metonymic transfer of the agency of writing from the author to their works,
you are well-justified in writing constructions of this kind, as far as
Japanese is concerned. This practice is more common and commonplace than you
might think. Examples from everyday speech and prose abound. Take
「朝日の記事はこう書いている。」: "An article in The Asahi has written thus." or
「そこについてもこの本は色々書いてくれている。」: "Thankfully, on that matter, too, this book has
written plentifully."
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-09T11:22:06.493
53702
2017-10-09T16:12:31.490
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
11575
53684
answer