3152
I've recently discovered that certain particles could be omitted from a
Japanese sentence (to help make it shorter), and still preserve the original
meaning. Unfortunately, most resources about this topic that I've looked at
are vague at best; and some even contradict each other!

This question is really a few sub questions (but I really don't think each one
deserves its own thread since they're so closely related.) The answers don't
have to be too detailed; just general points are fine. Anyways, the things I'd
like to know are:

  * Which particles can be omitted from sentences?
  * Does the omission of particles make a sentence informal/impolite?
  * When can particles be dropped? (e.g. How can you decide that it's okay both socially and grammatically)
  * Can multiple particles be dropped in a single sentence?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2011-09-15T19:40:27.173
3151
2021-11-25T20:29:30.627
2021-11-25T20:29:30.627
30454
58
question
particles ellipsis
What are the guidelines for omitting particles?
> Which particles can be omitted from sentences?

は, が, and を are often dropped; に sometimes. か, as a sentence-final question
particle, can be replaced with intonation.

> Does the omission of particles make a sentence informal/impolite?

Informal yes, but not necessarily impolite. Dropping particles is only for
spoken Japanese, so you won't see it in (proper) writing.

> When can particles be dropped? (e.g. How can you decide that it's okay)

When the situation allows. Speaking informally to someone above you or with
whom you don't have a close relationship is impolite. But if the situation
lets you speak informally, you can.

In situations where polite Japanese is called for (speaking to your
boss/teacher/doctor/etc or giving a formal speech/presentation), all particles
must be kept in the sentence. Omitting particles does not change the meaning
of the sentence or make it incorrect per se, since the missing particles can
be inferred from context and word order, but it does make the sentence
informal and thus unsuitable for polite contexts.

As noted above, in writing (excluding Twitter, blogs, and other informal
variants of writing) all particles must be kept.

If you are unsure as to whether to keep or omit particles, a good rule of
thumb is to err on the side of keeping the particles.

> Can multiple particles be dropped in a single sentence?

Yes.

Examples:

> これあげるよ。（＝これ **を** あげるよ。） You can have this. (lit. "I'll give this [to
> you].")
>
> おまえ昨日、学校行った？（＝おまえ **は** 昨日、学校 **に** 行った **か** 。） Did you go to school
> yesterday? ( _slightly masculine_ )
>
> あたしスイカ好き。（＝あたし **は** スイカ **が** 好き。） I like watermelon. ( _feminine_ )

が and を, as you recall, are dropped when the part of the sentence they mark is
made into the scope/topic (marked by は):

> 図書館でこの本を借りました。 I borrowed this book at the library.
>
> この本をは図書館で借りました。 (making この本を the scope)
>
> この本は図書館で借りました。 (replaced ungrammatical をは with は)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-15T20:16:01.073
3152
2011-09-15T21:16:24.937
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
94
3151
answer
> The modern "use ALL the particles" written style is not the Ideal form from
> which particles are dropped, but an artificially hypercorrected form  
>  [from a comment by
> Matt](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-
> guidelines-of-omitting-particles#comment7168_3152)

Surely languages change over time. Using all the particles is the current
correct usage. English orthography was at one time far less fixed than it is
now, but that does not make modern standard orthography "artificial and
hypercorrected" (or, of course, the older orthography "wrong").

Some older English writing also contains contractions that are no longer used
but were once normal. However, they were still contractions.

I would tentatively suggest that the particles were always logically
necessary, and that what varies over time is the acceptability of their
omission in formal use.

A parallel case might be the omission of "that" in a sentence like "the cake
(that) I ate". This cannot be done in French or Spanish, but is regularly done
in English. However the omitted "that" is always logically there. The
acceptability of its omission may vary with time, place and context.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-23T19:21:22.597
23933
2015-09-29T19:57:49.263
2017-04-13T12:43:44.157
-1
7438
3151
answer
<https://cotoacademy.com/omitting-particles-japanese-can-skip-wa-o-ga-e-
japanese/>

This article has a chart that breaks down usage rules for the different types
of particles in a table.

> Omitting particles in casual spoken Japanese is very common. But when can
> you do this – and how should you do it?  
>  In this short blog we will show you which particles can be skipped and
> which must remain.  
>  Japanese Particles can be omitted only in conversational sentences, not in
> written language.  
>  The first rule about Japanese particles is that omitting them can only
> occur in spoken Japanese. So when you are writing Japanese – remember to
> include them!  
>  Japanese sentence patterns determine some relationships between words As
> the heading above implies, the basic Japanese sentence pattern has an order
> which informs the relationship between certain words.  
>  The basic sentence pattern in Japanese has the word order ” S is O is / to
> V. ” (Subject is object is / to verb) , and its role can be understood by
> the position of the word even without particles. So, in a basic japanese
> sentence「は」and「を/が」 can be omitted.  
>  Let’s look at a more detailed chart below that explains some of the common
> examples of omitted particles in Japanese Grammar.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-16T03:52:10.673
82119
2020-10-16T07:20:11.537
2020-10-16T07:20:11.537
1628
40624
3151
answer