I came across this english sentence tonight:

> "The rebel and government groups held talks mediated by the UN."

Which I loosely translated as:

> 反乱の政府はUNで取り締まる会議を開催した。

Is using で the correct way to introduce secondary actors into a sentence or
can が be used as well? Such as `反乱の政府はUNが取り締まる会議を開催した` or
`ミキさんは神で/が作ったチョコを食べた。` （Micky ate chocolate made by God).

If が is not right, is there an ambiguity in the first sentence that the talks
were being mediated **at** the UN rather than **by** the UN and how would I
communicate explicitly that its the organisation of the UN doing the thing
without using that particle?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-26T23:42:44.460
56219
2018-01-29T03:23:17.110
12437
question
translation particle-が particle-で
Is で the primary way of introducing a modifying actor into a sentence?
First, I think that you should use 反乱軍代表(者), 反乱代表(者), 反政府軍代表(者), etc. instead
of just 反乱.

AのBは pattern is inappropriate for the first part. AとBは or simply inserting a
comma between A and B would be correct （反乱代表 と 政府代表）.

UN could also be 国連, the Japanese abbreviation for the UN, or the full
Japanese name 国際連合.

As で is more colloquial, you should probably use the more literary にて in this
case:

> 反乱代表者と政府代表者はUN（国際連合）の調停/仲裁/仲介にて会談を開催しました。

There is likely already a determined format for saying this in Japanese
newspapers. I will yield to more Japanese newspaper savvy commentators on this
subject.

Addressing your question about using が, it is allowable with a past indicative
verb. For で/にて you would use the passive form:

> 「AさんはBさんが作ったチョコを食べました。」'Mr. A ate chocolate made by Mr. B.'
>
> 「AさんはBさんの秘伝レシピ で/にて 作られたチョコを食べました。」'Mr. A ate chocolate made using Mr. B's
> secret recipe.'
>
> * * *
>
> 反乱代表と政府代表は国連が仲裁した会談を行いました。
>
> 反乱代表と政府代表は国連にて仲裁された会談を行いました。
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-27T01:25:08.760
56221
2018-01-27T05:33:04.750
2018-01-27T05:33:04.750
27280
27280
56219
answer
> "The rebel and government groups..."

Literal 「反乱軍グループと政府グループ」 might be okay, but I think it can translate to
「反乱軍[側]{がわ}と政府[側]{がわ}」 ( _lit._ "rebel side and government side").

> "...held talks..."

I would translate it as 「[会談]{かいだん}を[行]{おこな}った。」

> "... mediated by the UN."

Literally, 「[国連]{こくれん} **に** [仲裁]{ちゅうさい}される～」 (using passive voice), or 「国連
**が** 仲裁する～」「国連 **の** 仲裁する」 ("~~ that the UN mediated") ... but I think it
might sound more natural if you said it as 「国連の仲裁で」 ("with the UN's
mediation").

Put together:

> "The rebel and government groups held talks mediated by the UN."  
>  「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連 **に** 仲裁される会談を行った。」 (← literal, using passive)  
>  「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連 **が** / **の** 仲裁する会談を行った。」 (← using active)  
>  or 「反乱軍側と政府側は、国連の仲裁で会談を行った。」

* * *

> Is using で the correct way to introduce secondary actors into a sentence or
> can が be used as well? Such as 反乱の政府はUNが取り締まる会議を開催した or
> ミキさんは神で/が作ったチョコを食べた。(Micky ate chocolate made by God).

I would say...

「国連 **が** / **の** 仲裁する(した)会談」 A talk that the UN mediates (mediated)  
「国連 **に** (orによって/により)仲裁される(された)会談」 A talk that is (was) mediated by the UN  
「神 **が** / **の** 作った(作る)チョコ」 Chocolate that God made (makes)  
「神 **に** (orによって/により)作られた(作られる)チョコ」 Chocolate that was (is) made by God

> Is で the primary way of introducing a modifying actor into a sentence?

You'd use が or の to mark the subject in a relative clause.

で as a subject marker is used in limited contexts, eg:

> 当社 **で** 負担いたします。  
>  私どものほう **で** 処理させていただきます。

「～～ **で** 仲裁する会談」「～～ **で** 作ったチョコ」 would usually be used to say "A talk
mediated **at** [place]" "Chocolate made **at** [place] / **from**
[ingredients]".
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-28T16:08:11.870
56255
2018-01-29T03:23:17.110
2018-01-29T03:23:17.110
9831
9831
56219
answer