30170
I'm not comfortable with how `~~とは...` is used in my textbook:

> 彼{かれ}がひどいことをした`とは`信{しん}じがたい。

That `信じる` is only transitive makes me think that `~~とは...` is a
nominalization method. But, I've never seen that method of nominalization
before. So, I interpret `~~とは...` to be a conjunction and imply a direct
object as such:

> He did a really bad thing, and I just cannot believe it.

The straight-up nominalization interpretation (which I reject because of the
nominalization method looks strange to me) would be:

> I find it hard to believe that he did such an awful thing.

So, what's going on with the `~~とは...` conjunction? / nominalization?

# straight out of textbook

> あの優しい彼がそんなひどいことをした`とは`信じがたい。

**note**

> 断った`とは`信じがたい

is used in the title because it is just shorter and should involve the same
grammatical structure. If it's not, then learning the difference would be very
instructive.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-31T00:27:51.647
30158
2016-01-01T02:54:59.113
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
10547
question
conjunctions nominalization
Is "断ったとは信じがたい" a nominalization?
「とは」 here is _**not**_ being used for nominalization. As a matter of fact, I
could not think of a situation where 「とは」 could be used for pure
nominalization.

We are talking about 「とは」 and not 「ことは」, right?

> 「彼がひどいことをした **とは** 信じがたい。」 =
>
> "I find it hard to believe that he did such an awful thing." to borrow your
> own TL.

In this sentence, 「とは」 _**expresses the speaker's surprise/disbelief/anger,
etc.**_ depending on the exact context.

This usage of 「とは」 is actually quite common.

「まさかヤンキースが[勝]{か}つ **とは** ！」 = "Never thought the Yankees would win!" Yes, you
can end a sentence with this usage of 「とは」 without using a verb phrase.

「Aのような[小]{ちい}さな[町]{まち}に、こんなにうまいラーメン[屋]{や}がある **とは** [想像]{そうぞう}していなかった。」 = "I
could not have imagined that there would be such a great ramen joint like this
in a small town like A!"
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-31T11:27:29.927
30166
2015-12-31T11:27:29.927
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
30158
answer
To break down, this とは is the quotative particle と, followed by the "topic
marker" は. Probably you already know how to use と in sentences like these:

>   * 彼が学生だ **と** 聞いている。 I've heard he's a student.
>   * 明日は晴れる **と** 思う。 I think it will be fine tomorrow.
>   * プロジェクトが成功する **と** 信じている。 I believe the project will succeed.
>

When you add は after と, such は will function as the marker of contrast. You
probably know this, too.

>   * 彼が学生だ **とは** 聞いている。 I've heard he's a student (but nothing else about
> him).
>   * プロジェクトが成功する **とは** 信じている。 (implies the speaker is expecting something
> bad can happen, despite the project's success)
>

These sentences are irrelevant to nominalization, although you can also
rephrase some of these sentences using nominalizers (プロジェクトが成功する **ことを**
信じている。).

Now, when these sentences are negated, these と are _usually_ followed by は.
This is discussed in another question.

[Why is the topic marker often used in negative statements (ではない,
～とは思わない)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1077/5010)

>   * 彼が学生だ **とは** 聞いていない。 I haven't heard he's a student.
>   * 明日は晴れる **とは** 思わない。 I don't think it will be fine tomorrow.
>   * プロジェクトが成功する **とは** 信じていない。 I don't believe the project will succeed.
>

Unlike non-negative versions, there は are not necessarily contrastive, as
discussed in the linked question. You just need them to make the sentences
look natural. But these は after と are still optional, especially in relative
clauses. And 信じがたい is semantically negative, although it's not grammatically
negative.

(By the way, end-sentence とは can denote the speaker's surprise (eg 彼が学生だとは!),
but I think mid-sentence とは are usually neutral)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-01T02:48:16.370
30170
2016-01-01T02:54:59.113
2017-04-13T12:43:44.260
-1
5010
30158
answer