**Example 1**

> ビール一杯を飲む
>
> 一杯のビールを飲む
>
> ビールを一杯飲む

**Example 2**

> ネジ2本を取り付ける
>
> 2本のネジを取り付ける
>
> ネジを2本取り付ける

Is there any difference between the above examples with the positioning of the
quantity?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-18T01:12:20.917
8136
2012-10-19T23:42:06.860
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
1217
question
grammar
Positioning of quantities (using counters)
Although all of the example word orders occur commonly, I would personally
order them in this way according to "more natural -> very slightly marked"

  1. ビールを一杯飲む
  2. 一杯のビールを飲む
  3. ビール一杯を飲む

I think counters tend to be used as adverbs when possible, which is the case
in phrase 1. In phrase 2 and 3, they're used as nouns.

As stated, this is my own feeling, so others might feel differently.

There are cases, however, where the counters have to be used as nouns:

> 駆けつけの一杯のビールを飲む  
>  駆けつけのビール一杯を飲む

駆けつけのビールを一杯飲む would alter the meaning.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-18T01:56:49.807
8138
2012-10-18T01:56:49.807
1073
8136
answer
Part of this is explained quite well in Jay Rubin's "Making sense of
Japanese".

Kurosawa made the film "七人の侍” (the Seven Samurai) which by virtue of this
construction we can recognise as a specific group. Rubin explains that if
someone killed all seven members of the group, as opposed to killing any seven
samurai then he would say:

> 七人の侍を殺した。

as opposed to:

> 侍を七人殺した。

when the 七人 operates as an adverb indicating the extent of the killing.

He also gives a similar explanation for Old king Cole who called for "his
fiddlers three", who were also a group 三人のバイオリン弾き.

(But I'd be grateful if someone would explain how/when one would place を after
the counter....as in the examples above.)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-18T13:01:47.060
8147
2012-10-19T23:42:06.860
2012-10-19T23:42:06.860
1556
1556
8136
answer
Rare poetic constructions aside, English has just one way to mark the quantity
of a noun. So it's no surprise that we would be confused when we realize
Japanese has no less than 3 different ways to the same thing. As you already
say in the title, the only difference between the three different methods of
quantifying nouns is the word order. The participants are the quantified noun
(N), the quantity phrase (Q), the postposition (P) and the main verb (V). They
all stay the same, but their arrangement changes (and in one of the cases an
extra の is added).

The following arrangements are possible when you've got all of the
participants in play:

>   1. Ｑ の Ｎ Ｐ Ｖ （一杯のビールを飲む）
>   2. Ｎ Ｐ Ｑ Ｖ （ビールを一杯飲む）
>   3. Ｎ Ｑ Ｐ Ｖ （ビール一杯を飲む）
>

Tim has already explained the difference between #1 and #2 quite well, but I
will try to rephrase it again in a way that might be easier to understand, at
least to speakers of English or any other language which has a definite
article.

`二杯のビールを飲んだ` can be translated as either of the following:

>   1. I drank two bottles of beer.
>   2. I drank _the_ two bottles of beer.
>

This means that when using arrangement #1, the bottles of beer or you've drank
or the samurai you've killed can be either a definite (which usually means
this specific group of bottles or samurais was previously mentioned) or
indefinite (which usually means they've been just introduced into the text or
the conversation).

`ビールを二杯飲んだ`, on the other, can only be translated as:

> I've drank two bottles of beer.

This means that you cannot use arrangement #2 when you want to say that you
drank _the_ two bottles of beer, or killed _the_ seven samurai. In fact,
there's a very good reason why you can't do that: arrangement #2 puts a strong
emphasis on the quantity and marks it as a new and important information (in
linguistic terms we'd say that arrangement #2 marks the quantity as highly
rhematic or focalizes the quantity). But when you say "the seven samurai" in
English, you refer to a previously mentioned specific group of people whose
number you already know, so it cannot be new information. If it was a definite
group of samurai, but you hadn't known their number previously, you'd have to
use a different, and much clumsier, construction, such as "the samurai, who
turned out to be seven in number".

In Japanese we don't have a definite article like the English 'the', but
definiteness still counts in cases such as this. So at least one rule of thumb
you should keep in mind is to never use arrangement #2 if the entire noun
phrase (both the noun and the quantity) is definite in English. On the other
hand, it's a good idea to use arrangement #2 when you want to put an emphasis
on the quantity itself or when introducing new nouns along with their quantity
in your story or conversation.

The more confusing beast here is arrangement #3. It looks a lot like #2, but
it's actually quite different from it. First, it can be used with definite
nouns (though I'd say it's more common to use #1 in such cases). The second
difference is that while #2 can be used with only after a select number of
pospositions (が and を, as well as は and も, since they usually replace a が or a
を), #1 and #3 can both be used with _any_ postposition.

I assume the reason for this limitation of #2 is that in #2 the quantity
phrase is actually an adverb, and not an adjective of the noun. Since an
adverb describes the verb or the entire sentence, and as such can only be
related to he major 'actors' in the sentence (the subject and the object,
which are marked by が and を respectively) and not to the minor actors (which
are marked by other postpositions such as に or で).

All in all, #3 seems to behave more like #1 than like #2. But I sense that
there's still a difference between the two. I haven't researched this subject
well enough to have an answer I'm fully satisfied with. I'll have to think
about it some more.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-19T15:16:00.533
8165
2012-10-19T15:16:00.533
153
8136
answer