90972
According to 初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック, in Japanese, 名詞修飾 is mostly 相対テンス, and
sometimes 絶対テンス if that is the only way where the context can make sense.

However, it says it only discusses テンス, but not アスペクト.

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YbgOx.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YbgOx.png)

This made me wonder whether the concept of 相対テンス in 名詞修飾 is also true when it
comes to アスペクト（テイル) or other forms like 〜てしまう, etc.

* * *

For example,

**Example 1:**

Here I am trying to say is the action of studying and the action of going to
the toilet happened during the same period. So which is better? ている or ていた?

> 私と勉強してい（る/た）男はよくトイレに行った。
>
> The man I was studying with went to the bathroom often.

**Example 2:**

Here I am trying to say is the action of me eating my ramen was earlier than
the action of my brother eating it. So which is better? ている or ていた?

> 私が食べてい（る/た）ラーメンを弟は食べた。
>
> The ramen I was eating was eaten by my brother.

**Example 3:**

Here I am trying to say is the action of losing the toy was earlier than the
action of my brother finding it. So which is better? てしまう or てしまった?

> 弟は無くしてしま(った/う）玩具を見つけた。
>
> My brother found the toy he had lost.

* * *

I guess if 相対テンス also applies in these cases,

the answer for Example 1 is ている,

for Example 2 ていた,

for Example 3 てしまった

since ている means happening at the same time, ていた means the past of the past,
and てしまった means the past of the past.

* * *

**Reference:**

初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック： <http://learn-the-basics-of-
japanese.blogspot.com/p/s51-1.html>
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-29T11:09:27.230
90967
2021-12-30T00:48:49.660
2021-10-29T13:21:52.113
7610
7610
question
grammar tense subordinate-clauses
相対テンス in 名詞修飾 is also true when it comes to アスペクト（テイル) or other forms like 〜てしまう, etc?
The way you phrased your question doesn’t seem quite right to me. An aspect
marker may or may not be added to a verb. When it is, the resulting inflection
still contains a part that indicates tense at the end. The question of which
of る and た is more appropriate is a question about tense. What the book
explains about 相対テンス and 絶対テンス in a noun-modifying clause still applies, with
or without an aspect marker.

**Example 1:**

>   1. 私と勉強してい **る** 男はよくトイレに行った。
>   2. 私と勉強してい **た** 男はよくトイレに行った。
>

The first sentence would be understood as meaning either of the following:

  * the speaker is currently studying with the man [continuous action]
  * it’s the speaker’s current habit to study with the man [habit]

Either way, this is not what you want. If the man and the speaker were
studying together at some point of time in the past, the verb form has to be
勉強していた. According to 視点の原理 in the book, this is an example of 絶対テンス as the
same tense marker, た, is used in both the subordinate clause and the main
clause.

**Example 2:**

First of all, 弟が sounds more natural than 弟は as a standalone sentence. The
latter makes the sentence sound as if it’s talking about what the brother did
on the assumption that he having done something is already known. If the
sentence is about what happened with no such assumption, it should be 弟が.

>   1. 私が食べてい **る** ラーメンを弟が食べた。
>   2. 私が食べてい **た** ラーメンを弟が食べた。
>

Both are possible, but they conjure up slightly different pictures. In the
first I see the brother eating from the speaker’s bowl while the latter is
still in the middle of eating it, perhaps taking advantage of a moment when
the speaker is looking the other way. In the second, on the other hand, I see
the brother eating the noodles while the speaker is away, leaving the bowl
unattended. The first sentence could be understood as describing the latter
scenario as well, though, if the speaker is thought to have been still _in the
middle of_ eating the noodles.

The first sentence is definitely a case of 相対テンス as the subordinate clause and
the main clause use different tense markers, one る and the other た. As for the
second, while it might look like 相対テンス, I think it is more natural to
understand this 食べていた as describing a past state in 絶対テンス.

**Example 3:**

>   1. 弟は無くしてしま **う** 玩具を見つけた。
>   2. 弟は無くしてしま **った** 玩具を見つけた。
>

The first sentence would mean that the brother found the toy he would
eventually lose. So, the correct option has to be the second. However, the
sentence would sound much more natural if it said 無くしてしまっていた玩具, or more simply
無くしていた玩具, to describe it as a past state (which resulted from a _past-of-past_
action). I see this as a case of 絶対テンス, too. The toy was in the state of being
lost at the time, as seen from the perspective of the speaker at the present.

In any case, 無くしてしまった itself doesn’t describe a _past-of-past_ action as you
seem to think it does. If it’s understood as one, that’s because of context.
You must have lost the toy first to rediscover it later. This is probably the
reason the sentence doesn’t quite sound natural.

* * *

Reference: 初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック

**視点の原理**

a. 主節と従属節 (名詞修飾節を含む) が同じ時制形式 (ル形－ル形、タ形－タ形) である時、従属節のテンスは発話時との時間的前後関係で決まる
(=従属節のテンスも絶対テンスになる)。

b. 主節と従属節 (名詞修飾節を含む)が異なる時制形式 (ル形－タ形、タ形－ル形) である時、従属節のテンスは主節時との時間的前後関係で決まる
(=従属節のテンスは相対テンスである)。
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-30T01:05:16.653
90972
2021-12-30T00:48:49.660
2021-12-30T00:48:49.660
43676
43676
90967
answer