40905
In a text related to norms and regulations I read this phrase:

> 材料メーカーにおける試験値のミルシート **へ** の記載誤りであり、製造者の受け入れ検査不備による。

I don't understand this へ particle here. Is really necessary? I think it can
be omitted, so what's the difference between への and just の?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-14T19:29:46.297
40898
2016-11-15T00:56:49.107
2016-11-14T21:07:24.080
4216
7003
question
particle-の particle-へ
Is へ really necessary in this phrase?
It should not be omitted because to say ミルシートの記載誤り would imply that the 記載 is
an attribute of or is owned by or done by the ミルシート which is not the case
because the 記載 was done _to_ the ミルシート. The literal translation "mention" is
misleading because documents can "mention" things but documents cannot perform
the action 記載. 記載 refers to something that is done _to_ some document by an
actor.

In this case the ミルシート did not mistakenly "mention" anything. Something was
mistakenly "entered" into or "documented" on the ミルシート.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-15T00:56:49.107
40905
2016-11-15T00:56:49.107
18664
40898
answer