48859
I understand how relative clauses are formed in Japanese; but, are there any
differences with regards to where, what, when, and why, a relative clause is
used?

The two languages' relative clauses look very different, and Japanese
sentences like using really long ones; so would I be right in thinking
Japanese people apply them differently, too?

Please give examples if possible, thanks!
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-28T23:39:37.550
48844
2017-06-29T03:49:52.480
2017-06-28T23:46:10.917
9831
17968
question
usage nuances relative-clauses
Are relative clauses used differently in Japanese?
Yes, the construction is rather different, and it causes many of us to stumble
at times. No pronouns are used to hook things up.

Wikipedia has some [useful
information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause#Japonic_languages).

You should probably put that into context after reading the entry on Japanese
by backing up and reading at least the explanatory part at the top of the page
and the examples in your mother tongue.

Also, the [Japanese Wikipedia page on the
subject](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E4%BF%82%E7%AF%80) is
informative.

An example I can think of:

> A book that I read <==> ボクが読んだ本

seems fairly straightforward. But there are some ambiguities, in that we
sometimes can't tell for sure about certain details of the relationship,
except by context. For example,

> the boy for whom I read this book

is not easy to transliterate.

> この本を読んであげた男の子

would usually be interpreted as the boy who read this book". Nevertheless, I
am told that, given the context, it could be read as "the boy for whom I read
this book".

To explain that, what I generally hear in conversation is something like the
following:

A:

> ボクがね、ある男の子［のため］にこの本を読んであげたのね、…

B:

> そうですね。

A:

> その男の子…

Except that you should understand the first sentence as a summary of part of
the conversation to that point. You don't usually hear it said quite that
directly. 「のため」 is optional, and, if you were to hear this exact sentence, it
would likely be without the 「のため」.

Given that sort of context, you could use

> この本を読んであげた男の子

But you'd probably prefer to use

> ボクが読んであげるのを聞いてくれた男の子

which is basically "the boy who listened to (or heard) me read the book".

In writing, if you needed to be exact, it would be something like

> ボクが（ある男の子に）この本を読んであげた。その男の子…

from which you can maybe see how the above ambiguous construction works.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-29T00:54:51.133
48846
2017-06-29T00:54:51.133
22711
48844
answer
Japanese relative clauses can be very long, but it can be very short, too.
Here are examples of Japanese relative clauses.

>   * 飛ぶ鳥 flying bird
>   * 青い鳥 blue bird
>   * 変な本 strange book
>   * 見るの (the action of) seeing
>   * 見ること (the action of) seeing
>

If you think the second and the third ones are not using a relative clause,
please read [this answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1016/5010). The
last two are better known as nominalization, but functionally they're relative
clauses, too. So Japanese relative clauses are syntactically much simpler, and
in a sense, typical Japanese sentences use many micro relative clauses like
these.

But at the same time, Japanese relative clauses can be very long and nested.
English sentences often make use of "it" as a dummy (or empty, formal)
subject/object in order to change the word order and say an important
predicate first (examples of [dummy
subjects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5572) and [dummy
objects](http://www.ravco.jp/cat/view.php?cat_id=5573)). The Japanese language
doesn't have this structure and rather prefers very long relative clauses.

> **_It_ is my pleasure to have** an opportunity to make a speech at this
> distinguished gathering and share my view on the various problems in Asian
> countries with you.  
>  {この素晴らしい集まりでスピーチをし、アジア各国の諸問題に関する私の考えを皆様と共有する機会を頂けました} **ことは光栄です。**

Other examples are [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/48622/5010) and
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/39604/5010). I don't know which is
"simpler", but I kind of feel the Japanese way is consistent :)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-29T03:49:52.480
48859
2017-06-29T03:49:52.480
5010
48844
answer