80601
The Vてはじめて、construction is generally taught as its own grammar point to mean
"not until X", "only after X". However from what I've been told by other
learners as well as natives, this is not a special construction with no
special meaning and is instead simply just the て form of a verb followed by
はじめて which then acts as an adverb on the next verb.

Example:

> 家に帰ってはじめて、財布がなくなっていることに気がついた

"only after I returned home did I realise that I lost my wallet" This follows
the definition of はじめて given by weblio

> （「…てはじめて」の形で）さまざまな経過を経てようやくその状態になるさま。やっと。

I'm told though that it should be interpreted as

> 家に帰って、はじめて財布がなくなっていることに気がついた

"I returned home and for the first time I realised I lost my wallet". Where
はじめて is "linked" to 気がついた and not 帰る

The meaning in that second version is similar but not the same. "For the first
time" vs "not until X". The emphasis in the former is on the realising while
in the latter it's on the action of returning home and the subsequent change.

If this is correct that てはじめて is not a grammar point then the following
questions arise,

  * Does the position of はじめて matter in the meaning of the sentence?
  * Why do dictionaries and resources present it as something different?
  * How would you express the idea of "Not until X did Y happen"? the closest I can think of is てから
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T00:53:27.030
80577
2023-07-08T16:47:55.123
32545
question
grammar usage syntax
is Vてはじめて it's own grammar construction or simply something made up to help Japanese learners?
はじめて usually means "for the first time". However, when you use the ～してはじめて
construction, the nuance of this はじめて is closer to "at last" or "finally"
rather than "for the first time". Compare the following sentences:

  * 京都に行って、はじめて本物の仏像を見た。  
I went to Kyoto, and saw a real Buddha statue for the first time.

  * 京都に行ってはじめて本物の仏像を見た。  
I was not until I visited Kyoto that I saw a real Buddha statue (although I
have long wanted to see one).  
I visited Kyoto and saw a real Buddha statue at last.

The comma is not unimportant, but the correct translation will depend mainly
on the context, i.e., his level of interest in Buddhism. In my opinion, the
nuance of "at last" in the latter sentence cannot be easily inferred from the
basic meaning of はじめて ("for the first time"). This is why people treat this as
a special construction.

> 家に帰って、はじめて財布がなくなっていることに気がついた

We cannot translate this sentence naturally using "for the first time". This
sentence is not about how many times he has lost a wallet in his life. If
that's the case, we should treat this usage of はじめて as something a bit
different.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-11T02:56:12.093
80601
2020-09-11T22:55:48.093
2020-09-11T22:55:48.093
5010
5010
80577
answer
The core sense of the corresponding kanji, 始, is something like "begin". When
something happens "for the first time", the _sequence of times that it
happens_ begins. Alternately, for a continuous state, the moment that one
"first" is in the state is the beginning of that state.

If X is a precondition for Y, we can say that Y will _not_ happen _until_ X
has first happened. So we get that meaning of XてはじめてY. This is expressed in a
positive sense instead: X does happen, and then Y either "happens for the
first time" or "begins happening", as appropriate to the context.

> The meaning in that second version is similar but not the same. "For the
> first time" vs "not until X". The emphasis in the former is on the realising
> while in the latter it's on the action of returning home and the subsequent
> change.

Essentially, the distinction isn't made in the Japanese sentence. Returning
home (and settling in, checking the contents of pockets etc.) simply is what
enables the speaker to notice the missing wallet; this fact is not _about_
either the action or the realization.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-08T16:47:55.123
100217
2023-07-08T16:47:55.123
627
80577
answer