61154
From
[here](https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011595251000/k10011595251000.html):

> このスポーツは、海の上を走る水上オートバイから足に付けたボードにホースで水を送って、ボードから出る水の強い力で空中を飛びます。  
>  **In** this sport you fly through the air using the force of water ejected
> from a board attached to the feet. Water is sent to the board using a hose
> from a jet ski that runs along the surface of the sea. ( _Wow. I couldn't
> get that into just one English sentence._ )

Sometimes I see a sentence where the topic appears to serve no grammatical
function in the rest of the sentence. This seems to be one of those cases.
Normally the topic serves as the subject or object of one of the verbs in the
sentence, or sometimes it can be adverbial.

In my English translation I used " **In** this sport" so that the topic
adverbially acts on 飛ぶ. If I'd tried to write this sentence in Japanese I'd
similarly have begun with このスポーツ **で** は. Would I be wrong to do that? Am I
missing something in the way I think about topics?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T19:12:16.310
61152
2018-10-05T23:11:37.943
7944
question
grammar particle-は topic
Sentence topic without grammatical function
The fact that you translate it in a natural English by " **in** this sport"
doesn't mean that it's the correct way to interpret it. I think you already
know it but I can't stress enough how important it is to differentiate "
_translation_ " and " _interpretation_ ".

Translation is basically re-writing something in another language keeping more
or less the original meaning of the sentence. It doesn't have to be the
equivalent, carry out the same degree of formality/politeness etc. It can be
anything as long as it's coherent. Some translators completely change the
meaning of some sentences just to keep a certain coherence and avoid confusion
(example: jokes which are pretty hard to translate from one language to
another).

Interpretation is what you think of when you see/hear something. It doesn't
matter whether it's natural (or even coherent) or not.

Anyway, here while は can be translated as " **in** ", I think to properly
interpret it you should see it as being nothing more than a "subject
(re-)introducer". It introduces the subject of the sentence (what is going to
be talked about) and that's all. And since it's what is being talked about, it
is obviously linked to a verb or adjective. But it's not linked as in
"adverbially linked" but rather as in "semantically linked". It doesn't really
impact how the action of the verb will be executed.

You can try removing it from the sentence:

> 海の上を走る水上オートバイから足に付けたボードにホースで水を送って、ボードから出る水の強い力で空中を飛びます。

It's not wrong but we don't really know what we're talking about here, even in
your article where we know what the topic is, without a theme for the sentence
it's a bit weird.

To sum it up, このスポーツ **は** here is used to reintroduce an information that
they brought up in a previous sentence, and make it the main subject of this
new sentence. The previous sentence being in this case:

> ２６日、香川県坂出市の海で、水の力で空中を飛ぶ **スポーツ** をしていた４１歳の男性が亡くなりました。

Now as for このスポーツでは, it's fine. And to me in this case, で carries a nuance of
limit, so では would mean something along the lines of "with **in** ". And while
we're at it, I think that your translation " **in** this sport" would be more
accurate for このスポーツでは than for このスポーツは. I would actually translate the は in
your sentence by:

> このスポーツは、海の上を走る水上オートバイから足に付けたボードにホースで水を送って、ボードから出る水の強い力で空中を飛びます。 : This sport
> consists of...

Which to me seems more accurate knowing the context.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T21:02:54.397
61153
2018-08-27T21:02:54.397
29939
61152
answer
Since this is in a formal article, I personally think this is a poorly-written
sentence that has a subject-predicate mismatch. It should have been either of
the following:

  * このスポーツ **は** 、(略)水の力で空中を飛ぶ **ものです** 。
  * このスポーツ **では** 、(略)水の力で空中を飛びます。

Japanese is a topic-prominent language, and sometimes このスポーツは空中を飛びます can be
perfectly acceptable as an _eel sentence_ , particularly in speech. For
example it's perfectly fine to say
ウェイクボードはジャンプするだけですが[フライボード](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyboard)は空中を飛びます.
For details, please see
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/48986/5010) and
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/44053/5010). That said, I believe
eel sentences should be avoided when you formally describe a complex idea and
there is no contrast nor repetition.

* * *

Admittedly, there are a few native speakers who do this even in formal
situations, so the level of acceptance may vary.

  * (questionable) 最大の問題は予算がありません。
  * (good) 最大の問題は予算がないことです。／最大の問題として予算がありません。
  * (questionable) 原因は、日付をよく確認しませんでした。
  * (good) 原因は、日付をよく確認しなかったことです。
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-28T01:51:25.280
61154
2018-08-29T04:27:19.517
2018-08-29T04:27:19.517
5010
5010
61152
answer
A topic IS NOT necessarily the subject of the sentence. There is no equivalent
of a topic in English.

According to "A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar", page 21: Roughly
speaking, the topic of a sentence is what the sentence is about.

You can find sentences where the topic has not syntactic function.

For example: 像は鼻が長い. Literally it means "speaking of elephants, the nose is
long." But in English you would say "the nose of the elephant is long".

So このスポーツは introduces the topic of the following sentences: "Speaking about
this sport". But the word "sport" will not necessarily be the subject or
object or adverb of any of the sentences that follow, even though all those
sentences will be about sport.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-05T23:11:37.943
61988
2018-10-05T23:11:37.943
18157
61152
answer