32717
I'm a bit confused as to why the following sentence is wrong.

> 私はその人と話すと喫茶店{きっさてん}に行きます。

The book says

> The event described by the second clause must follow the event described in
> the first half of the sentence.

But doesn't `きっさてんにいきます` happen because of `その人と話す`?

Here are a couple of other samples sentences from the same sub section to
provide more context.

>   * 夜になると町が静かになります。
>   * 秋になると木が赤くなります。
>   * わたしはこどものとき、ふゆになるとかぜをひきました。
>

Thank you in advance!
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-07T11:59:48.420
32716
2016-03-07T19:50:09.613
2016-03-07T16:02:52.210
78
11942
question
particle-と
〜と whenever's second clause must follow first clause
I think if you said

> 私はその人と話すため、喫茶店に行きます。

with the meaning "[in order] to talk to that person, I [will] go to a cafe."

then that could work.

But I'm not following

> 私はその人と話すと喫茶店に行きます。

= "I to talk with that person **and** go to the cafe." ?

or " **when** I talk to the person, then I go to the cafe" ?

Or at least that's what **と** would do for me meaningwise.

If the と you're using is the one for conditionals, then it takes on a meaning
of "when" as in when the condition preceded by と is met, then the second half
follows.

> 私はその人と話すと、喫茶店に入る許可をもらいました。

= if/when I talk to that person, I receive permission to enter the cafe.
(apparently it's a pretty exclusive joint!)

I think that's what the book is trying to tell you. Or rather と has a 前後関係 not
matched by the other conditionals possible in Japanese such that the left
precedes the right.

AとB means whenever in the sense of "Whenever A has occurred, then B always
occurs after that" or "After A has happened, then B happens." Thus, it's the
best way to translate "if, then" sentences in logic. It does not refer to
concurrent events of A and B, because it temporally distinguishes the events.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-07T13:22:43.570
32717
2016-03-07T14:32:32.883
2016-03-07T14:32:32.883
4091
4091
32716
answer
Think of this 〜と pattern as "B is a natural/obvious result of A happening".
Here's a classic textbook example:

>   * エレベーターのボタンを押すと、ドアが開きました。 → "When I pressed the elevator('s) button, the
> door opened." or "I pressed the button, and the door opened."
>

So when your book says "The event described by the second clause **_must
follow_** the event described in the first half of the sentence", this is not
incorrect, but it's a bit misleading. It means to logically follow as a
result, not just follow temporally.

This is why the first sentence is incorrect; going to a coffee shop is not an
obvious/natural result of talking to someone. If it were, everyone would like
permanently be in, or going to, coffee shops.

So if you just remember the "natural/obvious result" thing, it should make
this pattern easier to remember and use. Because of this, the B can rarely
(never?) be something subjective like a decision, since an action based on
your own discretion is not likely to be obvious to everyone.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-07T16:01:29.150
32720
2016-03-07T19:50:09.613
2016-03-07T19:50:09.613
78
78
32716
answer