47183
This is from a JLPT N3 listening comprehension test on Youtube. This is the
transcript they give in the answer key.

> M: すみません、カバンを落{お｝としたみたいなんですが。
>
> F: 電車｛でんしゃ｝の中｛なか｝じゃないですか？よく忘｛わす｝れる人｛ひと｝がいますから。
>
> M: お酒｛さけ｝を飲｛の｝んだのは、電車｛でんしゃ｝を降｛お｝りてからですから。
>
> F: じゃ、お酒を飲んだ所じゃないんですか。
>
> M: **友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから** 。
>
> F: その後どうしました？ ...

I'm not sure I get the last phrase correctly. "It's because my friend forgot
(his?) bag and I took care (of it?)." It doesn't seem to answer the question
being asked (it's the man's bag that is lost, not his friend's). Yet the
police officer seems happy with it and continues with another question.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T01:49:27.303
47176
2017-06-03T07:09:27.770
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
13634
question
translation
Help understanding a JLPT N3 conversation (～くらいだから)
> 1) F: じゃ、お酒を飲んだ所じゃないんですか。  
>  2) M: **友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから** 。  
>  3) F: その後どうしました？ ...

I'm a native Japanese. You need not worry about the interpretation of the
phrase 2), because it is ambiguous in this context.

If I make the sentence 2) clearer, I would add the phrase "違｛ちが｝います。なぜなら
そこでは、" to 2) like:

> 1) F: じゃ、お酒を飲んだ所じゃないんですか。  
>  2)' M: **違｛ちが｝います。なぜなら そこでは、** 友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから。  
>  3) F: その後どうしました？ ...

Even after this amendment, I think, the phrase
友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから is still ambiguous because you can't
clarify who forgot the bag and also who said to whom to pay attention to it.

Then, there may be two possible amendments to clarify the ambiguous phrase
like:

> 4) 友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、 **私｛わたし｝が** （友達｛ともだち｝を） 注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから。  
>  5) 友達｛ともだち｝が **私｛わたし｝が** カバンを忘｛わす｝れて、（私｛わたし｝を）注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから。
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T02:29:02.197
47177
2017-05-16T00:06:09.047
2017-05-16T00:06:09.047
20624
20624
47176
answer
In this phrase, the くらい stands for "so that". A direct translation is:

> My friend forgot his bag, so that I was cautious

But a better one would be:

> As my friend had forgotten his bag, I made sure I did not forget mine.

Thus the fact that the friend forgot his bag serves as a justification for why
the character wouldn't have forgotten it at the restaurant.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T02:31:18.160
47178
2017-05-08T02:31:18.160
3614
47176
answer
The くらい here is used in the sense of:

> くらい 〘副助詞〙（「ぐらい」とも）  
>  ❹ ある事柄が、極端なことであることを表す。「あの温厚な人が大声を出す **くらい** だから、よほど頭に来たんだ」  
>  (明鏡国語辞典)

It expresses the degree of something is extreme. "He must have been very
angry, (because it was so extreme) **to the extent** that such a good-natured
person should raise his voice."  
→ " **Even** such a good-natured person as him should raise his voice, so he
must have been very angry."

It means "to the extent that..." or "to the degree that..." I think it can be
rephrased as ほど, as in あの温厚な人が大声を出す **ほど** だから、よほど頭に来たんだ.

So here in your example, 友達がカバンを忘れて、注意した **くらい** ですから can be interpreted as:

> 友達がカバンを忘れて、注意した **くらい** ですから (≂ 注意した **ほど** ですから / 注意する **くらい**
> シラフだったから/しっかりしていたから)、そこで忘れたはずがありません。  
>  "I couldn't have left my bag there, because I was sober/cautious **to the
> extent that** I pointed it out when my friend forgot his bag."  
>  → "I **even** pointed it out when my friend forgot his bag, so I couldn't
> have left my bag there."
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T05:16:53.570
47182
2017-05-09T14:31:25.777
2017-05-09T14:31:25.777
9831
9831
47176
answer
The idiomatic construction "Clause A くらいだから Clause B" is used to state that
the fact of A serves as a testament to B, a basis for surmising B, or a
justification for saying B. The English expressions " _Given/Since/seeing as_
(and the like) A, B", for the most part, will do as a translation though.
Examples:

> 巨大{きょだい}な雪像{せつぞう}が[1週間]{いっしゅうかん}も建{た}っていられるくらいだから、極寒{ごっかん}である。 ≪The fact
> that those colossal snow sculptures can stand for a full week testifies to
> the sheer coldness (of the place).≫
>
> “ハルキスト”っていうくらいだから村上春樹{むらかみはるき}のこと大好き{だいすき}なわけじゃん。 ≪Given the label
> "Harukists," they adore Haruki Murakami, right? ≫

Now to the sentence in question:

> M: 友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから。

With the above-mentioned pattern in mind, the first thing you notice is, apart
from だから changing to ですから for politeness, that there's no Clause B to be seen.
But no worries, this is simply because it is ellipted and implied, and luckily
for us, recovering the lost clause (or at least what its main import is) from
the context is easy enough; It's something that serves to refute the officer's
guesswork offering, likewise with M's previous line. So the complemented
sentence could be any of these:

>
> 友達｛ともだち｝がカバンを忘｛わす｝れて、注意｛ちゅうい｝したくらいですから、｛それはあり得ません/それは違います/そこで忘れたはずはありません/etc.。｝

Another point of note is that "注意｛ちゅうい｝する" means, among other things, to alert
someone to, or even scold them for, their mistake or misconduct.

So all in all, M is reasoning that since he is the one who alerted his friend
to the fact they'd forgotten their bag in the restaurant/bar, the same
watchfulness couldn't have failed to fall upon _his_ bag, at any rate not then
and there, could it?

* * *

It seems there are more interpretations of the sentence than I would have
imagined. Mine is the only one that came naturally to me, and, after
considering other possibilities, still seems most natural to me but I'm just
putting in my two cents' worth.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-08T09:50:20.987
47183
2017-05-08T10:48:16.343
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
11575
47176
answer