100523
I’ve come across two sentences that seem to share a construction that I’m not
familiar with:

  1. 一時間 働いて どのくらいのお金がもらえますか。
  2. ご心配かけて申し訳 ございません I haven’t been able to find references to it.

In both, the initial phrase seems to be a participial construction serving as
a sentence adverbial: “working for an hour”, and “causing worry”. Is this the
best way to consider them?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-03T08:21:00.307
100522
2023-08-03T13:43:33.160
2023-08-03T08:44:07.800
34360
34360
question
grammar
participial constructions / sentence adverbials
> Should the structure:
>

>> noun phrase without particle + te-form of verb

>
> always be interpreted as a sentence adverbial?

_-te_ form of verb can function adverbially (or it can be translated in such
way), but there is no requirement that clause with _-te_ contain a noun or
that such noun be without a particle.

（ご）心{しん}配{ぱい}掛{か}けて is form of expression （ご）心{しん}配{ぱい} **を** 掛{か}ける with
particle を dropped.

You could say, with the same meaning: ご心配 **を** かけて申し訳ございません。

Also note that participial treatment is from the point of view of English
language. Japanese sentences often have implicit subjects or objects.

With over-explicit pronouns: 私はあなたにご心配をかけて…

English translation of either of above variant can be participial "For causing
worry, ..." or explicit "I caused worry to you, and ...".
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-03T08:43:02.660
100523
2023-08-03T09:08:49.997
2023-08-03T09:08:49.997
56758
56758
100522
answer
In this case the て form connects the two distinct clauses.

When we connect two clauses with the て form, there **could** be the
implication that the second clause is a consequence of the first.

We really are saying A & B, meaning A then B. This is because when we say A &
B, we usually mean that B happened after A, which is the conditional in its
infancy. So the three meanings are deeply connected. (A & B, A then B, if A
then B)

> 一時間 働いて どのくらいのお金がもらえますか。  
>  If I work for an hour, then how much money will I be able to receive?

In the following case, the idea of conditional is even weaker. I would say
it's non-existent. This is a A & B meaning A then B. Which is to say B follows
A as a consequence, but A actually happened.

> ご心配かけて申し訳 ございません  
>  I made you worry, (and / then) I'm sorry. -> Because I made you worry, I'm
> sorry. -> Sorry for worrying you.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-03T13:43:33.160
100525
2023-08-03T13:43:33.160
56959
100522
answer