Can the tense of a subordinate clause be non-relative?


To my understanding, the tense of subordinate clauses is relative:

> 私は泣いている人に会った。
>
> I met a person, who, at the time, was crying.
>
> 私は泣いていた人に会った。
>
> I met a person, who, sometime before our meeting, was crying.

Is it however possible for the tense of a subordinate clause to be non-
relative given the right context?

If one were for example to have the following conversation:

> A: 留学している友達がいるよ。
>
> I have a friend who's studying abroad.
>
> B: ええ, 誰ですか?
>
> Huh, who's that?
>
> A: 覚えていないの? 一緒に旅行した時 留学している友達に会ったじゃない
>
>   1. Don't you remember? When we traveled together, we met my friend, who is
> **currently** studying abroad _(but might not have been at the time)_.
>   2. Don't you remember? When we traveled together, we met my friend, who,
> **at the time** , was studying abroad.
>

Which of the above interpretations are correct?

Are there situations in which the tense of a subordinate clause is not
relative to that of the main clause?




> 私は泣いていた人に会った。
>
> I met a person, who, sometime before **[or even during]** our meeting, was
> crying.

In regards to your question on context and interpretation,

To me #2 is more plausible because:

一緒に旅行した時 留学している友達に会ったじゃない

時 here is "The time when we were studying abroad together"

Thus, the rest of the sentence takes place in that time-frame.

The confusion arises because there are two interpretations like you have said,
but I would alter your understanding by a smidge:

In this case, there can be 2 or 3 people pointed to by 一緒に旅行した時

If it points to 3 people together, then "our friend who was studying abroad at
the time" makes logical sense.

If it points to the speaker and (only) the other person in the conversation,
then it means that the third person is studying abroad now.

So it depends on the recipient's understanding of what 一緒に旅行した points to, and
since he or she clearly does not remember the person in question, it most
likely points to #2.

> Are there situations in which the tense of a subordinate clause is not
> relative to that of the main clause?

Yes, many. If you were talking about something periodic like the rising of the
sun, it would not really matter what the main clause said. It is probably not
that common in spoken Japanese but I think you could find many examples in
literature and novels.




Both interpretations are possible. But the former is natural in this context.
So, the answer is yes.

