Confused in understanding 僕にしかできない事


I'm confused whether 僕にしかできない事 means

> (1) something (you) can do only to me

or

> (2) something only I can do

My Korean brain suggests (1) because its naive translation 나한테밖에 못하는 일 means
(1). But this phrase is from the lyrics of a song called 花束の代わりにメロディーを and
continues as follows.

> 僕にしかできない事がある  
>  花束の代わりにメロディーを  
>  抱きしめる代わりにこの声を

From the context, (2) makes better sense because メロディー and 声 is from the
singer (僕).

Which is the correct translation of 僕にしかできない事?

If (2) is correct,

  1. will taking away に as 僕しかできない事 make any difference?
  2. what should I say if I wanted to express "(1) something (you) can do only to me"?




僕にしかできない事 is an **inherently ambiguous** phrase that can mean both (1) and (2)
depending on the context. In the context of the lyrics, (2) is the correct
interpretation. Note that に can mark the doer of a potential verb (see: [Use
of に in 「私には本物の若殿様がわかります」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/24955/5010)).

Here is an example context where the same phrase means (1):

> 彼女にとって正直に話すことは、 **僕にしかできない事** なのだ。  
>  Expressing her true feelings is **something [she] can do only to me**.

To avoid this ambiguity, you can alternatively say:

**(1)** something (someone) can do only to me

  * 僕に対してしかできない事

**(2)** something only I can do

  * 僕だけができる事
  * 僕しかできないこと (colloquial)
  * 僕[によって](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/37097/5010)しかできないこと (stilted)

But 僕にしかできないこと is natural enough and you really don't have to avoid it when
there is enough context.

You can read many more similar examples with this tag: [ambiguous-relative-
clauses](/questions/tagged/ambiguous-relative-clauses "show questions tagged
'ambiguous-relative-clauses'")




> 僕にしかできない事

Potential ambiguity here is caused by particle に having multiple functions:

  * Indirect object marker ("to ..., for ...")

  * Agent marker in clauses with passive/potential verbs ("by ...")

In English and many other languages, passive and potential are syntactically
or morphologically distinct constructions, but in Japanese, at least
historically, they were different functions of the same constructions.

Bjarke Frellesvig (2010, "A History of the Japanese Language", page 63) in
chapter about Old Japanese (about 700 - 800):

> The OJ **passive functioned as a pure passive, a medium voice, and as a
> potential**. OJ had two competing passive markers of which _**-(a)ye-**_ was
> used rather more frequently than _**-(a)re-**_ (their roles are reversed in
> EMJ into which _-(a)ye-_ only survived in a number of lexicalized forms (
> _kikoye-_ , _miye-_ , _omopoye-_ ) and in reading glosses to Chinese texts,
> see 9.1.6). _-(a)ye-_ was used with QD, _n_ -irr, _r_ -irr and UM verbs;
> _-(a)re-_ with QD, _n_ -irr, and _r_ -irr verbs. Passives were not formed on
> verbs from other conjugation classes. _-(a)ye-_ thus had a wider use than
> _-(a)re-_ , both in terms of distribution and in terms of frequency. The
> straightforward interpretation of these facts is that _-(a)ye-_ was the
> earlier passive marker and was replaced by innovative _-(a)re-_. There are a
> few lexicalized passive forms with a slightly irregular formation: _kikoye-_
> <= _kik-_ 'hear'; _omopoye-_ <= _omop-_ 'think' (found alongside _omopaye-_
> , but was much more frequent).
>
> The passive auxiliary variant _**-rare-**_ , attaching to vowel base verbs,
> does not appear in the language until EMJ (see 8.4.1) and forms no part of
> OJ, although it is included in some grammars.

Bjarke Frellesvig (2010, "A History of the Japanese Language", page 338) in
chapter about Late Middle Japanese (about 1200 - 1600):

> The ancestor of the cNJ potential auxiliary _-re-_ makes its appearance in
> the second half of LMJ. It is found with consonant base verbs **in the shape
> _-e-_** , e.g. _yom-e-nu_ 'cannot read' in the _Shiki-shō_ from 1477, and
> **initially had the same functions as the passive: passive, potential, and
> respect**. _-E-_ is usually said to have developed as a reduced variant of
> the passive _-rare-_ and for example in the _Shiki-shō_ we find both _yom-e-
> nu_ and _yoma-re-nu_ 'read-PASS-NEG; cannot read'. Alternatively, _-e-_ may
> have developed from the auxiliary verb _-e-_ 'be able to' (< _e-_ 'get').
> During NJ this auxiliary became specialized as an independent potential
> auxiliary, but only recently in cNJ was it analogically extended to be used
> with vowel base verbs, e.g. cNJ _tabe-re-_ 'be able to eat'.

Verb [できる](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%A7%E3%81%8D%E3%82%8B) also
has meanings "be able to do" (potential meaning) and "be made" (passive
meaning), and other meanings.

> will taking away に as 僕しかできない事 make any difference?

しか replaces が and を, so without しか this sentence could be:

  * 僕ができない事

(This with added しか (がしか → しか) is synonymous with original sentence with にしか.)

  * 僕をできない事

(This is invalid due to できる not allowing usage with particle を.)

> what should I say if I wanted to express "(1) something (you) can do only to
> me"?

To avoid aforementioned ambiguity of particle に, another construction can be
used, e.g. 〜の為{ため}に:

僕の為{ため}にしかできない事

