What are the general principles of using verbs to modify nouns (e.g. 焦げるトースト/焦げたトースト)?


In all the time I've studied the language, I've never heard or seen anybody
even hint at whether the principles from a given language (like using “burnt
toast” vs. “burning toast”) carry over, or if the language has its rules with
how that works. Anyone know?




This is called a relative clause, and they are pretty interesting in Japanese.
Rules from English do not transfer very well at all.

* * *

## た-form in relative clauses

There are two ways to interpret the た-form of a verb in a relative clause:

  * as past
  * as non-past, **if** : 
    1. the verb has a 'result state',
    2. there is no overt actor,
    3. explaining the state change does not require an actor.

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past = non-past)**

> 焦げたトースト  
>  'toast that burned'  
>  'burned toast'

Let's see if non-past is possible:

  1. ✓ 焦げている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ toast becoming burnt is not related to any actor

However, note that semantically, the only way to have "burned toast" is for
the toast to get burned some point before that, so the non-past and past
interpretation are the same. (Essentially, 'burned toast' == 'toast that
burned'.)

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past != non-past)**

> 乾いたハンカチ  
>  'a handkerchief that dried'  
>  'a dry handkerchief'

Let's see if non-past is possible:

  1. ✓ 乾いている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ a handkerchief becoming dry is not related to any actor

Here, the past and non-past interpretations are different. 乾いたハンカチ does NOT
necessarily need to mean that the handkerchief was once wet and then underwent
a drying event. It can simply means it is dry. For example, `新しい乾いたハンカチ 'a
new, dry handkerchief'` is totally fine semantically.

**Example: breaks criteria 1**

> 走った人  
>  'a person that ran'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✗ 走っている does not permit any resultative reading

**Example: breaks criteria 1**

> 乾かしたハンカチ  
>  'a handkerchief that was dried'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✗ 乾かしている does not permit the resultative reading

**Example: allows non-past, (semantically, past = non-past)**

> ゆでた卵  
>  'an egg that was boiled'  
>  'a boiled egg'

  1. ✓ ゆでている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in the sentence
  3. ✓ an egg boiling has nothing to do with an actor

Notice: even transitive verbs are fine as long as they meet the criteria!

**Example: allows non-past, (semantically, past = non-past)**

> タイプされた論文  
>  'a paper that was typed'  
>  'a typed paper'

  1. ✓ タイプされている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ a paper being typed is not related to any actor

**Example: breaks criteria 2**

> 太郎によってタイプされた論文  
>  'a paper that was typed by Tarou'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ タイプされている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✗ here, the actor is explicitly mentioned with によって, so clearly this criteria is broken

**Example: breaks criteria 2**

> ペンキを壁に塗った人  
>  'a person who painted the wall'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ 塗っている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✗ the actor (人) is mentioned.

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past != non-past)**

> 帽子をかぶった人  
>  'a person that put a hat on'  
>  'a person that has a hat on'

This one is interesting and really highlights the difference between a subject
and an actor:

  1. ✓ かぶっている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ one may think that 人 is the actor and is thus overt, however this is wrong. Consider `花子が太郎の頭にかぶった帽子 'a hat that Hanako put on Tarou's head'`. Here, Tarou is only the experiencer, not the actor. But in `太郎が自分の頭にかぶった帽子 'a hat that Tarou put on his own head'`, Tarou is the experiencer and actor. In our sentence, it is not required for 人 to be the actor, so this is not an overt mention of the actor 
  3. ✓ 人 moves from the not-wearing-hat state to the wearing-hat state, you do not need to explicitly mention the person who did the actual hat putting.

Note: things tend to only get this messy for 'wearing' verbs like かぶる and はめる

**Example: breaks criteria 3**

> 食べたケーキ  
>  'a cake that was eaten (by someone)'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ 食べている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ no explicit mention of an actor
  3. ✗ the only difference is that the cake has moved inside the stomach of the actor, so explaining the state change requires mentioning the actor

**Example: breaks criteria 3**

> 太郎からもらった本  
>  'a book that somebody got from Tarou'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ もらっている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ no explicit mention of an actor
  3. ✗ the only difference is that the book has moved from Tarou to the actor, so explaining the state change requires mentioning the actor

Primary source: "The Semantics of Non-Past -ta in Japanese" by Kiyomi Kusumoto
(very technical)

* * *

## Negation + -た in relative clauses

Thank the gods, things get a lot easier with negation.

Consider one of our earlier sentences with two readings:

> ゆでた卵  
>  'an egg that was boiled'  
>  'a boiled egg'

Let's try negating it:

> ゆでなかった卵  
>  'an egg that was not boiled'

There is no non-past interpretation. If we want that interpretation, you need
to explicitly use a negated ている form:

> ゆでていない卵  
>  'an egg that is not boiled'

* * *

## Dictionary form in relative clauses

If you use the dictionary form of the verb in a relative clause, it tends to
take the future reading, although I believe it can occasionally take the
habitual reading as well if the semantics suggest it. In the case of 焦げるトースト,
I would translate it as "toast that will get burned".

* * *

## ている in relative clauses

ている forms behave exactly like they do outside of relative clauses.




This is called a relative clause, and they are pretty interesting in Japanese.
Rules from English do not transfer very well at all.

* * *

## た-form in relative clauses

There are two ways to interpret the た-form of a verb in a relative clause:

  * as past
  * as non-past, **if** : 
    1. the verb has a 'result state',
    2. there is no overt actor,
    3. explaining the state change does not require an actor.

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past = non-past)**

> 焦げたトースト  
>  'toast that burned'  
>  'burned toast'

Let's see if non-past is possible:

  1. ✓ 焦げている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ toast becoming burnt is not related to any actor

However, note that semantically, the only way to have "burned toast" is for
the toast to get burned some point before that, so the non-past and past
interpretation are the same. (Essentially, 'burned toast' == 'toast that
burned'.)

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past != non-past)**

> 乾いたハンカチ  
>  'a handkerchief that dried'  
>  'a dry handkerchief'

Let's see if non-past is possible:

  1. ✓ 乾いている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ a handkerchief becoming dry is not related to any actor

Here, the past and non-past interpretations are different. 乾いたハンカチ does NOT
necessarily need to mean that the handkerchief was once wet and then underwent
a drying event. It can simply means it is dry. For example, `新しい乾いたハンカチ 'a
new, dry handkerchief'` is totally fine semantically.

**Example: breaks criteria 1**

> 走った人  
>  'a person that ran'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✗ 走っている does not permit any resultative reading

**Example: breaks criteria 1**

> 乾かしたハンカチ  
>  'a handkerchief that was dried'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✗ 乾かしている does not permit the resultative reading

**Example: allows non-past, (semantically, past = non-past)**

> ゆでた卵  
>  'an egg that was boiled'  
>  'a boiled egg'

  1. ✓ ゆでている permits the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in the sentence
  3. ✓ an egg boiling has nothing to do with an actor

Notice: even transitive verbs are fine as long as they meet the criteria!

**Example: allows non-past, (semantically, past = non-past)**

> タイプされた論文  
>  'a paper that was typed'  
>  'a typed paper'

  1. ✓ タイプされている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ there is no actor in this sentence
  3. ✓ a paper being typed is not related to any actor

**Example: breaks criteria 2**

> 太郎によってタイプされた論文  
>  'a paper that was typed by Tarou'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ タイプされている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✗ here, the actor is explicitly mentioned with によって, so clearly this criteria is broken

**Example: breaks criteria 2**

> ペンキを壁に塗った人  
>  'a person who painted the wall'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ 塗っている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✗ the actor (人) is mentioned.

**Example: allows non-past (semantically, past != non-past)**

> 帽子をかぶった人  
>  'a person that put a hat on'  
>  'a person that has a hat on'

This one is interesting and really highlights the difference between a subject
and an actor:

  1. ✓ かぶっている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ one may think that 人 is the actor and is thus overt, however this is wrong. Consider `花子が太郎の頭にかぶった帽子 'a hat that Hanako put on Tarou's head'`. Here, Tarou is only the experiencer, not the actor. But in `太郎が自分の頭にかぶった帽子 'a hat that Tarou put on his own head'`, Tarou is the experiencer and actor. In our sentence, it is not required for 人 to be the actor, so this is not an overt mention of the actor 
  3. ✓ 人 moves from the not-wearing-hat state to the wearing-hat state, you do not need to explicitly mention the person who did the actual hat putting.

Note: things tend to only get this messy for 'wearing' verbs like かぶる and はめる

**Example: breaks criteria 3**

> 食べたケーキ  
>  'a cake that was eaten (by someone)'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ 食べている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ no explicit mention of an actor
  3. ✗ the only difference is that the cake has moved inside the stomach of the actor, so explaining the state change requires mentioning the actor

**Example: breaks criteria 3**

> 太郎からもらった本  
>  'a book that somebody got from Tarou'  
>  no non-past

  1. ✓ もらっている allows the resultative reading
  2. ✓ no explicit mention of an actor
  3. ✗ the only difference is that the book has moved from Tarou to the actor, so explaining the state change requires mentioning the actor

Primary source: "The Semantics of Non-Past -ta in Japanese" by Kiyomi Kusumoto
(very technical)

* * *

## Negation + -た in relative clauses

Thank the gods, things get a lot easier with negation.

Consider one of our earlier sentences with two readings:

> ゆでた卵  
>  'an egg that was boiled'  
>  'a boiled egg'

Let's try negating it:

> ゆでなかった卵  
>  'an egg that was not boiled'

There is no non-past interpretation. If we want that interpretation, you need
to explicitly use a negated ている form:

> ゆでていない卵  
>  'an egg that is not boiled'

* * *

## Dictionary form in relative clauses

If you use the dictionary form of the verb in a relative clause, it tends to
take the future reading, although I believe it can occasionally take the
habitual reading as well if the semantics suggest it. In the case of 焦げるトースト,
I would translate it as "toast that will get burned".

* * *

## ている in relative clauses

ている forms behave exactly like they do outside of relative clauses.

