Jisho.org Forum

I guess you answered your own question but `The name Watanabe was given to people who lived at a river crossing` seems fine and it doesnt use `that` once.

I think there are only two relative clauses here tho. [The name Watanabe] was given to [people who lived at a river crossing].

Grammatically, yes - Japanese uses a lot of clauses that are equivalent to relative clauses in English.

As julianjalapeno says, though, that doesn't mean that they have to be translated as a jumble of relative clauses.

Thanks for the answers. Indeed there actually is no problem. I was about to make similar posts before, but all question resolved themselves after a while.

The problem is not the translating, but the understanding. It takes me minutes to decipher a written sentence like that. But it probably really is just a question of getting used to it. I can remember how confused I was when I read my first sentences with a few consecutive "no" particles or something, which now seem easy to me.

edit:
While forming a relative sentence with "that" is probably the "proper" way to translate a [plain verb] + [noun] construction, it is in many cases probably often sufficient to just "modify the noun", just like the Japanese do.

For example:
Kimurasan tsukutta keki wa oishii desu.

"proper" way:
The cake that Mr Kimura made, is delicious.

"Japanese" way:
The Mr Kimura made-cake is delicious.

One thing I would recommend when you get a particularly wordy passage is to read the sentence backwards. That way you`ll get the subject first and can deal with all the of details that follow much easier. Eventually you`ll get used to the flow of Japanese and this wont be as necessary.

Posted By: julianjalapeno

[p]One thing I would recommend when you get a particularly wordy passage is to read the sentence backwards. That way you`ll get the subject first and can deal with all the of details that follow much easier. Eventually you`ll get used to the flow of Japanese and this wont be as necessary.[/p]

You don't get the subject first when you read a sentence backwards in Japanese, the subject comes first. You get the predicate first when you read a sentence backwards.

My point is its easier to make sense of a sentence if you can isolate the main subject first. When you read `Kimurasan tsukutta keki wa oishii desu` you see the cake first and understand its deliciousness before having to worry about who made it, etc.

Edit: Maybe I should clarify that I dont mean to literally read it backwards (desu oishii wa keki). I just mean to break it up into parts, starting with the back. This may not work for everyone but it was a method I was taught in college and I find it helpful.

Posted By: julianjalapeno

[p]My point is its easier to make sense of a sentence if you can isolate the main subject first. When you read `Kimurasan tsukutta keki wa oishii desu` you see the cake first and understand its deliciousness before having to worry about who made it, etc.[/p][p]Edit: Maybe I should clarify that I dont mean to literally read it backwards (desu oishii wa keki). I just mean to break it up into parts, starting with the back. This may not work for everyone but it was a method I was taught in college and I find it helpful.[/p]

I agree that it's a good technique to read sentences backwards in Japanese, just saying that since the predicate is the last part of a japanese sentence (SOV structure) you get the predicate before the subject if you analyse it from the back, and I find that it's because you want the predicate first that it's such a good technique to read backwards, but it's true that nominal phrases also become easier to understand if you aim for the main subject first.

Anyways, this kind of structure where sentences can be used to modify nouns is common in loads of languages and is, at least IMO, really logical. Like everyone else has said, read Japanese for a while and you will get used to it and both understand and use it with ease.