1

I came across this line from the song 「絆ノ奇跡」:

解き放て今 僕らが起こした火を

I have a couple question regarding potential omissions in this line.

  1. The first is that I feel that something (に, は, で) should come after 今 in 「解き放て今」. Is it omitted because it is obvious why it can only be one particle and thus there is no real ambiguity or because it colloquial speech it is 99% of the time clear what should be there?
  2. The second part of the line ends with 火を which is similar to a question I asked before here I'm not sure if it is also the case here that there is an omitted する (or some other verb like 掛ける)「僕らが火を起こした」modifies 火を(する\掛ける). Could it be that this reordering is done because it is a song (maybe it sounds cooler or better to native Japanese) so grammar be damned and it should actually be written as 「...僕らが火を起こした」? I also considered the possibility that this is connected to the next line but the next line doesn't seem to have anything to do with fire.
  3. There is another line that has the same structure「絆が紡いで生まれた奇跡を」, does the same apply to 奇跡を?

For completeness and context here is the entire verse from which the line above comes:

解き放て今 僕らが起こした火を
舞い上げ走れば明日が変わるはず
君といるこの世界二度と離さずに
君と共に行く

Thanks!

Uri Greenberg
  • 305
  • 1
  • 14

1 Answers1

3

There is no omission in the sentence. It is in a irregular/inverted word order. The rhetoric is called 倒置法. The following questions contain other examples.

解き放て今 僕らが起こした火を

This sentence in the ordinary order would be (今 can be moved around to an extent)

僕らが起こした火を今解き放て

where

  • 僕らが起こした火 is the object of 解き放て
  • 僕らが起こした is a relative clause modifying 火
  • 今 works adverbially.

Similary, the other phrase you mention is inverted.

我が命 果てようとも 繋いで行こう

絆が紡いで生まれた奇跡を

The second line is the object of 繋いで行こう (or 繋ぐ).

sundowner
  • 36,445
  • 2
  • 19
  • 57
  • I see. Is there any way to tell if it is 倒置法 or an omission of する like in the question I linked? Also, what is the purpose of 倒置法? To sound better? To emphasize something? – Uri Greenberg Jun 24 '23 at 10:14
  • @UriGreenberg If you have a verb in the front that could take a particle, try putting it at the end? – Leebo Jun 24 '23 at 10:17
  • @Leebo What do you mean by "a verb in the front that could take a particle"? What verb can take a particle in 解き放て今 僕らが起こした火を? – Uri Greenberg Jun 24 '23 at 10:22
  • The answer explains this. を is marking 火 and 解き放つ is the verb that is taking that を. – Leebo Jun 24 '23 at 10:23
  • @Leebo No, what the answer says is that the を particle is applied (targets/marks)「僕らが起こした火 」and the action taken is「解き放つ」. As far as I know verbs (at least not in their "Dictionary Form") don't take particles. – Uri Greenberg Jun 24 '23 at 10:45
  • By "take the particle" I'm describing the fact that the thing marked by を is the object of the verb. That's what the answer says. Perhaps "take an object (marked by the particle in question)" would have been a better phrasing, but I didn't expect you to object to my more off the cuff phrasing. – Leebo Jun 24 '23 at 10:47
  • That is to say, what I was trying to get at is, just try inverting the order to see if it works, as described in the answer. That's one way to tell if a verb is omitted or if the sentence is inverted. – Leebo Jun 24 '23 at 10:55
  • @UriGreenberg In this particular case, it boils down to transitivity of the verb ('taking を'). In general, you'd need to consider valency of the verb and how the irregularly ordered phrases connect to each other. – sundowner Jun 24 '23 at 11:20
  • So basically if the verb was intransitive, say a movement verb that can make use of を on a target we would have an ambiguity. But then the sentence wouldn't really make much sense. – Uri Greenberg Jun 24 '23 at 19:38
  • 1
    @UriGreenberg - Or you could look at it this way. Some verb is indeed omitted after を but one that fits there has been already said, so you don't have to guess as you had to in the linked question. – aguijonazo Jun 24 '23 at 23:03
  • @UriGreenberg Which sentence? I guess Now unleash the fire we ignited makes some sense. Anyway lyrics can be harder to make sense of, and you'd have to practice with more basic stuff depending on your level of Japanese. – sundowner Jun 25 '23 at 00:58
  • Yeah, thanks. Any recommendations for something more basic would be much appreciated :) – Uri Greenberg Jun 25 '23 at 05:03
  • @aguijonazo I guess that is also a valid if somewhat weird way to look at it, thanks. – Uri Greenberg Jun 25 '23 at 05:04