0

にて is older form of で, and now has literary or archaic nuance. にて itself was created by adding suffix て to に, which is form of copular verb n-.

Traditional interpretation (e.g. here) is that 2 main functions of で are:

  • Copula form (連用形/Continuative): "is ... and"

  • Locative / instrumental case particle

  1. 私はペンで静かに手紙を書いている

  2. 私はペンで静かにて手紙を書いている

  3. 私はペンで静かで手紙を書いている

  4. 私はペンで静かと手紙を書いている

  5. 私は森で丸腰に歩いている

  6. 私は森で丸腰にて歩いている

  7. 私は森で丸腰で歩いている

  8. 私は森で丸腰と歩いている

  9. 私はあなたと一緒に働いている

  10. 私はあなたと一緒にて働いている

  11. 私はあなたと一緒で働いている

  12. 私はあなたと一緒と働いている

  13. 彼は突然に来た

  14. 彼は突然にて来た

  15. 彼は突然で来た

  16. 彼は突然と来た

My analysis is that:

  • All these sentences are grammatically correct, although variants with と may be rare or unnatural.

  • 静か, 丸腰, 一緒, 突然 in these sentences are adjectives, not nouns.

  • にて and で have additional function as adverbializer, similarly to に and と (although で as adverbializer is probably rarer than に as adverbializer). (Also adverbializer is actually subfunction of copula.)

    静かに = 静かで = "quietly"

    丸腰に = 丸腰で = "unarmedly"

    一緒に = 一緒で = "combinedly, together"

    突然に = 突然で = "suddenly"

  • で in ペンで is locative / instrumental case particle (格助詞) (here instrumental function), and ペン is noun.

  • で in 森で is locative / instrumental case particle (格助詞) (here locative function), and 森 is noun.

Are there any good counterarguments for this analysis of にて / で?

(Fixed expressions with adjective+に (e.g. 〜になる, 〜にする) are not really counterargument.)

(Partially related to discussion in 丸腰を見る and no-adjectives)

Arfrever
  • 1,516
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
  • 2
    Only 1. 私はペンで静かに手紙を書いている 7. 私は森で丸腰で歩いている 9. 私はあなたと一緒に働いている 13. 彼は突然に来た, or more commonly 彼は突然来た sound correct to my native ears. 「ペンで静かで手紙を書いている」「静かと手紙を書いている」「丸腰に歩いている」とか言わないです。「あなたと一緒で働いている」は意味が違います – chocolate Oct 03 '23 at 13:17
  • 2
    Different words require different particles. There is even a specialized dictionary though native speakers hardly need it. Not counter argument, but で has more than locative/instrumental/copula, so you are just oversimplifying and what you're asking is not clear. – sundowner Oct 03 '23 at 13:26
  • 2
    「あなたと一緒で働いている」 - I think this can only be parsed as a coordination of （私は）あなたと一緒だ and （私は）働いている. It doesn't say whether they work together or not. – Yusuke Matsubara Oct 03 '23 at 15:05
  • 1
    Non-native speaker, but I must say that I agree with @chocolate here -- many of your sample sentences are grammatically incorrect. I will add that I've never seen にて・で described as an adverbializer; that function lies in particle に, but not にて・で. – Eiríkr Útlendi Oct 03 '23 at 17:07
  • 1
    This question is based on the wrong assumptions (that these sentences are all grammatical) and it's not clear what to counter. – aguijonazo Oct 03 '23 at 23:08
  • There is a particle にて in classical Japanese with the meaning of 'by means of, with', an example from 徒然草 137:202, すべて月花をばさのみ目にてみるかわ, 'Now then, the moon and the cherry blossoms, are they the only things to be seen with the eyes?' (John Timothy Wixted, A Handbook to Classical Japanese). – N. Hunt Oct 04 '23 at 01:27
  • It would be appreciated if some commenter(s) wrote full answers explaining at least how they see difference in meaning, and what grammatical functions of words are, between sentences 1 and 3, 5 and 7, 9 and 11, 13 and 15, and whether they consider some of sentences as unnatural OR grammatically incorrect (those are distinct), and why... – Arfrever Oct 04 '23 at 01:52
  • 1
    I think で with verbal adjectives, as hinted at above with the remarks on 一緒で, has to be interpreted as the te-form of the copula, thus, 静かで平和な世の中 does not mean 'a quietly peaceful world' but 'a quiet and peaceful world'. 突然で申し訳ございません means '[this is] sudden and I apologize', not '[I am] suddenly apologetic' and so on – N. Hunt Oct 04 '23 at 03:51
  • 1,7,9 are natural. All the others are unnatural. Again, it is a matter of how each word connects to particular particles, not of grammatical correctness. Grammatical correctness and meaningfulness (and idiomaticity) are simply different things. – sundowner Oct 04 '23 at 11:38

0 Answers0