"二時にそちらへ行きます。"
Translation:I will go there at two o'clock.
50 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
'行くis go, not come' Yes, you are right.
But in fact, at a Japanese school, I studied like that text book. The school that I am referring to is an official school in Japan.
It is better to see the entire sentence than to consider each word separately.
And, as you know, words have multiple meanings, just as kanji have multiple sounds.
You do if the person you're speaking to is there. There's no context for that in this sentence, but there's never any context.
Can't edit on mobile, but since そちら was used that context actually is there.
@stadaniye, you're making a broad statement for a language that experiences massive regionalism. I have indeed heard native English speakers, myself included say "I will come there" enough times that it comes easily to mind. :)
Edit: There are many good comments here establishing why 行くworks as both "to go" and "to come". I recommend checking out Mystiques-wish's comment below for one of several examples. It was laid out in a concise way that was easy for me to read.
2067
You certainly can, if you want the listener to be the focal point. On the telephone, in particular, where the listener is already standing in the place that the speaker will be going to, this is very natural.
- 488
"I will come there" is plain wrong in English. Unless it's supposed to mean something else
By using そちら you assume the person you speak to is already there, so you are coming to them. If it was あちら then it would be 'go'.
This is English - it may or may not apply to Japanese or other languages. It boils down to a matter of point-of-reference:
On its own, "come" implies a move toward the person speaking. On their own, "come" + "there" do not mix naturally.
In "I'm coming (over to you)" or "I will come (to you)", the point of reference is "you" (the speaker's "there") - so it is ok.
If you try asking someone to "come there", the connotation is "come - you over there".
It's not as wrong as you might think. If someone calls you over to their position, it is appropriate to tell them "I'm coming." It is also appropriate to say "I will come" if the one you are speaking to is already at or will be at the designated location by the time you leave as the word "come" implies arrival. Saying "go" implies leaving and does not rely on the listener to necessarily be at the destination. Thus the two words, though the end result is essentially the same, can have slightly different implications.
example 1 - Person A: "I'm at the party." Person B: "Cool. I'm coming soon."
example 2 - Person A: "I was thinking about that party tonight." Person B: "Oh yeah? I'm going at 8." Person A: "Alright, I'll come too."
Japanese, it appears, can be the same way.
The comments in this thread seem to be a prime example of how people can be fluent in a language, speak it from birth and not actually understand the mechanics of it on a conscious level. Of course "I will come there" is perfectly natural English when "there" is the location of the listener.
That's kind of how native speaker intuition works though. "I will come there" is grammatically fine, but still sounds off in my opinion.
My instinct is to contract "I will" to "I'll" but otherwise "I'll come there" sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm a native speaker from Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
It's understandable to the listener and grammatically correct, but an American English speaker would (almost?) never say "I will come there".
If I am assuming the perspective of the person I'm speaking with, I am likely to say "I'll come to you." Of course, there are different language norms in different regions and that is ok. :)
I agree that "I'll come to you" sounds natural. I suppose it's the inclusion of "there" alongside "come" that sounds weird to me.
"I will come there" sounds stilted and unnatural. It works fine as "I will come over there" (or "down there", "up there" any relevant preposition). "I will go there" doesn't sound quite as bad, but would still benefit from a preposition most of the time. It may not be required grammatically, but it's part of how people speak.
I think this is a case of someone trying to be too clever with the translation and as a result, made an, at best, poorly worded english sentence.
I agree that in 1st person-to-2nd person conversation, "go" and "come" are interchangable. However the issue here is the translation of 'sochira' to "there". English does not have a 2nd person noun describing a location where "you" are, only "here" and "there", so both "sochira" and "achira" are forced to translate to "there". However "come there" is simply bad english, so while the translation can be argued accurate, the resulting sentence does not make good sense in english.
So in the interest of making both an accurate and grammatically sound english translation i would argue that "go there" should have been the translation. If you really wanted to use "come," then the sentence would have had to be something like "i will come to that location which is closer to you"
As near as I can tell, 行く is never translated as "come" (rather "go") unless it would cause confusion. The sentence in English "I will come there at two o'clock" doesn't sound right to me... (Native English from northwestern U.S.)
Certainly I studied English 'go' means Japanese '行く'.（I am native J.）.
I assume this sentence means ' I will arrive your place at two o'clock. '
This is the sentence for an appointment or a promise.
It is important what time to meet,
not important what time somebody go out his/her house.
Ah! I think I have a better compromise then. "I will get there are two o'clock." It sounds better as a native English speaker, is not confused with how we learn go/come/return between languages, and is also appropriate as an appointment/promise where the meeting time--not the leaving time--is important.
I 'm glad I have read your opinion. I have confused long time. I got the idea by your chat. Thank you! And sorry, if my sentence is not polite.
The translation makes sense to me. When you meet up with someone at their place, in English you would say "I'll come at 2 p.m.", whereas in Japanese the verb "to come" is (apparently) not used in the perspective of the person who "goes".
くる is always from the perspective of the speaker in Japanese. So, someone else can "come here", and you can "come back" to where you currently are (行ってきます), but as far as I know, you can never "come there". You have to "go there" instead.
I am not fluent , but have studied for nearly a decade, so excuse me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if any of that is correct. I do believe you can say you come or someone else came. The problem is, 行きますis not the right word for that. 行くis only used for go/went. 来ますis come/came.
Sorry, in my rush to type out an answer, I didn't properly state the nuance here. In English, when the speaker is talking about moving theirself towards the listener, we generally use the listener's location as the point of reference and say "come". In this situation, Japanese is different and the speaker will use their own location as the point of reference and will use いく.
This is the distinction I was trying to make when I said くる is always from the perspective of the speaker, which is inaccurate. くる can also be used from the viewpoint of a third party, just not that of the person you're talking to.
Jade, that is the best description of the difference in usage between come/go in both English and Japanese that I've found here so far!
Just like you never need to specify TWO chopsticks (in Japan they always come in pairs), it's just another hurdle to get over the concept of くる==to come and 行く== to go.
- 712
"へ is almost always interchangeable with に, but not vice versa. へ points a direction more than に. に points a destination more than へ." - https://www.italki.com/question/242153
If Jane is speaking to her mum on the phone = I'll come home (she will join her mum)
If Jane tells her friends this = I'll go home at 2pm (she's leaving her friends)
Depends if you're going to close or create distance to the person you're speaking to in English.
In Japanese, it's the complete opposite, but in this sentence should be "arrive" "be there" "go" as the first answers to teach as a suggestion.
"Come" is possible if the person is already at the location, waiting....
I will "go over" would be a more natural sounding translation. In fact, the sentence can also skip "there" since "go over" implies going to the place wherever both speaker and listener was referring to.
Translation at the professional level demands not only accuracy, carries over the original language's nuances as much as the target language's limitations in terms of vocabulary, grammar, meaning as possible, but also sound natural effortlessly.
Clearly, this sentence's correct answer has failed to do so and caused a lot of debate amongst everyone here.
My two cents.
Duolingo are you reading this ？
Duolingo reads the "report a problem" reports that people generate when they click on the flag next to the bubble with numbers.
These sentence discussion areas are for learners to help each other. If something is unfamiliar to you, it doesn't mean it's wrong. It likely means it is a regionalism that is different from your regionalisms. :)
- 110
Okay, yet one question about "come" vs "go". The speaker would arrive to the other guy at two o'clock or will go from the place where he is now at that time?
I'll come/go over there. Without "over" it's completely unnatural sounding. I even said it to myself out loud a few times after seeing people defend it... No. The flow of the sentence is off and it's hardly possible to say fluidly. Assuming the person is already there, that's why we add "over" in English.
Wouldn't 'I will be there at two o'clock' acceptable too? 'Come there' is just way too weird.
While iku can be translated either go or come, in this sentence insisting on come makes no sense to me. Go is the more basic meaning, so my answer should have been accepted.
Sotira does make come more likely, but I think the best rendition might be"I will get there at (or about, or around) two o'clock."
Not sure if this is intended to be "arrive there" or "go there". The "come" seems ambiguous and could mean either. While not technically incorrect, it feels a bit confusing. Considering the Japanese sentence uses 行く(いく) I'm currently assuming the latter: "I will go there" as that would mean the speaker is leaving the place they are, not arriving at the destination. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
StephenSts, you've brought up a really good question. Will the person begin transit at 2 or will they complete transit at 2? I am guessing that it does not mean arrive. 来る (Kuru) means "to come; to arrive". From other existing comments, 行くmeans "to go". But, in my very limited experience it has not also meant "arrive". Since, 行くcan also mean "to come towards the person you are speaking to" I want to guess that the person will be in transit at 2 o'clock, instead of arriving.
I too would like to see further input on this from someone more experienced with the language.
vivalaashutosh, I'm not sure "NI" ever marks a topic. "NI" marks time in the sentence above. It can also mark movement and destination. As for the placement of "HE" in place of "NI" in the sentence in question, scroll up to LunaAVL where they have talked about when to use one versus the other. :)
Because people have been posting only redundant comments for a while now, I'm locking this discussion. I hope that people newly arriving will be encouraged to read the insightful questions and answers that are already here. :)