Translation:I got married in June.
Oh, so when you just said you didn't have a boyfriend you implied you had a husband instead?
(Not arguing, just interested in the subtleties here!) Would that be 六月には? Making June the topic of the sentence, and then talking about something that happened in that month, as opposed to talking about an event and adding the month as sort of extra info?
Just trying to get a better feel for how an explicit topic (or lack of it) changes the feel of a sentence
Well, the particles don't just act as topic markers, you can relate to that month as the topic, like: Oh hey, it's june next month. Oh, I got married in june.
Also, に is a particle that among other uses, relates to time. It litterally means here "in" or "at". In japanese time is supposed to be placed regardless of whether it's the topic or not. Just like when you say I eat shushi, in japanese it'll be shushi I eat. In english you are the subject, while if the shushi was the subject the sentence would be "the shushi is eaten by me".
So yea, it is to add information in a way.
Oh I was talking about the difference between に and には, if adding the は changes the feel from "I got married, in June" to "speaking of June, I got married then". Where the emphasis shifts more to the time itself than the event, like saying this year I'm going to travel to Japan vs I'm going to travel to Japan this year, y'know?
It's a subtle difference but I've seen the は particle added to another particle before, so I was wondering if that's the general effect in Japanese. I found this discussion anyway so it looks like I was on the right track
Previous notes I've had about this said that the wa particle after ni is optional. However, I wasn't aware that adding the wa added extra emphasis. Thanks for the link. I'm printing it out.
I said "I was married in June" and it was reported wrong. This is colloquial but still acceptable...
It might be because if you translate the sentence "I was married" it becomes a passive (voice) sentence or at least it's a little ambiguous as to whether you mean I was married in a passive sense eg. My husband and I were married by a priest - watashi to dannasan ga saishi ni kekkon saremashita, as opposed to I was married past tense active - you did the action in the past (which is the case with this sentence). I translated it as I got married to avoid this ambiguity and to clearly convey the past tense active meaning of the Japanese.
Nope, totally legit auxiliary verb. Saying I 'was' married could also imply that you are no longer married now. Using got as an auxiliary verb instead of was clears up all the ambiguities of whether the sentence is passive or whether the speaker is no longer married.
Given the available word tiles, I got this right without listening to the sentence or reading the text. Come on DL Japanese you can do a better job of teaching than this!!!
Anyone else notice the weird gap between けっ and ? Took a while to figure out what word it was.
Because kekkon + suru = a verb meaning to get married so it actually means I got married in June. Also if you were saying your wedding was in June you would say kekkonshiki - wedding ceremony.
"I was married in June" is a valid sentence, but it is not accepted by DL. Why is it?
Because "I was married in June" could mean one of two things - I WAS married in June (with the implication that now you are no longer married) OR the sentence "I was married in June" is passive - ie. I was married in June by a priest, I was married in June at a beautiful heritage building etc. For the sentence to be past tense, active voice as the sentence conveys you would need to say "I got married in June".