2

I was studying some particles and I already understood the difference between of が and は. Also the function of the particle を and its usage. I wonder if it is possible to NOT use it in a phrase? Take a look at the example below.

ねこがこいぬいじめていた。- A cat was bullying a puppy

Do we really need that mora を after the puppy object there?

naruto
  • 285,549
  • 12
  • 305
  • 582
  • Possible duplicate of [What are the guidelines of omitting particles?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-guidelines-of-omitting-particles) – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 04:34
  • I think both questions explain me the same thing in different ways, this question at least for me, seems to go further into the を particle while the https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-guidelines-of-omitting-particles question has a more general overview over the japanese particles – João Brgai Aug 25 '17 at 04:52
  • I don't consider this a duplicate question, because it actually goes further into the を particle than the one mentioned above, but if the majority of people think it's duplicated, then so be it :D – João Brgai Aug 25 '17 at 05:00
  • 2
    Please consider waiting a couple days before accepting an answer. You may get a better answer if you do. –  Aug 25 '17 at 07:15
  • 1
    @snailplane I couldn't agree more. Anyway, thanks for your comments that forced me to re-think my answer. I also realized another case in which you might not use を after the object which I added to the re-worked answer. If you notice other errors or you have comments please let me know. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 08:18
  • @JoãoBrgai After the many comments, I re-worked completely the answer. You might wanna read it again just to make sure although I think you got the main point. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 08:19

1 Answers1

4

Ok let me give a proper answer. First of all, I think you have a typo in your example since いじのてた does not mean anything and I believe you probably mean いじめていた from the verb 苛{いじ}める that means "to tease, to torment, to persecute" etc.

EDIT 2: After all the comments, I will re-organize my answer trying to address all the points in hope everyone will be happy with it. In particular there was a stupid mistake I will remove.

I will cut it short and say that the answer to your question is, in my opinion: it depends (hence no, you don't always need を after the object).

Take this simple example: I can speak Japanese, that is:

(私は)日本語話せます。

In this case you need を.

However, if you are casually talking with someone you would say:

(私は)日本語話せるよ。

This second one, in the right context, is also acceptable. If you were talking in a casual register with your friends but stuffed all the particles at the right place it would probably sound a bit weird. However, do not confuse grammar with formal/informal speech. Grammar would want you to put that particle there. In general in written text you always must put the particles where needed. However, I think that since we live in an era where instant messaging led to an extreme increase of "informal" text, it's also important to mention that even in "written text" depending on the context it is acceptable to omit を (as well as all other particles). Again, bear in mind this is not grammatical.

Now the trick. If you simply ask about placing を after the object, then certainly you do not need always を. Consider the following:

私は日本語話せます。

私は日本語話せます。

These also make perfect sense! For example, if you want to express that Japanese is the language you can speak, among others that you can't you would use が. If you are saying that you speak Japanese as well as other languages, you would use も. These are two examples of sentences where the object is not followed by を. 

There is another important example that came to mind thinking of this thoroughly (and thanks to all the comments that made me do so). That is:

You can omit を when you change the structure of the sentence making what the particle を is indicating the "topic" of the sentence. What does this mean?

I could use the same example from above but let's make a different one:

(私は)コンビニでこの弁当{べんとう}買{か}いました.

I (subject) bought this bento (object) at the convenience store.

Now make the bento the topic of the sentence, that is:

この弁当コンビニで買いました.

Notice that the bento is still the object here (although omitted you, who are buying, are the subject of the sentence).

This is another example where を after an object is omitted, or better replaced by は. Maybe it just follows in the category above where simply another particle is used but I think could be interesting to point out as well.

Bottom line: not necessarily the object of a sentence is always followed by を. You can indeed use other particles depending on the context and what you actually want to express, or omit it completely if you are having a casual conversation (whether oral or written).

Chocolate
  • 62,056
  • 5
  • 95
  • 199
Tommy
  • 7,796
  • 16
  • 38
  • Would you mind explaining what is the object in 今日は良い天気ですね? – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 04:35
  • @macraf I never said there was one! That is actually the point. The original question of the OP just ask "is it possible not to use を in a phrase", and my example was just to point out that of course it is, if there is no direct object in the sentence. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 04:39
  • This is not an answer. You are writing your own questions and answering them. You ignore OP's question and example. The title says "after an object", the body contains an example with a dog - you state there is no need for an object. Post your own question and answer it. – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 04:39
  • @macraf have you read my answer? I don't think this is true. My first trivial example address EXACTLY the OP question: "is it possible not to use を in a phrase". Then I just elaborated the question building up more and trying to explain when and how you need to use such particle. I simply used different examples than the origianl OP's. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 04:40
  • @macraf, Tommy did answer me actually, I was a bit unclear in my question though, I wanted to ask specifically what the **step two** part says in his answer. – João Brgai Aug 25 '17 at 04:44
  • @JoãoBrgai glad the answer was helpful. I honestly think it couldn't be more explicit and clear than this (of course, to the extent of my knowledge). Anyway I updated it just to be extra clear including your original example. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 04:49
  • @JoãoBrgai Oh really? So please tell me: can you omit を after the puppy object? 1) Yes we can, 2) No we cannot. – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 04:59
  • 1
    @macraf in casual writing situations I can omit it, also while talking with friends, besides, I didn't know that I could use が instead of を in some situations which Tommy explained in his answer. It's not a YES or NO answer, it depends of the context and moment to decide to use the を particle or not. – João Brgai Aug 25 '17 at 05:04
  • @macraf can you seriously tell me what's wrong with: IT DEPENDS? Is it seriously not clear from my answer? IT DEPENDS, as I explained (at least I believed so) in even more than needed detail especially after the edit. If you have a better, yes/no answer please post it. I'll be happy to suggest the OP to change the accepted answer if your answer will be better (and it's possible to do so). – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 05:05
  • For me the answer is clear and it's not "it depends". That's the problem. You are answering your own questions, not the one OP asked. – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 05:06
  • 2
    @macraf, then please elaborate your logic in an answer. I'm really not saying "I'm right and you're wrong" here, let's be clear. I'm just saying, this is my answer based of all I know. Is it 100% perfect and without the slightest doubt the best possible answer? Never said so. It's supposed to be a friendly and open-minded community. Just go ahead, post your answer, and I'll be happy to read and even happier if you prove me wrong beyond reasonable doubt as it will mean I actually learned something new. Which I'm always happy to. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 05:09
  • Why should I elaborate? I stated my opinion clearly. This is not the answer to the OP's question. I explained why I think so. Anything you added in your subsequent comments did not make me change my mind. This is the last comment I made here. – macraf Aug 25 '17 at 05:11
  • @macraf I'm sorry I missed it. All I saw is you: a) criticizing my answer. b) asking the OP: "so which is it? You can or you cannot?". c) Saying the answer is clear and it's not "it depends". Although you never say which is the right answer to the question for you. I'm glad it's clear and it's not "it depends". So which is it? You can? You cannot? Why? So yes, I think you should elaborate. Although how much I give a sxxx is certainly dropping exponentially by now. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 05:15
  • 2
    Your step 1 answers something the question didn't ask, and your step 2 is wrong. There is no object in `左側の扉が開きます`. Your step 3 is also wrong because it claims omitting `を` is always ungrammatical and because it incorrectly conflates formality with correctness and grammaticality. –  Aug 25 '17 at 07:14
  • @snailplane you're totally right about being no object in point 2. That was a careless mistake and I will think of how to fix it. About step three I don't think I'm claiming omission is always ungrammatical. Why you say so? About mixing formality and grammaticality (if this is even a word), that wasn't my intention. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 07:19
  • I never meant to say that it's the same thing. However, it is true that in informal situations you omit を, and since especially nowadays with sns etc even "informal text" has increased dramatically, it is important to notice so. I think it probably would look weird if you texted your friend using casual speech but putting all the particles there. No? – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 07:19
  • @snailplane besides, if you read again my point 1, you should notice that it was meant as a sort of pun because indeed the OP inside the post specifically asks if "he can construct sentences without を". The title and the final sentence are obviously more clear, but I was intentionally building it from there. – Tommy Aug 25 '17 at 07:23