Quote:
Originally Posted by GinaS
I thought I'd better break this into two posts. And I guess if by chance someone out there is reading Another Monster, there would be spoilers below, so beware. Also, there may be typos. I've noticed myself starting to read い instead of こ lately... :/
So here's the passage that's got me stumped at the moment:
「今思えば奇妙なことはいくつかあったが、当は何も思 わなかった。やつはよく、自分は画期的な教育システム を持っていると、熱心にいうんだ。それは自分の尊敬す る 友人の発明で、自分は彼の志を継ぐって。 友人は亡くなったのかって聞くと、そう自分は理解している ......とかね。もっと変だったのは、隣のガキが万引きで警察に補導さ れた時だ。隣は母ちゃんしかいなくてね、親父は什事で キールに行ってた。で、わたしは父親の友人、チャペッ クは子供の塾の先生ということで、母親といっしょに警 察まで行ったんだよ。ガキを家に連れて帰る途中、やつ はその子にこういった。何のために万引きなんてしたの か、と。金がないから盗んだと、まあ、当たり前のいと を隣のガキはいったよ。じゃ、金を稼いでごらん、とこ こまではやつも普通のいとをいった。ガキが、いつか大 金持ちになって見返してやるといい出すと、チャペック は、でもお金じゃ買えないよって、しつこくいうんだ」
The speaker is answering a question about whether he was suspicious of Čapek after the suicides of several students in Čapek's neighborhood English classes. What I can decipher of this is that at the time he was not suspicious, but in hindsight sees that there were strange things going on. Then I'm not sure.
Either (loosely), "I thought he was a good man, and I was very enthusiastic when I said this is a groundbreaking educational system. It is the invention of a highly respected friend [referring to Čapek], and I am following in his footsteps."
Or "...he [Čapek] was very enthusiastic [when talking to people in the neighborhood], saying, 'This is a groundbreaking educational system. It is the invention of a highly respected friend [referring to the actual inventor - I already know that Čapek didn't create it], and I am following in his footsteps.'" Although I don't see anything about "saying" or "said" I can't seem to construct a sensible sentence without that in there. Does Japanese use secondary quotes for such in-sentence dialogue?
Are the two references to friend the same person, or different people? I can't make sense of that underlined sentence at all. Is the speaker saying he asked how Čapek's friend died, or is he referring to a different friend, asking how he [his child] died or is the friend asking about how someone died...and then what? What doesn't who understand? And who is dead? The friend seems to be the subject of the sentence, but the rest seems to talk about him as if he were the object. Gah! 
Then I think he launches into a story about a kid who was caught shoplifting and he and Čapek and the boy's mother went to the police station with him because the father was away on business in Kiel, and on the way back, either Čapek or the speaker ask the boy why he shoplifted, since if would be more normal to steal money since he's poor. The kid says that Čapek had always said that even if you're rich someday, [something] can't be bought with money.
That's the best I can do with it. So what does it really say?  |
There are at least two factors that are making it difficult for a non-Japanese-speaker to understand that underlined phrase. Since I'm a Japanese-speaker, the phrase is crystal-clear but if I weren't, I'd have to be at least a 8th-year Japanese student to comprehend it. This may actually be too optimistic a view. Make that a 15th-year student, roughly.
1. There is no clear line drawn between direct and indirect speech.
2. Absense of pronouns, subjects and objects.
Who asked the question? >>>>> The narrator
Who is 自分? >>>>> Čapek
Who understands >>>>> Čapek
It's the same friend, not two different ones.
とかね here means "Čapek told things like that" or simply "things like that". Things = What is quoted of Čapek in that sentence and the preceding sentence.
With all these clues, I don't need to translate the phrase for you now, do I? I'd rather have you do it and I can check it later on.