The Constraints of Subject Existence and Its Impact on Thought
The feature of Japanese that allows for the omission of the subject can be compared to writing $ (\forall x)(F(x) \rightarrow G(x)) as $ F \rightarrow G, compressing the expression by omitting the subject $ x. In contrast, English grammar requires that the subject be explicitly stated, making it essential to include the subject in the sentence structure.
This structural limitation in English hinders it from expressing ideas in the same way as Japanese. In traditional Western logic, it is a principle that both the subject and predicate are clearly defined in a proposition. However, as demonstrated in Hajime Nakamura’s "A Semantic and Logical Interpretation of Śūnyatā", Buddhist logic and Indian philosophy do not insist on fixing the subject in the same way. For example, the expression "Where there is no fire, there is no smoke" communicates meaning without needing an explicit subject, a feature that is inherent in Japanese communication. nishio.icon In this example, there are used for weak subject. Or "no music, no life" is also understandable example for English-speakers. Furthermore, traditional Western logic relies on fixed subjects and predicates in propositions, using these as the basis for reasoning. In contrast, Indian logic and Buddhist logic relativize the subject and existence itself. Although this approach may seem contradictory from the perspective of Western logic, modern symbolic logic shows that it is not a contradiction but a new form of logical development. This suggests that the subject requirement in English could narrow the scope of logical thought.
Thus, the nuanced meanings expressed in Japanese cannot always be fully conveyed in English due to the constraints imposed by the necessity of a subject in the language.
Related
en.icon