でできる and example sentence/translation

Japanese
#1

Hey everyone, I’m learning でできる at the moment and I came across this example sentence:

飛行機は軽素材で出来ている。

Which has been translated as “Airplanes are made from light materials.”
I’m a little confused about this, since I was specifically asked to use で instead of から and 出来ている instead of 出来る. As I understood, から was used for “made from” i.e. when material is not obvious, and 出来ている was for “this specific object” as opposed to 出来る “this object type”. I wouldn’t consider the lightness of the composite materials of an airplane an obvious factor, indeed I would probably consider this one of the least obvious elements of airplane materials, so why is で used instead of から? Similarly, if 出来ている is for a specific airplane in this case, why is it translated as “airplanes”? I initially wrote it off as Bunpro trying to get me to use all of the variants of the grammar point since they are de facto interchangeable, but if that were the case, why would it specifically ask for the least correct versions?

Your time in answering is greatly appreciated :D

1 Like
#2

I read this sentence as talking about airplanes in the general sense from は being used as the case marking particle, rather than the more specific が, and the で出来ている has a little bit more of of a nuance of airplanes being made “with” something (using something) than being made “from” something. The way I see it, Bunpro’s explanation of the nuance being different is just addressing how each form “tends” to be used, not stating that it is always used that way. The grammar point also does state this quite clearly:

Despite this, recent generations use で in most situations, regardless of if the material is visible at first glance or not. As a result, でできる and からできる are almost indistinguishable in modern Japanese.

I think that in this case, it is an example of how the grammar point is most commonly used, rather than sticking strictly to certain “rules”. If it helps think of it this way - in English, you can say either “Airplanes are made from light materials.” or “Airlplanes are made with light materials.” and neither of those sentences would be incorrect. This is just a reflection of that sort of thing in Japanese. :slight_smile: I don’t think there is a “most correct” or “least correct” way to use these terms in the majority of cases.

#3

I am aware that they are indistinguishable, that’s why I said as such,

since they are de facto interchangeable

and you appear to be agreeing with me that the sentence is clearly referring to airplanes in general, when 出来ている is used for instances of a specific object,

There is also a small nuance difference between できる, and できている, when used as part of this construction. できる is usually used when talking about something broadly ‘everything in category (B) is made from (A)’, while できている is used more frequently when examining a specific item ‘this particular (B) is made from (A)’. Like the difference between で and から though, they are largely interchangeable.

so I’m not really sure why you’ve positioned this as an answer to my question when you’ve instead said “Yes, everything you just said is correct and this translation doesn’t make sense”. Additionally, if, as you said, the grammar point “doesn’t stick to strict rules”, why does the cloze answer require specifically で出来ている and not any of the other, allegedly “equally correct” answers?

Also, your example is a great example of you proving my point and disproving your own. Yes, “airplanes are made from light materials” and “airplanes are made with light materials” are both correct in English, but they also both have different nuances. In fact, it is the same exact nuance in English as in Japanese, which you just seem to have completely glossed over.

#4

I apologize that wasn’t helpful. I think I missed the part where it wouldn’t accept any other answers, and looking back at my answer I completely missed some points that would have been helpful.

It could be that an “airplanes” is being considered in this case as a particular category of object, as the sentence is not referring to all vehicles, but specifically “airplanes”. If this sentence were to be considered a part of a broader explanation in which a comparison is being made to “airplanes” as opposed to other vehicles, it would make sense that they are trying to use the more “specific” form of the grammar, as the sentence would be specifying “airplanes” against other vehicles, and likewise, “light materials” as opposed to other materials would be more obvious given the context.

Since we don’t have the context, though, we can assume a comparison is being made from the use of the particle は, which is often used to make comparisons against other things, as seen at the bottom of the grammar point explanation. That sort of thing can be hard to suss out, since we are usually only given one sentence in Bunpro’s cloze and have no way to know for sure if that is actually the case, so we just have to guess and it can lead to confusing situations like the one you encountered.

Hopefully that helps a little. I apologize again, I am not experienced at answering questions on here, but I wanted to try since it seemed no one else would :sweat:

2 Likes
#5

Sorry, I might have been a little harsh. This is very helpful and answers my question quite thoroughly, thanks!

1 Like