いたす - Grammar Discussion

Grammar Points
#41

Hey there @11442 !

This seemed like an error on our end so I have changed the hint to say ‘Can you remove something from the beginning?’, when お or ご is included in the answer!

2 Likes
#42

Is there a reason

まだその映画を拝見していないので、一緒に見に行きませんか。

is under the [いたす] grammar point? I’ve aware of the warning about 拝-words and いたす, but that only further confuses me why this question is where it is. It seems like this problem belongs under the kenjougo お〜する. Especially given the hints Bunpro uses - ‘basic humble’ and ‘very humble’.

This seems analogous to having a question like “アパートに猫がいる”, but then testing it under ある, with the rationale being 'you shouldn’t mix up いる/ある”.

#43

Is this sentence another “train” issue, where you are not going humble or low enough, so that you don’t need the ご in front?

やる気のある方を、店員として募集いたします。

I feel like this either should be explained already in the grammar point, or these sentences should have alternate correct answers.

1 Like
#44

Based exclusively on the way the lesson is laid out, my impression would be …店員としてご募集いたします. Since this is marked as an incorrect answer, I assume this must sound weird… But I don’t really understand how to get the correct answer using the “formula” of ご+する verb +いたす in the lesson.

1 Like
#45

From the very beginning, this lesson feels contradictory about how to handle する verbs, specifically the absence/presence of a prefix (お/ご).

The structure section says:

する ￫ いたす <— LINE 1
お + Verb［stem］+ いたします
ご(1) + ［する］ Verb + いたします <— LINE 3

(1) お, limited to ［する］Verbs like: 電話する、勉強する、散歩する

I’m ignoring the (1) footnote for now, because my confusion is more basic than that: LINE 1 and LINE 3 appear to contradict each toher.

LINE 1 of the structure implies that する verbs simply get the する changed to いたす, with no prefix. The lesson content seems to say the same thing (emphasis added):

In the case of する verbs themselves, simply replace する with いたす. For other verbs, add いたす to the ます stem of the verb, while attaching お, or ご to the beginning

But LINE 3 of the structure then talks about how to choose the correct prefix for a する verb. If no prefix is needed for する verb… why do we need to think about which prefix to choose for a する verb?!

The examples add to my confusion, since they propagate the contradictions above. Note that I am not confused about the 拝 exception.

Here is an example that follows the rule from LINE 1 (it does not add a prefix to the する verb):

私たちが用意いたします。

And here is one that follows the rule from LINE 3 (it does add a prefix):

ご案内いたします。

The (1) footnote appears to identify certain verbs which break a pattern, but there are two issues:

  1. I’m not even sure which pattern is being broken. Is it the pattern that する verbs don’t get prefixes? Or is it the normal choice of お vs ご which is being inverted?
  2. I’m not sure what the “like” in [ する］Verbs like: 電話する、勉強する、散歩する means. What is the common thing that makes these verbs like each other?

So when I get a する verb, apparently I have to decide:

  1. Do I add a prefix?
  2. Which prefix do I add?

I think the answer to Q2 is sort of clear. The answer to Q1… I have no idea.

EDIT: I see that the long discussion above addresses some of my issues. It might be nice to have this in the actual lesson.

1 Like
#46

Wow, I came to ask about the train thing and, seeing all the comments, this grammar point seems woefully incomplete.

2 Likes
#47

拝借してもよろしいですか。

Help! Why いたします has this sentence, but the いたします isn’t at the end, instead it’s しても at the start of the sentence? I don’t understand.

1 Like
#48

Posting here for the same reason, I don’t understand why this sample sentence is listed to explain 致す/いたす。Is this a mistake on Bunpro’s part, or are we not understanding something here?

1 Like
#49

I think its there to make users remember not to use itasu in sentences with the kanji 拝 which is an honorific kanji that always takes suru

#50

I think this item could do with an overhaul. I found it really confusing. First, in the structure area you find (emphases mine):

ご + ［する］ Verb + いたす

I take that to mean you should use ご with する-verbs. But in the description it says:

“In the case of する verbs themselves, simply replace する with いたす. For other verbs, add いたす to the ます stem of the verb, while attaching お, or ご to the beginning.”

I take that to mean you don’t need to add the ご. And finally you have both in the examples:

私たちが用意いたします。
こちらからご連絡いたします。

#52

The example sentence leading to this explanation is:
Kenjougo, Permissiveよろしいですか。(拝借する).
The correct response is: 拝借してもよろしいですか

I’m confused as to how the sentence and the explanation are related.

1 Like
#53

This part greatly confused me because the 募集する example has no お in there!

1 Like
#54

Yep, this lesson is still a huge pile of confusion, taken at face value. I do think there is some discussion above that helps (specifically comment#39), but I’ve forgotten that nuance multiple times already. And when I get a question wrong in a review (because my memory is not perfect), I don’t come to this thread and read all 50 comments. I go to the lesson, and the lesson still does not explain this, so I get puzzled again.

I tried asking an LLM why ご案内いたします has the prefix, but やる気のある方を、店員として募集いたします does not.

Apparently the distinction is that in the first sentence, your action is benefiting the party you’re talking to, so you can use the honorific prefix. The second verb is self-serving, so you cannot. This is consistent with the comment#39 that I linked to above. This distinction is mentioned nowhere in the lesson.

Furthermore, the lesson makes it sound like the prefix only gets used for non-suru verbs (since it says for suru verbs you “simply” change the ending). But the 案内 example breaks that rule, another problem with the lesson as presented. To be more clear:

In the case of する verbs themselves, simply replace する with いたす. For other verbs, add いたす to the ます stem of the verb, while attaching お, or ご to the beginning (depending on whether it is a word of Japanese or Chinese origin).

That makes it sound like the prefix is only added to non-suru verbs (since the prefix is only mentioned in the “for other verbs” sentence). This is clearly not true, even from the examples given immediately below inside of the structure section. So AFAICT (this is largely for my own benefit next time I end up confused here):

  • Whether or not the verb is a suru verb only really affects the mechanics of how you attach the itasu suffix (i.e. retaining the masu stem vs entirely replacing the suru). It has no bearing on the optional honorific prefix (other than the fact that 99% of suru verbs are Chinese origin).
  • The presence of the prefix depends entirely on whether or not your action is benefiting the other party (with the exception of those special “worship” type verbs).
  • The selection of prefix (when needed) has to do with the Chinese vs Japanese thing.
1 Like