This phrase always annoys me.
Does it mean that if you take A, B will automatically follow?
Or, the other way around?
ーーー
これは、「Aが、Bにともなう」と訳し、受動態にした「B is accompanied by A」は、「Bが、Aをともなう」と訳すしかないようです。「他動詞と目的語」は、「何々を」と訳すことが多いのですが、それはこのケースでは能動態の場合には当てはめられず、受動態の場合に「Aをともなう」という訳になります。不思議に思うのですが、どう説明できるのかわかりません。
My conclusion:
A accompanies B = A follows B
Thank you for explaining the usage to me, Steve59Hutch.
Does this mean that if you take B, A will automatically follow with it? A is an accompanying, or secondary, phenomenon of B.
I remember reading an article in Japanese that says urbanization is an accompanying phenomenon of industrialization. It seems that urbanization accompanied industrialization in most European countries.
日本語では、「随伴的」という言葉がaccompanyingに相当します。西欧では産業化に伴って都市化が進んだと言われますが、日本では、産業化以前にも都市への人口集中があり、江戸時代にすでに、江戸（東京）の人口は、ロンドンを超えていました。
well well
as far as i could comprehend the person here inquiring if A is subordinate comes as a result of or B
imagine if there is a piece of green land onto which the rain suddenly stopped the effect of being arid comes after as a result .
thereby it is no more green, B fellow a in this situation A CAUSED B TO COME TO EXIST
accompanyという言葉がなぜ私にとってわかりにくいのか。
AとBが伴う（同時に生起する）と捉えて、どちらが因果的に先行しているのかということが意識されなくなるのではないかと想像します。あるいは、「Bを伴う」と訳してしまっているのかもしれません。
Potatoes usually accompany steak.
これは、ポテトとステーキが一緒なのですが、「ポテトがステーキを伴う」ではなく、「ステーキにポテトが付いてくる」ということなのでしょう。日本語では順序を変えて「ポテトがステーキに付いてくる」ということもできます。英語の場合には主語はポテトです。
英語の場合には、ステーキを主語にするならば、「Steak is usually accompanied by potatoes.」となるのでしょう。これを日本語に無理に訳せば、「ステーキがポテトに付いてこられる」となって不自然な日本語となります。「ステーキにポテトが付いてくる」あるいは「ポテトがステーキに付いてくる」と訳すしかないのではないでしょうか。つまり、日本語では、「ステーキが」とステーキを主語にして表現するのはおかしいということになります。なぜこのようなことがおこるのでしょうか。（ただし、少し変な言い方ですが「ステーキがポテトを伴う」と訳すことはできます。）
How many children are accompanying you?
これも、「何人の子どもが、（おとなの）『あなた』について行くのですか？」という意味ですね。これは、大人のあなたが中心で、子どもがその随行者という意識でしょうか。
I can’t really recall any specific time I’ve heard that phrase.
However, if means that A “goes with” B. Put another way A and B go together.
It’s not about one being secondary, following, or contingent upon the other.
Melania accompanies Donald Trump to most social events.
Bacon often accompanies eggs at breakfast.
“Melania accompanies Donald Trump to most social events.”
Donald Trump is accomplished by Melania. It is Melania that accompanies Donald Trump, although they go together to most social events.
Thunder normally follows lightning, but you might not hear the thunder. Lightening never follows thunder. The time that passed between lightning and thunder shows you how far the lightening was from your place.
Yes this is tricky logic. Without going into too much depth on logic (mainly because I forgot most terminology), I’'ll try to explain. Let’s use different words to say the same thing. A accompanies B, or in other words: If A then B. Now let’s assign categories to the two letters, and I hope you like Star Wars. A equals Jedi and B equals Force users. If you are a Jedi then you must be a Force user (If A then B). However it is not true to say the opposite of that, or if you are a force user then you must be a Jedi. We know this isn’t true because Sith are also force users. So all Jedis are force users, but not all force users are jedis. All A’s are B’s but not all B’s are A’s. This same is true for any example like this that uses “the A accompanies B” or “If A then B” logical formula.
hi there
so you are saying that
(If A then B) = A accompanies B
I my self would agree but in specific context because in other context this maybe not the case
I agree with you.
“A —> B” is different from “B —> A”.
If both “A —> B” and “B —> A” are true, then “A = B”.
Learning the world that is described by the language accompanies learning a new language…
If you learn a new language, you will simultaneously learn the world described by the language.
On the other hand, if you are to study about a society, you might also try to study the language used there. In that case, learning the language accompanies studying about the society. Studying the society is accompanied by learning the language used there. You try to learn the language in order to study about the society. Because you want to study about the society, you are motivated to study the language used there.
@lightofgold : I would be curious to see what context you think of where this does not apply. I cannot think of any. The English is the only thing that is different but has the same logical consequence.
hi smockbee
I would be curious to see what context you think of where this does not apply
do you mean (If A then B) = A accompanies B "
The English is the only thing that is different but has the same logical consequence.
first we write English NOT the English ,
you do not use articles with language ,unless you are referring to the English people, we usually only say “the English language” when speaking about the language in the abstract .
Second
what do you mean by
It is different but has the same logical consequence.
@lightofgold Haha, you’re crazy dude. I did, using your own words, refer to English in the abstract which is why is said the English is the only thing that is different. This means, if you really can’t infer what I mean, that the wording is the only thing that’s different. You got all upset when I asked you to provide an example of your argument (which you still haven’t)? You’re clearly not intellectual if you try to point out random things that have nothing to do with an argument. You’d be great on CNN or Fox News.
hi smockbee
First you called me crazy then you said i am not intellectual ,well. thanks i guess but i think the upset one here is you,and that is because i just asked you to explain your ambiguous words .
Second i did not got upset about any thing ,pal this is a big world with different opiniones and if i am going to be upset about a thing this will be the last thing to be upset about .
Now before we come to the argument in hand , I should remark that their is nothing such as English in abstract or anything else unless you saying the ENGLISH LANGUAGE .
B accompany A what that means ? well let us say that a person takes medicine because he is ill
and he is no more ill . now being cured accompany taking the medicine .
B accompany A, taking the medicine which is A in this case resulted in being cured
which is B in this assumption .
so taking the pill made you better but is that always the case
no the medicine may cause allergy . you see not all the people sufere
from allergy so it is just a side effects in this situation B accompany A
but not as a result but as a side effect .
i daresay that most of the English words hold a different connotion in different context
and the phrases to a less degree
you are saying (If A then B) = A accompanies B
this requires A to follow B but this is not always the case .
You’re clearly not intellectual if you try to point out random things that have nothing to do with an argument. You’d be great on CNN or Fox News.
I do not intend to correct other people errors
but something like the article usage can not be overlooked .
In this example sentence, war causes misery and sorrow, which are supposed to be the results of war.
“A goes with B” and “B goes with A” might convey different meanings.
“Perhaps the Russians heard Trump’s call and heeded it. Perhaps Trump’s invitation was accompanied by a private plea — maybe Paul Manafort or Roger Stone passed along the idea to Russian contacts. Maybe it’s just an unhappy coincidence for the Trump campaign.”
Perhaps a private plea accompanied(=followed) Trump’s invitation.