I’ve been encountering them for some time now, but there’s numerous times where I’ve asked why wouldn’t one of those verbs by itself suffice?
For example, a word I’ve encountered in my 2.3k deck: 取り出す – to take out
I know that 取る means to take, and 出す to take out. I’m aware that these compound verbs have some sort of nuance, specificity, or detail to them, but why would I need to use 取り出す when 出す seems like it works on its own?
3 comments
取り to take; 出す – “to out” -> 取り出す – to take out.
出す stands in the dictionary as “to take out”, because “to out” does not exist in English in this literal sense.
These compound verbs very often turn into verb + preposition in English, where the preposition (like the second verb in Japanese) gives the expression some additional nuance.
I might be wrong but i think 取り出す have the nuance that you do more actions than just 出す like you take something with your hand and take it out. In conversation i think it’s fine to use just 出す without any problems though but using compound verbs may sound more native in my opinion
You will have situations when one or another would be a better version. 取り出す includes 取る, and it basically means that you first take something. If you already have something, it would be wrong, because you don’t need to take it anymore. Comparing to 取り出す, 出す alone doesn’t specify if you need to take something and throw (like a garbage) or simply throw that you already have, but when you want to emphasize both actions, 取り出す would be a stronger version. This is a difference of emphasis, if 出す alone is important, or both 取る and 出す play the same role. Look at such example, if you take our your phone, most likely you don’t throw it away. You kinda do both, 取る (you keep it in your hand) and 出す (you pull out it from somewhere to outside). Does this make sense? If we use 出す alone, then it loses it’s 取る nuance, we can pull out our phone for many reasons that wouldn’t include 取る. Like you can place in on a table.