Can I use the polite form for the first clause here?

5 comments

1. No.

   It doesn’t sound correct.

   I’ve never come across this particular grammar usage. It gives an ‘incorrect’ vibe if you know what I mean.

   Grammatically speaking, you’re not supposed to use polite forms of verbs in both clauses when making sentences as such as these. The ます at the end does the work for the whole sentence.

   BUT BUT BUT I am not a native speaker, I’m also learning Japanese, I might be WRONG. Just go with the safe choice. (Sentence 1) (The second sentence seems kinda off…idk)

2. You can and will be understood, but I would advise you do not as it does sound kind of weird and forcefully polite for no good reason. You are not supposed to use polite forms in clauses that define a noun. 🙂

3. It’s grammatically incorrect, and except in extreme cases, every clause of the sentence will ‘inherit’ the style of the ending verb, so it’s unnecessary.

   Something you *could* do is use itasu instead of suru here, but that is a question of keigo rather than teineigo.

4. If the verb modifies a noun (in this case, 時), it’s better to use していた.

   You could use していました but it will sound exceptionally polite, and in certain contexts comically or even ironically so.

5. Using the polite form here would be what is known as hyperpolite speech and only be used in extreme circumstances such as (but not limited to) showing around the president of a global corporation, giving a speech in parliament or on a stage receiving some kind of award.

   In normal circumstances it will come off as weird.