grammar - What verb form is くださねばなるまい

The following is from a mystery manga. The criminal mastermind is lamenting that his accomplice Masumi failed to properly kill Kimisawa.

ますみの奴・・・
最後の最後でしくじったな
あの至近距離でよもや急所をはずす

君沢ユリエのケガの具合によっては (new bubble if relevant)
また私が直接手をくださねばなるまい

Basic idea I hope: "That damn Masumi messed up right at the last minute. She missed a vital point from point blank range. Depending on Kimisawa Yurie's condition, ..."

I am having trouble understanding the last sentence, particularly the bold part. I have heard of the negative volitional form and assume that なるまい means the speaker has a strong will for something to not occur. This understanding however does not seem to be consistent with the によっては part. It seems to me that an action should follow and not a "will that a state not occur".

I am also uncertain about what form くださねば actually is. I am familiar with くだせば, くださなければ, くださせば but not the given form.

I also wonder why the speaker used はずす rather than はずした. The action of missing the vital point is clearly completed and in the past so why treat it as though it is not?

Answer

くださねば is くださなければ written in 文語 (classical Japanese).

私が直接手をくださねばなるまい。
I would not help doing it myself.

---

よもや is a negative polarity item (i.e., expects a negative predicate after it). From 明鏡国語辞典:

よも‐や
副 《多く打ち消しを伴って》 ほとんどありえないという気持ちを表す。まさか。いくらなんでも。万が一にも。「━来ないということはあるまい」

So we can tell a main predicate is omitted after はずす, and the tense of はずす is relative to the omitted verb. The "full" sentence would be something like あの至近距離でよもや急所をはずすとは思わなかった or よもや急所をはずすとは信じられない. I hope these はずす now look natural to you.

binding of isaac - Did HaShem ever command a Navi (Prophet) to break a law?

It’s well known that Avraham kept the entire Torah which clearly prohibits human sacrifice, but once HaShem tells him to sacrifice Yitzchak he was willing to break that law. So obviously HaShem can suspend the Torah’s laws. Is there any other case where HaShem asks a Navi to do something contrary to the Torah?

audio - Estimating onset time of a tone burst in noise?

What techniques might one use to estimate the onset time of a sinusoidal tone burst in a noisy signal?

Assume the tone burst has a known fixed frequency (but unknown phase) and a very sharp rise time, and that the goal is to estimate the onset time within better than half the rise time, and/or one period of the frequency of the tone, if possible. How might the estimation techniques change if the S/N ratio is very low (much less than 1)?

Added: Assume the tone burst is of unknown length, but longer than a small multiple of the rise time and the frequency period.

Added: A DFT/FFT shows the very probable existence of a tone. The problem is figuring out exactly precisely where in the FFT window the tone (or perhaps multiple tone bursts of the same frequency) may have started within the FFT window, or determining if the current tone started outside that DFT window, provided I have all that additional time domain data.

Radar pulse detection accuracy is closer to the resolution I need, except I only have an edge, as the tone is of unknown length, and, other than a known rise time, unmodulated. Narrow band pass filters distort the rise time, and thus kill edge arrival estimation resolution.

organic chemistry - Is this disaccharide sucrose?

I want to know if the structure I drew is sucrose or an enantiomer of it.

The One I Made:

---

The one on internet:

Answer

Those are the same molecules - the fructose part has just been rotated about the glycosidic bond (the oxygen between the two).

Enantiomers are molecules that have the same formula, but are non-superimposable - there have to be differences in chirality. If you can superimpose the structures by rotating about a bond or by rotating the molecule, it is not an enantiomer.

usage - Difference between ます and です

As a total beginner I noticed that sometimes simple sentences end with ます and sometimes with です. What is the difference?

Thanks

Answer

Another beginner answering here.

ます is a (polite) verb ending. The verb to eat (食べる) for example can be conjugated to 食べます, which can be used in polite speech.

です is a state of being, also to be used in polite conversations and can be roughly translated as a conjugated "to be". Example: 私はドイツ人です (I'm German)

What does the Clausius Inequality mean in thermodynamics? (entropy)

$$\delta S\ge\frac{\delta q}T$$

I don't understand how a quantity (the change in entropy in this case) can be greater than the very thing that defines it ($\mathrm{\frac{\delta q}{T}}$).

Also what is the significance of this inequality?

organic chemistry - Comparing basic strength of nitrogen heterocycles

Compare the basic strength of the following compounds:

1. d > b > c > a


2. c > b > a > d


3. c > a > b > d


4. a > d > c > b

I know that in compound (c), the π-bond between nitrogen and cyclopropenyl will polarize (due to aromatic stability) such that it increases electron density of the nitrogenous ring. Whereas, in compound (d), the π-bond will polarize reducing the electron density of nitrogenous ring. Hence, comparing compounds with similar nitrogenous rings, I get that the basic strength of (c)>(b)and that of (d)<(a). But I thought the ring containing more number of nitrogen atoms will be more basic as there will be more lone pair donors, so I thought the answer to be option (4), but the correct answer happens to be option (2). I would like to know that how is basic strength of the nitrogenous rings being compared?

Answer

It is likely that the electron pair (from the HOMO) being donated to the acid is from a π molecular orbital. Since the π bond is rather weak, the π electrons should be rather high in energy and is thus able to interact well with the LUMO of the acid. When nitrogen atoms are incorporated into the π system, the energy of the HOMO is lowered due to the high electronegativity of N. Thus, incorporation of N atoms into the system would decrease the basicity of the molecular ion. As such, A and D would be inferior bases, compared to B and C.

Choosing between A and D, and between B and C, we would have to base our criteria for the basicity on the extent of delocalisation. In D, the π system is larger, thus greater delocalisation was achieved, with a lowering of the energy of the HOMO. Thus, D is likely to be less basic than A. Similarly, the extent of delocalisation is also larger in C, thus it would have a lower-energy HOMO, compared to B. Thus, B is likely more basic than C.

Therefore, option (2) is likely the correct order of basicity.