siorete mo, kareta to iu wake de mo nai.

It can be understood either way, and that is exactly why 〜ても is a little flexible.

• しおれても = しおれて
  • も
• 〜ても often means:
  • even if ...
  • even though ...
  • although ...

In this sentence, the most natural English idea is probably:

• Even if it’s wilted, that doesn’t mean it’s dead
• or more naturally, Just because it’s wilted doesn’t mean it’s dead

So yes, しおれても is built like even if/though it has wilted, but in natural English the whole sentence is often translated less literally.

This is one of the most important vocabulary points in the sentence.

• しおれる means something like to wilt, to droop, or to lose freshness

  • for example, a flower droops because it needs water
  • this may be temporary

• 枯れる means to wither, to dry up, or to die off as a plant

  • this sounds more final
  • the plant or flower is no longer alive or healthy in a recoverable way

So the sentence is contrasting:

• it looks wilted vs.
• it is actually dead/dried up

That contrast is the whole point: wilted is not always the same as dead.

Because the speaker is referring to the state of having withered/died as a completed result.

• 枯れる = to wither / to die
• 枯れた = withered / dried up / has died

In Japanese, the past form often describes a resulting state, not just past time in the English sense. So 枯れた here does not necessarily mean it died in the past at some specific time. It can simply mean:

• it has withered
• it’s dead
• it’s dried up

That is why English may translate it with present wording even though Japanese uses 〜た.

Not literally. In this pattern, という is linking the idea before it to わけ.

So:

• 枯れた = it has withered / it’s dead
• 枯れたという = the idea that it has withered, or to say that it has withered

This という comes from the verb 言う, but in grammar patterns like this it often works more like a connector than a literal act of speaking.

So you do not need to imagine someone actually saying 枯れた out loud. It is more like:

• the conclusion that it’s dead
• the claim that it’s dead
• the idea that it’s dead

わけ literally can mean something like reason, circumstances, conclusion, or the case. But in patterns like this, it is best learned as part of a set phrase.

Here the important chunk is:

• 〜というわけではない
• 〜というわけでもない

This means:

• it does not mean that ...
• it’s not that ...
• it’s not necessarily the case that ...

So in this sentence:

• 枯れたというわけでもない means
• it doesn’t necessarily mean it has withered
• it’s not that it’s dead
• that doesn’t mean it’s dead

You will understand it much better if you treat というわけでもない as one grammar pattern rather than trying to translate わけ word-by-word every time.

Both exist, and both are very similar, but でもない often sounds a little softer or less absolute in patterns like this.

Compare:

• 〜というわけではない
  = it is not the case that ...
• 〜というわけでもない
  = it is not necessarily the case that ... / it’s not exactly that ...

In real usage, 〜というわけでもない often carries a nuance of partial denial or soft correction. It can feel like:

• I’m not saying that ...
• That doesn’t automatically mean ...
• It’s not necessarily true that ...

So here, 枯れたというわけでもない sounds very natural because the speaker is rejecting an over-strong conclusion: wilted appearance does not automatically equal death.

They are doing completely different jobs.

1. The first も is in しおれても

   • this is the grammar pattern 〜ても
   • it means even if, even though, although

2. The second も is in わけでもない

   • this is part of the pattern 〜というわけでもない
   • it adds a nuance like not necessarily, not exactly, not really

So even though both are written も, they are not the same kind of も in function.

Yes, the subject is omitted, which is very normal in Japanese.

From the words しおれる and 枯れる, the implied subject is probably something like:

• a flower
• a plant
• a leaf
• vegetables
• something living or fresh that can wilt

Japanese often leaves out the subject when it is obvious from context. So the sentence can stand on its own if everyone already knows what is being discussed.

In English, you usually have to add something:

• Even if the flower is wilted, that doesn’t mean it’s dead.
• Just because the plant is drooping doesn’t mean it has dried up.

It is understandable, but it sounds stiff in English.

A more natural translation would be something like:

• Just because it’s wilted doesn’t mean it’s dead.
• Even if it’s wilted, that doesn’t mean it has died.
• It may be wilted, but that doesn’t mean it’s withered.

This is a good example of where the grammar maps cleanly in Japanese, but natural English prefers a different phrasing.

It is more like a concession here.

A condition would be more like:

• If it wilts, then ...

A concession is more like:

• Even though it wilted, still ...
• Even if it is wilted, nevertheless ...

This sentence is concessive because the speaker is saying:

• That fact does not lead to the conclusion you might expect

In other words:

• Yes, it’s wilted
• but no, that does not mean it’s dead

That concessive feeling is very common with 〜ても.

It can be either, depending on context.

By itself, it could mean:

• a general truth: Wilting does not necessarily mean death
• a specific comment: This plant may be wilted, but it isn’t necessarily dead

Because Japanese often leaves out subjects and context details, the same sentence can work in both ways. The surrounding conversation would tell you which one it is.

The comma separates the first clause from the main statement:

• しおれても、 = even if it’s wilted,
• 枯れたというわけでもない。 = that doesn’t mean it’s dead.

This comma is natural because the first part sets up a contrast. It is similar to an English comma after an introductory clause.

It is not absolutely required in every possible sentence, but here it helps readability and makes the contrast clearer.