Return to Question

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

 

[a] よいにしろ悪いにしろ

 

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

 

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would よくしろ悪くしろ still be grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

[a] よいにしろ悪いにしろ

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would よくしろ悪くしろ still be grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

[a] よいにしろ悪いにしろ

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would よくしろ悪くしろ still be grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

[a] よいにしろ悪いにしろ

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would よくしろ悪くしろ still be grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

• よいにしろ悪いにしろ

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why does the adjective not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would it be still grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~かれ~かれ",

Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation:

Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, こと and もの are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word.

Previously being examined:

良かれ悪しかれ has a modern grammar rendition:

[a] よいにしろ悪いにしろ

It is observed that the declension of the adjective is い instead of く as one would normally expect of い-adjectives when used with a verb.

Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour.

Question:

• Why does zero-nominalisation occur?

• Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the く declension (along with deletion of the に　particle)? Would よくしろ悪くしろ still be grammatical?

• In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?