According to another post on the meaning of ~ての:

「Verb in [連用形]{れんようけい} + て + の + Noun」

is a phrase pattern in which the "Verb + て + の" part describes the condition that generates what is expressed by the following noun.

「“[昭和]{しょうわ}な[顔]{かお}”を[買]{か}われての[起用]{きよう}」 means:

"casting based upon his reputation as having the 'Showa-esque face'"

Question: What would then be the difference between

  1. ~ての + Noun: 昭和な顔”を買われての起用 
  2. Attributive + Noun: 昭和な顔”を買われる起用
  • 1
    With the second pattern (verb + noun), the role of the noun is free to be a subject, object, etc. of the verb; it can also be gapless. By contrast, a "condition that generates" something is a more specific relationship.
    – Axe
    Commented Apr 8 at 19:03

1 Answer 1


I don't think they are particularly comparable, but as put in the comment, using a relative clause sounds neutrally explaining the noun (起用) whereas ての implies the 'condition'.

"昭和な顔”を買われる起用 is not idiomatic. It should be "昭和な顔”を買われ起用.

XしてのY can be considered as a nominalization of XしてYした(された). As for the phrase in question, it nominalizes "昭和な顔”を買われて起用された. Due to the standard usage of Xして, it implies the temporal order of X->Y. Using relative clause ("昭和な顔”を買われた起用) lacks the nuance of order.

For another example, 何度も失敗を重ねての成功 means success after many failed attempts, for which 何度も失敗を重ねた成功 is much less natural because of the lack of the nuance on the order (失敗->成功).

  • Does this sound right? => In an English sentence of form "A, and B", there needn't be any close connection between A and B. For example, "I ran to the park yesterday, and I really love bubble gum" might be a weird thing to say without any context, but it's technically 100% grammatical. In Japanese OTOH, AてB grammatically implies a close relationship between A and B, which could be sequential ("after A, B"), causal ("because of A, B"), parallel ("A while B"), contrasting ("A, despite B"), implying a means or method ("perform A via means of B"), etc.
    – George
    Commented Apr 9 at 15:49
  • Thus, AてのB imports this nuance of て into an AのB relationship by implying that B is the result of some sort of sequential/causal/parallel/contrasting/by-means-of relationship with respect to A. AるB loses that close relationship between A and B (which is useful when there is no such close relationship to begin with; otherwise, it's weird to say AるB over AてのB when there is such a close relationship).
    – George
    Commented Apr 9 at 15:50
  • 1
    @George It would be hard to generalize the comparison between AてのB vs AるB. The latter is simply a relative clause, so there are several possibilities what kind of grammatical role B plays in the Aる clause, as commented by Axe. AてのB implies sequentiality mainly because of the aspectual function of て, which suggests A is completed. Thus your first comment looks fine, but as for the second, it is not really AるB loses something, it's just that it does not have the specificity AてのB has.
    – sundowner
    Commented Apr 10 at 15:15
  • What do you mean by the "aspectual function of て, which suggests A is completed"? Aren't there instances of AてB where A is not yet completed? Or do you just mean under most instances of AてB, A is already completed?
    – George
    Commented Apr 10 at 15:49
  • @George I mean, て, like た, means perfect aspect (at least in the usage under discussion). It's not tense, so it does not have to be the case that A was completed, but the whole phrase implies A-completed-then-B. Eg, 何度を失敗を重ねた成功 can be used for a future success where 失敗 has not happened yet, but the whole phrase means 失敗-happened-then-成功.
    – sundowner
    Commented Apr 10 at 21:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .