A sentence in my book:

これは、漢字{かんじ}持{も}つ体系的{たいけいてき}なつながりを明{あき}らかにして文化勲章{ぶんかくんしょう}を受{う}けた漢字学{かんじがく}の第一人者{だいいちにんしゃ}、 白川{しらかわ}静{しずか}さんに、漢字の成{な}り立{た}ちを一つ{ひとつ}一つ{ひとつ}教{おし}えてもらった本{ほん}です。

The very start of the sentence reads: "これは、漢字 持つ...."

Why is the 助詞 "が" instead of " "?
Isn't "漢字" the direct object of "持つ"?

  • No. 漢字が体系的なつながりを持つ -> 漢字が持つ体系的なつながり
    – Yang Muye
    Jun 6 '15 at 18:44
  • @YangMuye I'm not getting it. You're saying that the object of "持つ" is "つながり". So, just to be clear, in textbooks, it is sometimes ok to place a verb before its object? wow. I did not know that. please confirm.
    – Wrythe
    Jun 6 '15 at 18:51
  • It can easily be argued that the answer to 'Can が ever mark a direct object?' is 'yes' (see The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, pages 141-155), but I don't think that's really relevant to your example sentence. I think the problem you're having here is parsing the sentence properly.
    – user1478
    Jun 6 '15 at 18:54
  • @snailboat That first が coupled with no other option (I had thought) for 持つ's object definitely stops me from tokenizing. I can infer much of the meaning, but all those 助詞 are not adding up. As a start, I just want to understand the very start. I'll do the rest of the work. Just, what;s going on with "漢字が持つ"...
    – Wrythe
    Jun 6 '15 at 19:09

漢字が持つ is a relative clause. It has a gap in object position:

漢字-が __- 持つ

The gap is filled semantically by the following noun phrase 体系的なつながり:

① ​  漢字-が 体系的なつながり-を 持つ  
② [ 漢字-が ________- 持つ ] 体系的なつながり

These can be translated into English:

① Kanji have a systematic relationship.
② the systematic relationship [ which kanji have __ ]

The details are different in English because of articles and relative pronouns, but hopefully you can see the parallel:

In example ① we have an independent clause (a complete sentence).

In example ② we come up with a noun phrase by relativizing the clause; we pull out one of the arguments and turn it into the head noun that the clause modifies.

  • I'm ignoring whether が would be replaced with は if example ① were really used as a complete sentence. It's simpler theoretically to start with が, and we'd have to use が anyway in the relative clause, so I thought talking about は would be a distraction.
    – user1478
    Jun 6 '15 at 19:30
  • a "gap" in the sentence structure.... I find that so interesting and representative of the language. Even in formal writing, context based inference trumps sentence structure. I can only imagine how unnatural a legally binding document written in Japanese must sound. Anyway, thank you very much!
    – Wrythe
    Jun 6 '15 at 19:55
  • @natlang As demonstrated in snailboat's answer (in the third yellow box), essentially the same exact analysis works with English... Jun 10 '15 at 7:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.