1

This is kind of a follow-up question to this one: Problem with のが in this sentence

To give a quick overview, in this sentence そこで、マッカーサーが自分で作って見たが地図Aである  had a function I must admit I still can't really explain^^ To me it kind of works like a nominalizer, but if you follow the answers in the thread you will find that it is (also) something else.

However, I thought that this might be worth a new thread: Could one replace の with こと here? Both can be used as nominalizers, and maybe I can better differentiate between の as a mere nominalizer and の in the function of the respective construction above, if someone explains to me why こと can/can't be used here instead of の ^^

3

の is called a nominalizer when it turns a verb into a noun that means "(the act of) ~ing".

  • 食べるのが好きです。
    I like eating.
  • 明日寿司を食べるのを楽しみにしています。
    I am looking forward to eating sushi tomorrow.
  • 晩ご飯を食べるのと風呂に入るの、どっちがいい?
    Which do you like, eating dinner or taking a bath?

This type of の is sometimes interchangeable with こと. For details see this question: What is the difference between the nominalizers こと and の?

However in cleft sentences の does not do that.

  • 明日寿司を食べるのは太郎です。
    It's Taro who will eat sushi tomorrow.
  • 明日太郎が食べるのは寿司です。
    It's sushi that Taro will eat tomorrow.
  • 太郎が寿司を食べるのは明日です。
    It's tomorrow that Taro will eat sushi.
  • 明日太郎が寿司を食べるのは銀座です。
    It's in Ginza (town) that Taro will eat sushi tomorrow.
  • 明日太郎が寿司を食べるのは誕生日だからです。
    It's because it's his birthday that he will eat sushi tomorrow.

In the first sentence の is a placeholder for a person (Taro); in the second sentence, a thing (sushi); in the third sentence, a certain time point (tomorrow); and in the last sentence, a reason!

If you treated this の as a nominalizer, the first sentence would be translated as something like "[×] Eating sushi tomorrow is Taro," which does not make sense.

Finally, this type of の is not interchangeable with こと. You have to always use の to form a cleft sentence.

  • そもそもこの場合「地図」は「こと」ではないような気がするのですが… – broccoli forest Apr 14 '17 at 17:07
  • ごめんなさい、もう少し説明していただけると… – naruto Apr 15 '17 at 0:23
  • あ、すみませんでした。分裂文の焦点側を「こと」で締められないことの説明としては素晴らしいのですが、質問本文を見ると、質問者が「地図」という語を「こと」で受ける前提に立っています。この場合どっちみち「こと」は適用できない気がします。 – broccoli forest Apr 15 '17 at 0:51
2

They are all natural as Japanese sentences and sound almost the same;

  • そこで、マッカーサーが自分で作って見たが地図Aである。
  • そこで、マッカーサーが自分で作って見たものが地図Aである。
  • そこで、マッカーサーが自分で作って見た地図が地図Aである。

But,

  • そこで、マッカーサーが自分で作って見たことが地図Aである。 This is not natural as a Japanese sentence.

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.