I just read this clause (as a definition of 独特):


I first understood it in a way, that "[Something] has only this thing.", instead "Only this thing has [something]". Now I'm kind of doubting my own language skills, and whether my confusion is justified. I think if I would have written the same sentence as:




Do my versions sound natural as well? If not, why not? Also, how would you have translated "[Something] has only this thing." with "something" being omitted and without being ambiguous?


Since こと (circumstance/issue) is a word with little animacy, そのものだけはあることが有していること doesn't really make sense.

そのものだけは有していること is ambiguous if そのもの is the subject or the object.

"[Something] has only this thing." can be expressed as (何かが)これだけを有する(こと).

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.