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?

1 Answer 1


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).

You must log in to answer this question.

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