Sometimes, particles are omitted.

I've read, however, that this can be analyzed as inserting a "zero particle" instead. See for example Particle omission or zero particle by Mitsuaki Shimojo. See also Matt's comment on a related question.

Are there situations where a zero particle is required? That is, situations where adding any particle would change the meaning or make the sentence incorrect?

Are there situations where a zero particle is strongly preferred?


I can think of one instance -- a noun phrase with も "also" cannot also take は/が/を. Because the NP still has grammatical case despite having non-overt case, this can be analysed as the topic/subject/object marker being obligatorily zero.

This isn't the case for other particles like だけ or など though.

  • 5
    (1) Although it is true that が and を are usually omitted when used with も, the combination もが and をも also exist. (2) は is not a case particle. I think that がは→は is a better example of obligatory omission of a case particle. – Tsuyoshi Ito Oct 10 '12 at 11:34
  • True enough, but I think をも is a fossilised form in the modern language. – jogloran Oct 10 '12 at 12:28
  • 3
    @jogloran: I hear をも all the time. – istrasci Oct 10 '12 at 14:30
  • 1
    @istrasci: From Martin "A Reference Grammar of Japanese" §2.3: "In standard spoken Japanese these two particles are obligatorily suppressed... where we would expect N ga wa/mo and N o wa/mo we find only N wa/mo: the opposition of the prime cases of subject vs. object are neutralised." This might be a development in the language, a register difference, or else the grammar might be plain wrong. – jogloran Oct 10 '12 at 22:40

Yes, when the subject of a sentence of neutral description (現象文) is pronoun これ・それ or a noun modified with この・その.

(Opening the refrigerator) あっ、この納豆 φ 腐ってる!

Without この that would be あっ、納豆が腐ってる!.

この納豆が腐ってる is "it is this natto that is rotten" and would be ungrammatical for a sentence of neutral description. この納豆は… would be a contrasive sentence.

  • But I say あっ、納豆腐ってる! – user1016 Apr 11 '14 at 9:23
  • Me too. That can be considered omittion of が as well because using が is obviously fine too. – user4092 Apr 11 '14 at 9:48

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.