48

In your example, 日本人の知らない is a relative clause, equivalent in meaning to 日本人が知らない. This clause as a whole modifies 日本語, so it means the Japanese that Japanese people don't know. In relative clauses, the subject particle が can be replaced with の: ジョンが買った本 ジョンの買った本 The book John bought This is true in double-subject constructions as well: ...


42

Relative clauses in English In English, relative clauses are formed by removing something, leaving behind a gap. 1a) I kicked the ball 1b) I wrote with the pen 1c) I entered the building 1d) I played in the garden In each example, we'll pull out the bolded noun phrase, leaving behind a gap: 2a) the ball [ which/that/∅ I kicked ____ ] 2b) ...


26

This is called a relative clause, and they are pretty interesting in Japanese. Rules from English do not transfer very well at all. た-form in relative clauses There are two ways to interpret the た-form of a verb in a relative clause: as past as non-past, if: the verb has a 'result state', there is no overt actor, explaining the state change does not ...


18

It's just standard GA-NO conversion. [日本人が知らない]日本語 'Japanese that [Japanese don't know]'


16

In English, the tense of the main clause and relative clauses is usually relative to the time at which the sentence is spoken. I waited until the bus came. You use the past tense on both verbs because both the waiting and the coming happened in the past. But while you were waiting, the bus hadn't come yet! So, relative to the action of waiting, the bus ...


12

First of all, to answer the unasked question, this usage of を is acceptable. In English, as you are no doubt aware, sometimes we need a phrase to describe our nouns. For example: This is an air conditioning shoe. The extra information, though far fetched, tells us why our noun of interest (shoe) is special. Likewise in Japanese we have phrases that ...


11

Unfortunately, there is no easy and clear rule to determine which parsing strategy is correct. The general rule is "Choose the shortest and simplest parsing strategy as long as it makes sense". It depends on the context, your vocabulary, and your common sense. But please don't worry too much — English speakers also do similar things every day. Compare ...


10

A can have two meanings. One is the meaning of A', the other is of B'. Actually, I took A as the same meaning as B' when I read at first. When you say "歌{うた}が好{す}きな彼{かれ}が...", I understand that as "he who likes songs...". However, if you say "彼が好きな歌が..." I take it as "a song or songs he likes..." Generally, "Xが好きなY" has different shades of meaning ...


9

I think there is a slight difference in what the uncertainty is about: … 六十五歳を過ぎ、<unsure>体力的な衰えを感じはじめた</unsure>だろう頃だ。 … <unsure>六十五歳を過ぎ、体力的な衰えを感じはじめた頃</unsure>だろう。 In #1, the uncertainty is less about the actual time frame, and more about what their physical condition had been. In #2, it seems that the uncertainty is ...


9

[時]{とき}を[食]{く}らうもの, which is translated as "Time Devourer" As @bjorn says in the comment, the もの can be [者]{もの} "person/someone", as well as [物]{もの} "thing/object/something". It's (perhaps intentionally) written in Hiragana because it's referring to a monster. Is the もの used as sort of a -er suffix, or does it have a different function? The もの is a ...


9

I'd say it's not a double-headed relative clause, because it's actually 誰か[[[行きたい]人]いる]? That is to say, 誰か is modifying the full predicate of 「行きたい人いる?」. You can scramble to 「行きたい人誰かいる?」, which supports that 誰か is not in the relative clause. However, even with this analysis, it is a somewhat confusing grammatical structure, since 行きたい人 and 誰か could ...


9

あれは魔術師に与えられた祝福(だ) is ambiguous. That is a blessing given to a sorcerer. (the same as あれは魔術師へ与えられた祝福だ, which is unambiguous) That is a blessing given by a sorcerer. (the same as あれは魔術師{から/より}与えられた祝福だ, which is unambiguous) (Replace "blessing" to "blessed item" if you like.) In this case, both seem equally possible, so you have to decide the more plausible ...


8

日本語にも関係節にあたるものは存在します。日本人が関係節を意識しないのは、単純にネイティブスピーカーは母語の文法なんて意識せずに使っているからです(特別なトレーニングを受けていない英語のネイティブスピーカーは a と the の区別をうまく説明できません)。Googleで検索しても日本語文法の情報が上位にヒットしないのは、単純に日本人がその単語を検索するときはたいてい英文法の情報を求めているからです。 英語話者向けの日本語の関係節の説明記事には、例えば以下のようなものがあります。 Relative clauses distinguishing whom/with which/that Wasabi: Japanese Relative Clauses 日本語の関係節には、以下のようなパターンがあります。 ...


8

In addition to naruto's answer, I'd like to point out that the relative clause "that" that's used in English (even in this very sentence) doesn't exist in Japanese, simply because the structure of the language is different. It might be easier to explain using examples. Let's look at your sample sentence in English. I saw the cow that ate vegetables at ...


7

Yes, 「姉がくれた本が好きです。」 is correct. The first が, because it is in a clause that modifies 本, can be also be swapped with の. So 「姉のくれた本が好きです。」 is also correct, and has the same meaning. This is not the only reason that が can appear multiple times in a sentence. Predicates like 好きだ are called "double-ga" or "affective" predicates1. This class also includes 分かる,...


7

Judging from your reply to Gradius’s comment on the question, I am afraid that you have trouble understanding relative clauses. 人間は生き物である。 Human is a creature. 人間は教訓を忘れる生き物である。 Human is a creature which forgets lessons. In addition, …てしまう adds the meaning of “regrettably” or “unfortunately.” 人間は教訓を忘れてしまう生き物である。 Human is a creature which, regrettably, ...


7

To add to psosuna's answer, it's worth noting that the line in question is not a sentence, grammatically speaking. It is a noun phrase, with スカーフ as the main or "head" noun and the preceding portions all describing the scarf. English makes use of relative clauses, with "that" used to coordinate, whereas Japanese allows modifying phrases to directly modify ...


7

目の色が違う猫 Here, Spanish is in an opposite order to Japanese. Where in Spanish you might say "Un gato con ojos de colores diferentes" (A cat with different colored eyes), Japanese normally places its adverbs, adjectives, and noun modifications before the noun. In a literal sense, think of this structure in this form: 目の色が違う猫 "eye's colors are different" ...


7

を is the object marker. 体を冷たくするスプレー is a noun phrase. 服を着た人形 is also a noun phrase. The basic structure of this sentence is AをBにかける. If you think A is 体を冷たくするスプレー and B is 服を着た人形 , the sentence is easy to understand.


6

In the verb+noun construction (in fact, this is a sentence+noun construcion), there is no strict rule that the noun is meant to be a subject for the verb's action. This is the most frequent case but no rule at all. The noun can also be a direct object, an indirect object, or something just associated with the action. Thus, 食べる人 can mean "the person that eats"...


6

It's impossible to parse it as a relative clause because there is only one verb/adjective (ie, 見えます) in the whole sentence. As a rule, each sub-clause must have a verb/adjective. So the real question is: "Which word this 向こうに modifies?" 向こうに can only modify a verb, and 向こうの modifies a noun. Both can be translated as "over there" in English, but you need to ...


6

Consider the comment by @jogloran 警察犬 and わんこ are not necessarily identical. If we were to literally translate 「警察犬をクビになったわんこ」, then we would have something along the lines of "dog that became fired from being a police dog." Dog is not necessarily mentioned twice, but a task and an animal are mentioned. That is, "police dog" and "dog" are mentioned.


6

Judging from your previous questions, perhaps this is the first time you learn about relative clauses. Once you know this keyword, you can find lots of good articles about this topic. Yes, ここにあるレストラン literally means "the restaurant(s) that exist(s) here". A more natural translation is simply "restaurants around here". レストランがここにある。 Restaurants exist here. ...


6

考えさせられる小説 is a correct Japanese expression, and it indeed means "a novel that makes you think (deeply)." (Note that させる/させられる is not necessarily forcible. The use of "force" is too strong.) Technically speaking, 考えさせられる小説 can also mean "the novel that is made to think", but that's nonsense. Grammatically, this is an adverbial-head relative clause made from: ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible