Re: Genitives NPs as Relative Clauses
| From: | Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, November 16, 2001, 16:43 |
|---|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:34:14 -0000, D Tse <exponent@...> wrote:
><<
>I've been taught that this "no" had nothing to do with the genitive
>marker "no"
>but was a short form of "mono": (concrete) thing, used to nominalise
>subclauses
>to use them as subjects or objects of sentences (that's why it's
>followed in
>your examples with the object postposition "o". In Japanese, with the
>exception
>of the topic marker "wa" which can follow other postpositions,
>postpositions
>cannot follow each other).
>>>
>
>I haven't been taught that...could anyone verify its veracity?
Yes, Christophe is right about the two different no's. At least two
Japanese grammars that I read contained lengthy paragraphs on how to
distinguish between them.
As for the contraction from _mono_, I'm not sure. I vaguely remember
an article arguing against that, and it left an impression that it's a
rather obscure issue.
Basilius
Reply