な

[charusu]

Hi everybody,

I was doing some reading on nominalization and I figured out that I don't know all about the uses of な as it relates to state-of-being. On Japanese Nominalization I saw the sample sentence 彼が先生なのを思い出しました - with the comment "If the verb in the phrase is a form of "to be", "da" must be changed to "na" before "no", and to "de aru" before "koto"" - why is this? Can somebody please enumerate the uses of な? Every time I search around I find plenty of literature relating to な-adjectives, but nothing that talks about WHY it is used THIS way.

Another somewhat related side question about な relates to the のだ construction - on Noun-related Particles | Tae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese Tae Kim says:

"To express state of being, when the 「の」 particle is used to convey this explanatory tone, we need to add 「な」 to distinguish it from the 「の」 particle that simply means "of".

（１） ジムのだ。- It is of Jim. (It is Jim's.)
（２） ジムなのだ。- It is Jim (with explanatory tone)."

Why is this? I see how without な the sentence ジムのだ would be ambiguous (with regard to the explanatory tone) - but why is it な that is used - why not any other syllable? Can somebody please tell me the underlying logic behind these uses?'

Thank you very much!

 

[Toritoribe]

な is positioned in the adnominal/adjectival form of the copula だ, but actually is derived from a classical auxiliary verb なり, unlike にてあり/である which is the etymology of だ. な is a vestige of なり, and only used before の, はず, もの, わけ or other formal/nominal nouns in modern Japanese. (Incidentally, な in na-adjectives has the same origin.)



ジムのだ is ALWAYS interpreted as "It's Jim's". It NEVER has the explanatry tone.

誰が窓ガラスを割ったんだ？
Who broke the window?
ジムだ。
It's Jim.(simple statement)

君が窓ガラスを割ったのか？
Did you break the window?
僕じゃない。ジムなんだ。
It's not me. It's Jim.(with explanatory tone)

As you can see the example above, ジムな can be considered the adnominal form of ジムだ.

 

[charusu]

Thank you very much Toritoribe-sensei!

So let me see if I understand:

I want to say (well, the sample sentence wants to say) "I remembered [the fact] that he is a teacher."
So just declaring that "he is a teacher" would simply be 彼が先生だ。

思い出す is a transitive verb, and I need the object of that verb to be "[the fact] that he is a teacher" to be a noun, so I have to nominalize 彼が先生だ.

My dictionary (Amazon.com: A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar (9784789004541): Seiichi Makino, Michio Tsutsui: Books) says that nominalization can occur with verbs, adjectives and nouns* themselves - but 彼が先生だ is neither, it is a clause, so I have to convert the clause to a verb, adjective, or a noun - which I do with the adjectival form of だ, which is な. So the な effectively turns 彼が先生だ into an adjective, then the adjective 彼が先生な is nominalized with の.

*One would have to use this logic with nouns themselves as not to be confused with the possessive function of の.

How does that sound?

Thank you greatly, again!

 

[Toritoribe]

Aside form the fact that "he is a teacher" is more likely 彼は先生だ;-), 1) clauses can be nominalized, and 2) 彼が先生なのを思い出した works perfectly fine. For #1, for instance, in the example 彼女は先生が明日来るのを思い出した, の nominalizes not just the verb 来る but the whole clause 先生が明日来る, since she remembered "teacher will come tomorrow", not just "to come". Probably you misinterpret the explanation in the textbook. As for #2, you can also say 彼が先生だと思い出した(quotational と) or 彼が先生だということを思い出した. なのを sounds more colloquial.

 

[charusu]

Thanks! Should I feel honored that your 3,000th post was made on one of my threads? I think so!

I completely understand the nominalization in 彼女は先生が明日来るのを思い出した and the quotational と in 彼が先生だと思い出した - but since my logic above was wrong I still don't understand why な is used instead of だ in my example sentence. In your example sentence the verb in the clause 先生が明日来る was not changed at all when the clause is nominalized - so why is だ changed in my example sentence? I understand your previous statement about the etymology of な being different from だ - but I'm just not putting it together.

 

[Toritoribe]

Uh, my 3000th post would be this one.

The reason is quite simple. The adnominal form(連体形) and the conclusive form(終止形) of verbs are completely the same in modern Japanese, whereas the two forms of the copula だ are different.

 

[charusu]

I meant 3,001st! That's just as good right!?

Now THAT makes sense!

Thank you very much!

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------

So here "da" must be changed to its adnominal form because it is modifying the "generic noun" 'no'? I think the idea of the generic noun ("thing") would make more sense if I had used "koto" - but is that logic correct?

 

[Toritoribe]

Yeah, thanks!

Your interpretation is correct. ～なこと is also acceptable. ～なの or ～だということ is more commonly used, though.

 

[charusu]

Thank you very much!