Thanks for your explanation. As you suggested I took a look at Tae Kim, and came up with the following that I think expands on your answer:
The 「の」particle attached at the end of the last clause of a sentence can also convey an explanatory tone to your sentence.
In actuality, while this type of explanatory tone is used all the time, 「のだ」is usually substituted by「んだ」.
The crucial difference between using the explanatory 「の」and not using anything at all is that you are telling the listener, "Look, here's the reason" as opposed to simply imparting new information.
On this as on a few other occasions, (usually whenever I post a thread on this forum), I am left wondering why Minna inserts little grammatical usages that haven't already been discussed by the authors. Are they oversights in the texts, or are such lapses meant to be used by teachers to determine if students are really paying attention? I don't have a teacher, so I thank the kami for JRef!
In the textbook chapter discussing the ~んです construction, (Minna doesn't seem to label many grammatical constructions but this is the "explanatory の" as stated above), it is plainly stated:
"~んです is used in speech; in writing ~のです is used".
Having made this admission, however, I'd like to point out that this was the first time I'd ever seen Minna use ~のです rather than ~んです!
Anyway, thanks very much for your guidance and knowledge!
Let me nitpick a bit by noting that a monotheistic god is usually referred to as "kami-sama". So when you use "kami" it sounds as if you are referring to numerous gods.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.