Need help with a sentence from Genki 2 Lesson 15 exercises.

[Gleeoch]

The exercise is to answer the question どのレストランに行こうか？ or something along those lines.

I'm supposed to respond with the restaurant we've never been to.


Would this work?
ぜんぜん行くことがあらないレストランに行こう！

Does using the ことがある work in this situation?

Thanks.

Thanks.

 

[Morphling]

過去形+ことがない works here but ある'a negative is ない, not あらない.

行くことがある means sometimes go
行くことはない means no need to go
行ったことがない means never been

Also since your are describing a restaurant it is better to use の instead of が. I'm also not sure of ぜんぜん. 全く maybe better if you want to really emphasize.

まったく行ったことのないレストランに行こう。

 

[Gleeoch]

Ah, thanks for pointing out those mistakes.

So I think this would be lets go to the restaurant we haven't eaten at.
食べたことがないレストランに行こう。

I don't really understand how the の functions in your example.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Toritoribe]

Yeah, the key points are the past form 行った and the negative ない. "The past form + ことがある / ない" expresses experience, whereas "the present form + ことがある / ない" is for future plan or present habit. The particle が, の or は, and the adverb 全然, まったく, 一度も or 今まで（に） are basically interchangeable. ("The present form + ことはない" can mean "no need to do", but it's not always so, especially in a modifying clause.)

の performs as a subject marker (i.e. が) in a modifying clause.

食べたことがないレストラン can be understandable, but 食べたことがない is usually used for 食事 / 食べ物, since we usually don't eat restaurant.;-)

 

[Gleeoch]

haha I didn't even think about it sounding going to the restaurant I haven't eaten yet. Saying "haven't gone to" instead of "haven't eaten at" probably gets the point across just as well so I'll stick with that for now.

Thanks.

 

[LewiiG]

Also since your are describing a restaurant it is better to use の instead of が.

There are rules surrounding which one should be used?

 

[Morphling]

There are rules surrounding which one should be used?

Basically as toritoribe san has implied, you only ever use it in a modifying phrase that's modifying another noun.

 

[Toritoribe]

Yeah, they are basically interchangeable in a modifying(it's also called adnominal, attributive or adjectival) clause. Here's an exception.

は and が part 2: subordinate clauses

 

[LewiiG]

Sorry for the late reply, lost track of what I've posted where. Yeah, I know that they are interchangeable in attributive causes as I learned for the first time on this very website, but what I mean is that, back then I was told "For practical purposes, think of が and の being entirely interchangeable in this usage." So then I was asking, why is it "better to use の instead of が" because "you are describing a restaurant" if they are interchangeable? Am I missing something?

 

[Toritoribe]

No, you aren't missing anything. A case that it's better to use の instead of が doesn't exist(well, at least in Modern Japanese), or rather, there are cases it's necessary to use が instead of の, for instance, when a noun follows right after が, as I wrote previously, or in outside-relations. You can't use 彼の死んだという噂 as the meaning "rumors that he is dead".

 

[LewiiG]

No, you aren't missing anything. A case that it's better to use の instead of が doesn't exist(well, at least in Modern Japanese), or rather, there are cases it's necessary to use が instead of の, for instance, when a noun follows right after が, as I wrote previously, or in outside-relations. You can't use 彼の死んだという噂 as the meaning "rumors that he is dead".

Okay I see. Never knew about the outside relations thing. Interesting. Thanks for clarifying; I thought I missed something important for a second.