To ことが or not to ことが, that is my question

[dwcarless]

For instance: I need to eat. I have seen both --
私は食べる必要です
私は食べることが必要です

I understand that that こと (and/or の) can nominalize a base 3 verb. So is there a difference in nuance when using or not using a nominalizer on a verb that is modifying a noun?

Thanks!

 

[undrentide]

私は食べる必要です。
私は食べることが必要です。

The first sentence is incorrect, it's like saying "I need eat" in English.

食べる is a verb and by adding こと you can make it into a noun phrase.
In the second sentence the core of the sentence is 私は必要です (I need) and 食べること is the object.
(I need eating or I need to eat.)

If you want to write the same thing without using ～こと、 you can say
私は食べる必要があります。 (here 食べる predicate 必要, like necessity to eat if literally translated.)
私は食べなくてはなりません。

 

[dwcarless]

Thanks for catching that -- the examples I've seen never use です so it was a mistake for me to present the question that way -- I was in a hurry and wasn't thinking. So let me rephrase the question:

For instance: I need to eat. I have seen both --
私は食べる必要があります
私は食べることが必要です

I understand that こと (and/or の) can nominalize a base 3 verb. So is there a difference in nuance when using or not using a nominalizer on a verb that is modifying a noun?

Again, thanks in advance.

 

[undrentide]

It really depends on the context - as long as your example is concerned, the former is OK, the latter sounds very awkward.
But this awkwardness may not have anthing to do of with or without こと, probably because of the usate of 必要 or its combination with 食べる.

I'm not sure if this is a good example or not, but;
私は運転できる。
私は運転することができる。
The difference of nuance is almost nil with or without using こと.

Hope someone will come up with better examples and explanation...

 

[dwcarless]

Ah ok -- I see what the problem is now. Verb+ ことが can't really modify a true noun -- but it can act as a subject to a adjectival noun predicate: 魚を食べることが好きです. 旬の素材を食べることが大事です.

Thanks -- your explanations helped