~のない? what's up with this?

I’m listening to Spotify on the commute and found good ol’ EGOIST song here. While the music is dope, the title give me a pause.

『名前のない怪物』

What’s up with the の particle here? AFAIK, this particle glue two noun together to make more specific one, or make a verb usable as something sort-of noun by putting the particle after the verb. In pretty sure that ない is verb, and the の is sitting before it, which makes it kinda weird.

My translation attempt at it comes up as “Monster with name’s unexistence”, which is frankly pretty weird. Seems to be much better served to が particle『名前がない怪物』 which will give us less unwieldy “Monster without name”.

So, what is the nuance with this kind of grammar when compared to が particle in this case? Or is it just the for the Cool Factor™

Thanks!

5 Likes

When が appears in a relative clause (where a clause modifies a noun, as in your example) の can replace it.

It’s not the genitive (possessive) の.

It functions exactly the same as the が it replaced.

This is often preferred by Japanese speakers, because it allows you to not have two が’s come one after another, say, if the 怪物 in that title were to be the subject of a sentence.

の can’t replace が if it’s not part of a relative clause.

I think it’s just another good reminder that there are particles that look the same but aren’t. Kind of like how the conjunctive particle が that means “but” isn’t the subject particle が.

21 Likes

I see. That is interesting. So I’ll use this avenue to review your explanation a bit with my own sentences.


The translation has been edited for more correct one


『車が止まる』“car stops”. Relative clause
『車の止まる』Grammatically incorrect.


『車が止まる少女』“Girl whose car stops”. Relative clause attached to 少女.
『車の止まる少女』practically the same thing as above.


『車が止まる少女があかねちゃんだ』“Girl whose car stops is Akane”. Grammatically correct, but confusing since there’s two subject indicator or が particle.
『車の止まる少女があかねちゃんだ』 Grammatically correct with much clearer subject: “Girl whose car stops”


I think I get the gist of it. Hope there is no mistake there.

I definitely keep this in mind. Thank you, @Leebo!

I don’t think 車が止まる少女 is a good example, it doesn’t really make any sense as far as I can tell. 止まる is intransitive, so it can’t be an action that the girl is doing. I’m not sure if it’s ungrammatical, but I haven’t seen a relative clause used that way before. (Maybe Leebo can give a better opinion on that.) Perhaps a better example would be something like 車がない vs 車のない少女 (“a girl who doesn’t have a car”).

1 Like

The problems seem to be more with the translations. 車が止まる does not mean “the car stopped” and 車が止まる少女 doesn’t mean “girl with stopped car”. 止まる is non-past.

But other than that, it’s not like there’s an issue with the Japanese sentence grammatically, as far as I can tell.

2 Likes

Same here, it sounds like “the car stops girl” or “the car will stop girl,” which doesn’t really make sense to me?

Well, if you put in a proper relative pronoun, like English has, making it “the girl whose car stops” it works out fine. Japanese doesn’t have anything that functions like relative pronouns.

3 Likes

Aha! That makes sense. My tendency to be overly literal strikes again

Thanks!

*See translation again… *

Wow, that is such a silly mistake. Will fix for posterity.

If we use the transitive equivalent 止める, shouldn’t we use を particle instead, no?

『車を止める少女』“Girl who stops car"
『車が止める少女』“Car is stop girl” (?)

That would probably mean “the girl that the car stops”
as in 少女 would take the を particle if the phrase was rearranged

1 Like

I see. That makes sense. Thanks!

I take that『車が止める少女』is equivalent to 『車が少女を止める』then?

1 Like

The basic information would probably be the same. I say “probably” because context can change everything.

This style of clause is also very flexible, for example, you could rearrange the phrase into this too:

少女を止める車
The car that stops the girl

1 Like

@Darcinon Oh, that’s neat. I’ll be playing a lot with shuffling sentences like that. It would be an useful exercise.

Hmm… I’m aware of the term お金持ち, but just to see if I’m grasping this concept correctly:

お金がたくさんある人が運動する場所は
should actually be written
お金のたくさんある人が運動する場所は ?

Hard to think of examples currently, but that’s the best I got. lol

1 Like

They’re both valid ways to say it, but の is sometimes clearer.

2 Likes

Ahhh, ok. Thank you.

1 Like

Good timing, just as I was scratching my head on the meaning of 「~人気のない所でございます。」

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.