I’m too tired to try to read that now on my phone, but I’ll check it out tomorrow. Thanks 
np. I think I could find something better, but theres actually very little on this from what ive found. neg+sugiru seems pretty rare in and of itself which makes it all the more difficult.
1 Like
For some reason いい and ない need to be よさ and なさ for certain grammar constructions. For instance, for そう (the one that means ‘looks like’, not the hearsay そう) even though for every other i-adjective you just append it to the end like 面白そう or 美味しそう, ない and いい are なさそう and よさそう. I honestly can’t tell you what the historical reasons for that are, but I thought it was worth mentioning that this isn’t unique to すぎる, it’s a more general property of いい and ない.
1 Like
The second answer to this question (the one that actually attempts to address the “why”) covers a little history, but doesn’t really provide a reason, just that it did start without the added syllable, and then later it was added.
2 Likes
I just came across this sentence “それを一つください” and I don’t understand why the を particle is being used.
I’ve learned that you use を this way: nounをverb. それ is a pronoun (I guess that still counts as a noun?) and 一つ should be a noun unless it’s used as an adverbial noun where it would mean “just” instead of “one”, so this shouldn’t apply to this sentence then, right?
それ is a noun (yes, pronouns count). 一つ is a number/counter (not a noun in this context I think). So を is used on それ.
Regardless of the technical terms, you don’t put を after counters.
So here, をis being used to connect それ with the counter 一つ and makes the entire expression “それを一つ” a noun phrase that then receives the action of the verb
ください acts as the verb here meaning “please give me”, so altogether “Please give me one of that” or more naturally in English, “One of those please”
The structure here is: (Noun) (Particle) (Number + Counter) (Verb/Verb Phrase)
I found this explanation of the structure when using を with counters on stackexchange
2 Likes
I don’t get it… In this person’s example and explanation, the direct object (くつを一足とくつ下を四足 according to him) isn’t marked with を. If you just said そのくつをください your direct object そのくつ is marked with を so why wouldn’t you mark the whole noun phrase with を in the other example?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking …
I guess I’m just not understanding that stackexchange answer saying that を is not for marking the direct object when used with counters.
Construction without counter:
(Noun Phrase) + を + (Verb)
Construction with counter:
(Noun Phrase) + を + (Number+Counter) + (Verb)
を still seems like it marks the direct object in this version.
Now take the example from the stackexchange answer:
「くつを一足とくつ下を四足買いました」
Should we include the counters as part of the direct object? Well a direct object applies to a noun. The phrase
noun+number+counteris a noun phrase, acting as a noun. So I would say yes.
Based on this he’s saying 「くつを一足とくつ下を四足」is a noun phrase. If that’s the case, the sentence goes (Noun Phrase) + (Verb) since it’s missing the を before 買いました. If that is a noun phrase, shouldn’t the full sentence be 「くつを一足とくつ下を四足を買いました」even though now there’d be three をs?
In summary: I’m confused.
My understanding is that though the counters are included in the entire noun phrase, they’re individually acting as adverbs, so you wouldn’t put a particle after them, and instead directly proceed to the verb
If you were to say そのくつをください, くつ is a noun so it needs to be marked by the particle を before proceeding to the verb/verb phrase
Edit:
To explain this part of your question, 四足 would be acting as an adverb and would thus not be marked by を
After reading around a bit, it seems that the what seems to be the best answer is right here in that there are actually two different ない’s that exist.
1 Like
I get all that, but none of that really explains why it’s okay to have two をs in the same clause.
I get that 「くつを一足とくつ下を四足を買いました」(with the third を) would not be correct. I was using that to make the point that I don’t see how 「くつを一足とくつ下を四足買いました」(original sentence with two をs) could be correct either, at least not based on the explanation they gave.
Your explanation about the counters being like adverbs makes a lot of sense and is a good way to look at it, but unfortunately doesn’t help with my confusion.
Ah, gotcha! Sorry, I misunderstood your question 
Since both くつ and くつ下 are receiving the action of 買う, they would be parsed as two individual adverbial phrases「くつを一足」 and 「くつ下を四足」
So then と serves the purpose of connecting the two phrases so that they both receive the action of 買う: 「くつを一足とくつ下を四足買いました」
Hope that makes more sense!
1 Like
But if you remove the counters you wouldn’t say 靴をと靴下を買いました. 
I’ll just have to chalk it up to one of those lovely inconsistencies in the language.
The purpose of the を’s in the phrases are not as direct object markers in this case, they’re being used to connect the counters to the nouns, so it wouldn’t make sense to take out the counters and leave the を, you’d have to remove those too. This would leave you with 靴と靴下を買いました, where the newly introduced を is acting as the object marker
3 Likes
Neat. I did not know を could do other things… I should probably learn some grammar.
3 Likes
Really interesting, thanks for the thorough explanations!
I think the fact that を is being used as the connector still has something to do with the nouns being the objects of the sentence, or am I wrong? I think so because in a different sentence I came across some time ago, the same happens with が:
へやに猫が四匹と犬が二匹います。
So to me it seems that the particle just goes between the noun and the counter. And we need to duplicate the particle because we need it twice, once for each noun-counter pair.
So this does not seem to be a specialty of を , other particles can do that as well.
2 Likes
Yeah, I focused on explaining why を was there and its function because of OP’s particular question, but other particles can most definitely be used
So the particle can vary within this structure
Ah, got it! Thanks
1 Like