I'm sure something similar to this has been asked already, but I'm hoping this
is a little different. I imagine the nominalizing usage of の is related to its
noun modifying usage, like:

> 食べる **の**

versus

> テーブルの上にリンゴがあった **の** を食べた

but in the first case the usage of こと is permitted, while in the latter it is
not. Assuming these are these are the same の, why can't we use こと in both
cases? Is it something like the の usage came about first, and later the こと
usage was added?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-05T20:45:12.957
19393
2016-12-04T10:46:35.373
2014-11-06T05:58:26.297
question
nominalization
の versus こと in head-internal relative clauses
You could certainly claim more easily that

> テーブルの上にリンゴがあった **もの** を食べた

is grammatical as opposed to the こと version. This sounds a bit strange to me
either way. However,

> I ate the one on the table with apples.

also is a bit confusing to me. It's sort of a garden-pathy sentence. Did you
eat the apple dish sitting on the table or did you eat the dish sitting on a
table also containing apples? For that matter, were you siting on the table
full of apples eating something?

More to the point is that の often abbreviates もの as well as こと.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-07T06:42:17.790
19405
2014-11-07T06:42:17.790
1565
19393
answer
According to
[Wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E#.E6.BA.96.E4.BD.93.E8.A8.80.E5.8A.A9.E8.A9.9E)
(Sorry, I couldn't find more reliable source) the の you've described is the の
of 準体言助詞 .

It seems that this usage of の would magically work as if it were
「こと」「もの」「ところ」, or whatever the appropriate.

To answer your question of "Why can't こと be used instead of の?" the answer is
"Because の has special gramatical usage that can substitute 「こと」「もの」「ところ」 or
whatever".
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-04T10:46:35.373
41451
2016-12-04T10:46:35.373
10859
19393
answer