5243
I know that within an informal/familiar setting, people often leave out
particles. Whether or not this is grammatically correct I'm not positive, but
for the sake of this question, I'll say that it's not.

What I'm talking about are modified nouns without particles that seem to be
grammatically correct. Furthermore, I've never seen them _with_ particles, and
the particle-less form seems to be the only one. Here are a few that seem to
be accepted as particle-less ("accepted" meaning I've found these exact forms
in at least one dictionary).

> 父なる： 父なる神様 → Father God / God the Father  
>  聖なる： 聖なる人々 → (a) holy people  
>  単なる： 単なる過失 → a simple/mere mistake

Here are some others that I've seen/heard before, but not sure if these forms
are accepted as particle-less, or if they are just informally left out (could
not find any of these exact forms in the dictionaries I have).

> 息ある： 息あるもの → living things ("thing that are breathing")  
>  影響ある： 影響ある政治家 → an influential politician  
>  力ある： 力ある人 → a powerful/strong person

My question is, why are certain expressions like this accepted as not having
particles? How did they become this way? Are there many expressions like these
in additions to the ones I put? Is there some type of rule that governs when
an expression can acceptably leave out the particle?

Or am I wrong about the whole thing?

* * *

**Update** : some other examples I remembered:

> 内なる： 内なる人 → Our inner-self; the person we are on the inside  
>  大【おお】いなる： 大いなる功績 → a great achievement
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-04-19T19:44:05.947
5235
2012-04-24T14:48:26.833
2012-04-24T14:48:26.833
542
78
question
grammar words particles set-phrases ellipsis
"Grammatically-correct" particle-less phrases/sayings
For your first three examples, they are predicates within a relative clause,
and they are followed by `なる`, which may be considered a copula, and which
originates from `にある`, and indeed includes a particle `に`.

Your example 影響ある sounds artificial/awkward. It is just simple omission, and
is more natural with が or の (because it is within a relative clause).

息ある and 力ある sounds somewhat idiomatic, departing a little bit from the literal
meaning, so you can consider it as a fixed expression.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-04-20T00:17:41.700
5243
2012-04-20T00:35:38.160
2012-04-20T00:35:38.160
5235
answer
Well in Japanese everything that is considered obvious is can be omitted.

In most cases if you don't have a different possible meaning, that is to say
changing the particle would result in a sensible sentence with a different
meaning, you can simply omit it.

Most of the time it is even considered more correct to omit the particle
because having too many particles in the sentence can make it much harder to
understand.

For example saying 力ある人 will always mean 力を持つ人. however 力がある人 could mean the
same thing or it could mean that 力が is acting another verb later in the
sentence. Take 力がある人にない, without context it could mean either ある人には力がない, or
力ある人にない. This is only a very simple example, consider what would happen if you
had a much longer sentence, the possible areas of confusion far more numerous.

However for non-native speakers this is something that can be very
problematic. The reason being is that non-native speakers tend to often omit
particles when they are required.

In general the basic rules are as follows.

に・へ can be dropped when directly before of a verb that displays movement.

を can be dropped when directly before a verb, unless that verb is acting on 2
similar nouns, since this would cause confusion. An example of this would be
causative forms.

は・が when directly before a verb.

の when chaining nouns together and the omission of the particle produces the
same meaning. For example 日本憲法 and 日本の憲法 are both correct and the same
meaning, however 東京大学 and 東京の大学 are clearly different.

While this is far from complete, it would be impossible to clearly define all
the rules without writing a book on the subject.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-04-24T00:05:36.713
5259
2012-04-24T00:05:36.713
1129
5235
answer