7075
Sometimes, particles are omitted.

I've read, however, that this can be analyzed as inserting a "zero particle"
instead. See for example [Particle omission or zero
particle](https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6178/3167)
by Mitsuaki Shimojo. See also [Matt's comment on a related
question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-
guidelines-of-omitting-particles#comment7168_3152).

Are there situations where a zero particle is required? That is, situations
where adding any particle would change the meaning or make the sentence
incorrect?

Are there situations where a zero particle is strongly preferred?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-10T02:21:57.607
7073
2014-04-11T09:53:19.373
2017-04-13T12:43:44.863
-1
question
grammar particles zero-particle
Obligatory zero particle
I can think of one instance -- a noun phrase with も "also" cannot also take
は/が/を. Because the NP still has grammatical case despite having non-overt
case, this can be analysed as the topic/subject/object marker being
obligatorily zero.

This isn't the case for other particles like だけ or など though.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-10T06:26:52.100
7075
2012-10-10T06:26:52.100
816
7073
answer
Yes, when the subject of a sentence of neutral description (現象文) is pronoun
これ・それ or a noun modified with この・その.

(Opening the refrigerator) あっ、この納豆 φ 腐ってる！

Without この that would be あっ、納豆が腐ってる！.

この納豆が腐ってる is "it is this natto that is rotten" and would be ungrammatical for
a sentence of neutral description. この納豆は… would be a contrasive sentence.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-11T03:33:54.633
15381
2014-04-11T09:53:19.373
2014-04-11T09:53:19.373
4092
4092
7073
answer