> ずっとお母さんがコーチは嫌だ  
>  I don't want my mom to always be my coach.

I am wondering what grammatical role お母さんがコーチ takes. Is it a noun phrase? Why
is there nothing between コーチ and は. Also do these work?

> ずっとお母さんがコーチなのは嫌だ
>
> ずっとお母さんがコーチだって嫌だ

I'm also trying to make sense of a sentence of similar construction.

> 高校にはいるまで、浩治はずっとお父さんがコーチのクラブチームで野球をやってきましたから、野球でいやな目にあうなんてことはなかったんです。

Why does it work without having to be お父さんがコーチであるクラブチーム? の marked relative
clause?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T22:48:32.910
95603
2022-08-01T02:44:13.250
30454
question
grammar syntax relative-clauses
「ずっとお母さんがコーチは嫌だ」
ずっとお母さんがコーチなのは嫌だ ◎

[or ◎(normal)コーチだなんて、◎(written expression)コーチなどというのは、○(informal)コーチっていうのは]

ずっとお母さんがコーチだって嫌だ X (wrong)

These sentences is possible to be separated into the following sentences.

“ずっとお母さんがコーチ” なのは嫌だ。

“ずっとお母さんがコーチ” entire of this sentence is doing a role of NP (noun phrase) in
this sentence.

So these sentence are supposed to be translated into “I don’t want my mother
to be coach for a long time.”

(In Japan,coach (コーチ) just means instructor of the club activity.)

父さんがコーチのクラブチーム

This の grammar is called 「格助詞」(case-marking particle) Strictly there are three
usages of 格助詞 but in this case,this の is used express the relationships
between nouns and nouns. And furthermore,this grammar which is used to express
the relationships between nouns and nouns is separated into 4 usages. To
express

> 1,Possession

> 2,Belongings

> 3,Disposition

> 4,Superordinate and subordinate words.(上位語と下位語)

お父さんがコーチのクラブチーム In this sentence,there is の between コーチ and club team. This
usage is 4th one. Called 上位語と下位語(Superordinate and subordinate words.) In this
usage,this の is interchangeable with 〜である So it means, “The club team which my
father is coaching.”
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-30T02:50:41.683
95607
2022-07-30T03:51:18.863
2022-07-30T03:51:18.863
52012
52012
95603
answer
I feel ずっとお母さんがコーチ is a noun phrase that has been nominalized without an
explicit nominalizer. [This
sentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/95259/5010) may be understood
the same way. I don't know the rule as to when this is allowed, but I think
this "implicit nominalization" happens only with nouns and suru-verbs (usually
in informal Japanese).

  * ずっとお母さんがコーチがいい。
  * あの人が犯人でいいと思う。
  * 彼女が優勝は信じられない。
  * 僕が発表より彼が発表の方がいいと思います。
  * お酒飲んでから運転は絶対にダメ。  
(お酒飲んでから **の** 運転は or お酒飲んでから運転 **する** のは is the "standard" form, but の can be
omitted for some reason)

  * ひとりで勉強は大変です。
  * 渋谷でディナーは久しぶりです。

The following does not work:

  * ❌ 1人で学ぶは大変です。: Wrong

* * *

お父さんがコーチのクラブチーム is an example of something that can be called a の-marked
relative clause. A double-subject sentence `AはBがNだ` can become `BがNのA`. For
example, この本は表紙が緑色だ → 表紙が緑色の本 (green-covered book), この魔物は頭が鳥だ → 頭が鳥の魔物 (bird-
headed monster).
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-01T01:58:20.150
95634
2022-08-01T02:44:13.250
2022-08-01T02:44:13.250
5010
5010
95603
answer