25406
I was reading [**Tae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese** on the explanatory 「の」
particle](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/nounparticles#part5)
and was following it very well. I was able to understand the usage of the
**の** particle in the end of sentences to add an explanatory tone. Then, Tae
Kim explained that it's possible to conjugate the **の** particle itself,
creating the following:

  * **んだ** (plain)
  * **んじゃない** (negative)
  * **んだった** (past)
  * **んじゃなかった** (past-negative)

Although confused in the beginning, I believe I was able to understand that as
well. _Except for one example:_

                                         ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YNEYo.png)

                   _(Taken from<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obOAAmHHHVI> @ 08:12)_

**Let's look closely to sentence A.** _(I have no problem with sentence B, I
left it there for completeness.)_

**Why Tae Kim needed two の particles (separately highlighted in red)?
Shouldn't one suffice? Worse, isn't using two wrong?**

This seems like a double explanatory tone. In my point of view, the sentence A
should be **日本 と 同じ なんじゃない** instead of **日本 と 同じ なんじゃないの**.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-24T00:47:00.323
25288
2015-06-28T22:43:51.987
2015-06-28T20:25:32.167
7494
7494
question
particle-の learning
Explanatory 「の」 particle being used twice in the same phrase
の and its shortened version ん work in Japanese usually at the end of
sentences, as a subjective modifier. Example:

> 日本と同じです
>
> It is the same as in Japan.
>
> 日本と同じのです
>
> I don't know if it is the same in Japan, but at least from my point of view,
> I see it as being the same in Japan.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-24T08:35:44.900
25293
2015-06-24T08:35:44.900
4419
25288
answer
じゃない as "isn't it?" is rather special because it can be appended to
practically anything and still be grammatically correct. Also, the two
locations of の are serving different purposes. 同じなの is giving the explanation
of being the same (Tae Kim would probably translate it as "the thing is, it's
the same"), and じゃないの is making じゃない less rhetorical and more inquisitive.

Repetition of concepts doesn't necessarily make things grammatically incorrect
either. Consider the English phrase, "It is, isn't it?" which brings up
another point - casual spoken language is much less strict with grammar than
essays/formal writing, and Tae Kim is demonstrating casual spoken language
with that example. In that case, the best measure of correctness would be a
native speaker's approval.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-28T22:43:51.987
25406
2015-06-28T22:43:51.987
9981
25288
answer