80308
I recently discovered that Relative clauses are mostly made with dictionary
form verbs/adjectives, but [ [the answer
here]](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/70352/26406)says my “... sentence
indeed has three relative clauses marked by (1), (2), and (3)” Seeing as (1)
and (3) are both made from past tense verbs, I’m uncertain as to whether they
are relative clauses or not. And if not, what are they, and how is this
unknown construct (D) translated? This, in addition to confusion over whether
a te-form verb + noun construct forms a relative clause or a continuative
clause has me overwhelmed. Therefore, I am reviewing what I know and what I
don’t know or am uncertain of in the list below to see which forms can make
relative clauses.

> (A) 私は右手に同じようなナイフを握っている。 - Known to form a relative clause using the
> な-adjective 同じような, and a noun, ナイフ.

> (B) 私は右手に光るナイフを握っている。 - Known to form a relative clause using the Godan verb
> 光る, and a noun, ナイフ.

> (C) 私は右手に込めてナイフを握っている。- Known to form a continuative clause using the same
> verb + noun format as a relative clause?

> (D) 私は倒れた鉄骨の上に散歩する。 - Once thought to have been a relative clause, now
> unknown construct of past tense verb plus noun.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T19:48:48.830
80307
2020-08-25T00:21:27.687
2020-08-25T00:17:10.533
26406
26406
question
relative-clauses reading-comprehension
Which of the following forms are allowed in relative clauses?
A short answer is that the ta-form can modify a noun as a relative clause,
too.

  * (A) 同じような is not even a verb, so this is usually regarded as a simple sentence with only one independent clause called the _main clause_. No relative clause here.
  * (B) 光る modifies ナイフ as a relative clause ("a knife that is shining" or simply "a shining knife")
  * (C) This is a weird sentence because 込めて doesn't have an object. Did you want to say 右手に力を込めてナイフを握っている? Anyway, there is no relative clause in this sentence because te-form is not attributive (see below).
  * (D) 倒れた modifies 鉄骨 as a relative clause ("a steel frame that fell" or simply "a fallen steel frame"). Also note that you have to say 鉄骨の上 **を** 散歩する.

I didn't want to overwhelm you, but the fact is almost all Japanese predicates
(verbs and adjectives) have both the continuative form
([連用形](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/65936/5010)) and the attributive
(noun-modifying) form (連体形). Almost all 連体形 can form a relative clause
(="noun-modifying clause"). See [this
table](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E_\(%E5%9B%BD%E6%96%87%E6%B3%95\)#%E5%8F%A3%E8%AA%9E).

Here are examples of relative clauses with various **attributive** forms:

  * それを食べる人 people who eat it
  * それを食べたい人 people who want to eat it
  * それを食べた人 people who ate it
  * それを食べるべき人 people who should eat it
  * それを食べられる人 people who can eat it
  * それを食べさせる人 people who make someone eat it
  * それを食べない人 people who don't eat it
  * それを食べそうな人 people who seem to eat it

Note that:

  * All of these verb forms of 食べる are modifying 人 as a relative clause.
  * Almost all 連体形 look identical to 終止形 (dictionary form or predicative form). See [this discussion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/42906/5010) for why these have different names.
  * The te-form and the masu-stem are not included in the list above because these are not attributive ("noun-modifying") forms.

You don't have to remember everything in the linked table now, but please
confirm that **連用形 and 連体形 are always different** for each patterns. This is
exactly how Japanese people tell whether a certain expression is 連用 ("verb-
modifying" or "continue-to-verb") or 連体 ("attributive" or "noun-modifying").
出し is a 連用 form, so it never forms a relative clause.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-24T23:32:54.050
80308
2020-08-25T00:21:27.687
2020-08-25T00:21:27.687
5010
5010
80307
answer