83124
While translating a book, I noticed early on that こと is often used as a
nominalizer when its placed behind a dictionary-form verb and written in
hiragana. Having jumped back on the translation bandwagon during covid, I re-
noticed this while looking over my early translation notes, such as the use of
こと in the following excerpt from said notes.

> (1) ともかく、 逃げきることだけを考えよう。
>
> Anyhow, my only thoughts are of escape.
>
> (2) そんなことを考えてる僕の耳に、銀髪の外国人の忍{しの}び笑いが聞こえてきた。
>
> Thinking over such things, I accidently hear the silver-haired foreigner’s
> muffled laughter.

Is this observation of こと acting as a nominalizer if it is placed behind a
dictionary-form verb and written in hiragana correct, or merely coincidental?

Edit: I am certain こと doesn't work as a nominalizer if placed behind a
adjective (pre-noun adjectivals excluded from exemption), as in the second
excerpt above, however, any clarification provided if my guess is wrong would
be much appreciated.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T13:49:44.570
83113
2020-12-16T23:47:52.780
2020-12-16T23:16:49.807
7944
26406
question
translation nominalization
Is my understanding of こと correct?
Not quite sure what you are asking here. You are correct that こと is a
nominaliser in sentence 1), and you are correct that it simply means
'thing(s)' in sentence 2).

I may have misunderstood. You seem to be suggesting that maybe こと is always a
nominaliser when it comes after a verb and is never a nominaliser when it
comes after an adjective. But I don't think either of these statements is
generally true. For example 言ったこと could be "the thing I said" rather than
"saying", and 安いこと could be "the fact that it's cheap" rather than "a cheap
thing".

From a strictly grammatical point of view I don't know where to draw the line
in terms of calling something a nominaliser but, personally, it doesn't help
me to think in this way anyway. I just think of こと as a noun which gets
modified by a relative clause. The noun can mean 'thing', 'act', 'case' etc
and the context determines which is most appropriate.

In your first sentence こと may well be a nominaliser but you can just translate
it as the noun 'act' in this case. What kind of act? 逃げきること = the act of
escaping = escaping.

Here's an example with an adjective:

> 高いことを気にしない。  
>  I don't care that it's expensive.

In this sentence こと is a nominaliser but you can just think of it as the noun
'fact'. What kind of fact? The fact that it's expensive.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T23:47:52.780
83124
2020-12-16T23:47:52.780
7944
83113
answer