How did the の get in the expression 「◯◯のバカ!」? Was the expression originally
longer? Is there any other example of usage other than insults?

(other example I know of: 「つよし君のエッチ!」 or anything to the same effect)

Edit: Another example by Pacerier: 「Tsunadeのばあさん」. Seeing that バカ is also a
noun, that would make them similar grammatically.

Edit 2: Or maybe not. I think what I hear in old-fashioned candy stores are
surnames, not first names, e.g. 高橋のばあさん, whereas it would mean "the grandma of
Takahashi household (whose store sells candies)". I don't know if Tsunade is a
surname or not though.

I did a quick search and miraculously, one BBS that is discussing construct
uses the exact same sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」:
<http://mentai.hanako.2ch.net/gengo/kako/981/981698334.html>
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-25T07:40:37.210
2845
2012-06-09T03:48:08.923
2011-08-25T15:01:23.193
154
154
question
particle-の
What is the role of の in 「お父さんのバカ!」
This `の` is not the possessive-genitive like English `'s`, but is the of-
genitive like English `of`. English has a similar expression `stupid of my
father`. Genitive case is the case that a noun can assign to a noun, and since
the predicate `ばか` here is a(n) (adjectival) noun, genitive case is used.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-25T10:03:39.083
2848
2011-08-25T20:46:30.953
2011-08-25T20:46:30.953
2845
answer
It's very common, and is not a possessive.

I usually translate this kind of AのB as "B the A". お父さんのバカ is "father the
idiot", or more naturally "that idiot father". Another example is I was given
ages ago was "犬のボビー" for "Bobby the dog". I sometimes introduce myself as
"フランス人のX" (where X is my real secret identity) which is again a similar
construction.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-25T10:55:35.980
2849
2011-08-25T10:55:35.980
356
2845
answer
Some people (e.g. Samuel E. Martin, John R. Bentley, Alexander Vovin) argue
that this の is actually (or originally) a "defective verb", distinct from
genitive の. Here's Vovin's explanation, from "A reference grammar of early
Japanese prose" (2003):

> 5.2.1.4 Defective verbs  
>  
> The traditional grammar makes no mention of defective verbs, these being
> verbs with fewer paradigmatic forms than other verbs. There are three
> defective verbs in Classical Japanese, _n-_ "to be", _to_ "to say", and _to_
> "to be". I include below a detailed description of the existing paradigmatic
> forms of these defective verbs.  
>  
> 5.1.2.4.1 Defective verb _n-_ "to be"  
>  
> The defective verb _n-_ "to be" has only three paradigmatic forms:
> infinitive _n-i_ , gerund _n-ite_ , and attributive _n-o_. Its major
> function is that of a copula. Samuel E. Martin was the first scholar who
> proposed to treat the various forms of _n-_ as rudimentary copula forms
> (Martin 1988:34). In traditional Japanese grammar they are usually treated
> as 接続助詞 "connective particles" (Ikeda 1975:205-218). [...]  
>  
>  5.1.2.4.1.3 Attributive form of the defective verb _n-_ "to be"  
>  
>  The function of the attributive form _n-o_ is the same as that of its
> modern counterpart _no_ in the Modern Japanese examples _tomodati no
> gakusei_ "a student who is [my] friend", _mei no Sumiko_ "Sumiko who is [my]
> niece". [...]  
>  
>  竹とりの翁  
>  Taketori n-o okina  
>  Taketori be-ATTR old man  
>  old man Bamboo-Cutter (TM 29.2) [...]

Vovin argues that this is also the /no/ we see used with numbers in
constructions like _Shichinin no samurai_ ("The Seven Samurai").

I'm not convinced at this point that treating these phenomena as defective
verbs solves more problems than it creates (i.e. that it isn't easier just to
view them as semantic extension of the particles they resemble) -- but then, I
don't have nearly as comprehensive an understanding of the details as
Martin/Bentley/Vovin do. So I'm throwing this in here as something interested
parties might want to read up on.

Incidentally, this analysis would be susceptible to the same counterargument
as Axioplase's 犬のボビー: specifically, the objection that 犬のボビー that means
"Bobby, who is a dog", but お父さんのばか means "My father is an idiot", not "The
idiot, who is my father". But I think that expressions like お父さんの馬鹿 can be
understood as exclamations directed _at_ the person they describe. "You fool!"
→ "You fool, who art my father!" (cf "Our father, who art in Heaven"). This
works even if the addressed person is not present, just as I can cry "Damn
you, Mendoza!" if I discover Mendoza's evil handiwork long after Mendoza has
fled town.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-08-29T23:46:31.857
2938
2011-08-29T23:46:31.857
531
2845
answer
As @syockit points out, there's a big difference between お父さんのバカ！ and 犬のボビー.

お父さんのバカ！ is an exclamation in itself, and cannot be used as a grammatical
element in a bigger phrase. If you wanted to do that, you would have to say
バカなお父さん, with な in this case, because バカ is a na-adjective.

For nouns that do not also work as na-adjectives, e.g. お父さんの無礼者！, it would
turn into 無礼者のお父さん, the appositive use of の.

English also has a concept of 'appositive genitive' which resembles の's
appositive usage:

  * (Something is rotten in) the state of Denmark
  * the month of May

etc.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-02T15:38:12.620
4533
2012-02-02T15:38:12.620
1073
2845
answer
The の in 「お父さんのバカ！」 is the [genitive no-
particle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case).

Basically the function of the genitive no-particle is to convert a _noun_ into
an _adjective_ so that it can describe a noun.

It is useful to think of 「お父さんのバカ！」 as the _long-version_ of 「バカ！」, for the
same reason that 「赤い花！」 is the _long-version_ of 「花！」.

We can roughly dissect the sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」 into 3 parts:

>   1. noun 「お父さん」: father
>
>   2. genitive particle 「の」 (converts the noun お父さん into an adjective to
> describe 「バカ」)
>
>   3. noun 「バカ」: an idiot
>
>

And the literal translation of the sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」 is roughly:

> Dad-the-idiot!
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-09T03:48:08.923
5782
2012-06-09T03:48:08.923
264
2845
answer