11238
A while back I was trying to break down 〜なの, and this is what I decided on
(with the help of some of Bart Mathias's posts on mailing lists).

* * *

My hypothesis is that the nominalizer 〜の requires everything before it to be
in adnominal form (usually meaning, 連体形{れんたいけい} for inflectable words).

In the cases of 形容詞{けいようし} (-i adjectives) and 動詞{どうし} (verbs), the
連体形{れんたいけい} is of course just the 終止形{しゅうしけい}:

  * 形容詞{けいようし} (-i adj): 熱{あつ}いの
  * 動詞{どうし} (verb): 切{き}るの

In the case of 形容動詞{けいようどうし} (-na adjectives), the 連体形{れんたいけい} is simply
adding 〜な, which works out great:

  * 形容動詞{けいようどうし} (-na adj): 変{へん}なの

And finally, in the case of 名詞{めいし} (nouns), although they are not
inflectable, we can consider both 〜の (possessive) and 〜な as ways to make them
"adnominal" (I guess 連体詞{れんたいし} is the right translation into Japanese):

  * 名詞{めいし} (noun): 車{くるま}なの

* * *

To confirm this theory is actually true, I think the only avenue would be to
look in historical texts to see if things like 大{おお}ききの, 死{し}ぬるの, or しずかなるの
show up or not. Unfortunately, I am far from being able to do this myself, so
I haven't been able to go confirm.

If it does happen to be true, I wonder _why_ the nominalizer 〜の would require
things before it to be adnominal. Is の really acting so much like a noun? It
seems to be doing so syntactically, but really not so much semantically (from
my beginner perspective). The only time it seems to semantically act like a
noun is with 形容詞{けいようし} (-i adj) where you can kind of translate it as "thing"
into English.

This is my theory, but I'd be happy to hear about a 国文法 explanation if there
is one, or an analysis which looks at historical texts.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-01-19T02:23:18.980
11009
2013-02-16T13:36:57.533
3097
question
grammar nominalization
Does the nominalizer 〜の require the adnominal form before it? If yes, why?
Try this paper by Janick Wrona:

[The early history of no as a
nominaliser](http://ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~wrona/History%20of%20no%20%28NAJAKS%29.pdf)

Basically Wrona argues that it was an evolutionary change, and that at some
point in time 'no' in a certain construction was newly interpreted as a
general nominaliser.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-02-16T13:14:51.993
11238
2013-02-16T13:36:57.533
2013-02-16T13:36:57.533
11009
answer