42433
For my understanding, the consequential clause would be a complete sentence
until I faced the following conditional sentence.

> 使用できる時間が極端に短くなったら、 **バッテリーパックの寿命です** 。

Can a consequential clause after a 「たら」-clause be a noun clause? Or is this an
exception?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-11T02:35:13.970
42431
2017-01-11T07:32:26.903
2017-01-11T02:40:28.700
5010
9559
question
grammar conditionals
Question about consequential clause after conditional clause using 「たら」
たら is basically just a "if".

> If A then B.

B can be pretty much anything depending on the context.

> If you go -> I go too.(verb)  
>  If it grows -> it's a plant!(noun)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-11T02:51:20.750
42432
2017-01-11T02:51:20.750
18142
42431
answer
バッテリーパックの寿命です fully qualifies as a main clause of this sentence. Its subject,
which is omitted, is それ, vaguely referring to the situation previously
mentioned. Subjects are omitted all the time in Japanese sentences, and there
is nothing special in this case. Technically, the last half of this sentence
is not a noun clause, because it has no nominalizer and ends with です, a copula
(aka linking _verb_ ).

寿命 in this context is _end-of-life_ rather than _lifespan_. 寿命だ／寿命です does not
mean "It's a lifespan" here, but it means "is reaching / has reached the end
of one's life," "is near one's end," "is dying a natural death," "is on one's
last legs," etc.

In other words, 寿命 is sometimes used as a [no-
adjective](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/2771/5010), usually in
combination with もう.

>   * その時計はもう寿命だ。  
>  The watch has reached the end of its life (and thus not repairable).
>   * また止まったの？ それは時計の寿命だよ。  
>  It stopped again? That means the watch has reached the end of its life.
>   * 彼はもう寿命です。
>   * もう寿命のスマートフォン a smartphone near the end of its life / on its last legs
>

See: [「バッテリが寿命です。」は英語で](http://okwave.jp/qa/q1533929.html)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-11T02:52:04.087
42433
2017-01-11T07:32:26.903
2017-04-13T12:43:44.740
-1
5010
42431
answer