55854
I went through this thread [Relative clauses types and
confusion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/39551/relative-
clauses-types-and-confusion) where the 4 different types of relative clauses
are discussed.

* * *

First, I'd like to know wether I understood the 4 example sentences which the
OP of the linked thread gave us.

1) "A)“Cased Head” Type (Relative Clause): the head noun bears some case
relation to the predicate in the modifying clause 犬を飼っている木村さん。" => "Kimura who
keeps a dog."

B)" “Adverbial Head” Type: the head noun bears an adverbial relation to the
information expressed in the modifier 財産をなくした賭け事。" => "Gambling where you lost
property."

C)" “Relational Head” Type: the head noun and the modifier form some sort of
interdependent relationship 太郎が東京へ行った翌年。" => "The following year where Taro
went to Tokyo."

D) D)" “Content Label Head” Type (Appositive Clause): the head noun serves as
a label for the content expressed in the modifier In other words, content
nouns are those nouns which have the potential to be further commented on for
their content. 犬が赤ん坊をかんだ事実。" => "A truth which bites babies."

* * *

Second, Concerning Narutos answer to the question:

"C: (no original sentence; 翌年に太郎が東京へ行った would mean something different) D: (no
original sentence; 事実 does not bite a baby)"

=> Does the fact that he left out the original sentence mean that these
example sentences were _not_ types of the sort described by OP (Here: C =
Relational Head; D = Content Label Head)? Or in other words, does it mean that
these 2 examples given by the OP did not represent the categories of relative
clauses they were supposed to and/or were 'wrong' (e.g. D, since facts don't
bite babies?)?

I ask because I wondered wether the examples given by OP in this thread
could've been textbook examples, where I usually would expect that they are
correct/fit the category they are labeled with.

If the examples C and D were not representative of the category they should
stand for, what would be good examples for them? For example, I dont really
understand what in “Relational Head” Type: the head noun and the modifier form
some sort of interdependent relationship" is meant with "interdependent
relationship"?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-10T17:12:16.943
55828
2018-01-11T09:24:18.613
20172
question
grammar
Question to relative clauses
The "no original sentence" comments are not because these examples are
incorrect, but because unlike the first two sentences, they are not simple
rephrasings of a non-relative clause sentence.

Example C, 太郎が東京へ行った翌年, does not mean "The following year where Taro went to
Tokyo" as you indicate (this would be the meaning if it were a Type A relative
clause, but relative time words like 翌年 do not form Type A relative clauses.)
It means "The following year _after_ Taro went to Tokyo", ie. the content of
the relative clause represents the _reference point_ for the relative time
statement. There is no simple way of expressing this without such a relative
clause, which is why no "original sentence" was provided in the answer.

Similarly 犬が赤ん坊をかんだ事実 does not mean "A truth which bites babies." (This would
again be an attempt to interpret it as a simple Type A relative clause, though
it fails to account for the presence of 犬 in the sentence.) The actual meaning
is "The fact _that_ the dog bit the baby", ie. the relative clause describes
the _content_ of the 事実. This again is not straightforwardly based on an
original non-relative construction. It could feasibly be rephrased as
something along the lines of 事実は犬が赤ん坊をかんだということだ, though that's significantly
less natural...and I believe the ということ construction itself would also be
classified as a Type D relative clause anyway, so that seems rather like
sidestepping the issue(!)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-11T09:24:18.613
55854
2018-01-11T09:24:18.613
25107
55828
answer