I just read this clause (as a definition of 独特):

> そのものだけが有していること。

I first understood it in a way, that "[Something] has only this thing.",
instead "Only this thing has [something]". Now I'm kind of doubting my own
language skills, and whether my confusion is _justified_. I think if I would
have written the same sentence as:

> そのものだけは有していること。

or

> そのものだけはあることが有していること。

Do my versions sound natural as well? If not, why not? Also, how would you
have translated "[Something] has only this thing." with "something" being
omitted and without being ambiguous?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-25T10:44:24.517
61098
2021-11-28T11:04:40.427
14391
question
particle-は particle-が
Confusion about omitted "object" with 有する
Since こと (circumstance/issue) is a word with little animacy,
そのものだけはあることが有していること doesn't really make sense.

そのものだけは有していること is ambiguous if そのもの is the subject or the object.

"[Something] has only this thing." can be expressed as （何かが）これだけを有する(こと).
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-26T01:45:37.713
61108
2018-08-26T01:45:37.713
4092
61098
answer