39553
I was reading

> Japanese:Revised edition by Shoichi Iwasaki

And he talks about 4 types of relative clauses.

**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。

**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。

**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。

**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。

This looks pretty straightforward, but when reading is not always so easy, at
least for me.

For example I found this sentence today.

> ちょうどこれまでとは対向線路にあたる闇の向こうから、眩いライトの光が浴びせかけられた。

Is 闇 a type D(“Content Label Head” Type) noun in this sentence? Is it there a
way to easily spot if it's a type A or Type D?  
I don't have problems with B,C types but as for A,D I can't seem to grasp when
it's A or D.

He also goes on saying this:

> In English, noun phrases within a relative clause cannot be further
> relativized, but this is allowed in some cases in Japanese.

Is this referring to nesting?

Ex > 可愛がっていた犬が死んだ子供
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-28T15:13:30.603
39551
2016-09-29T08:09:49.603
2016-09-29T06:58:02.933
11352
11352
question
grammar relative-clauses
Relative clauses types and confusion
A good way to tell the type is to imagine the original sentence without a
relative clause.

  * A: 木村さんは犬を飼っている。 (木村さん is the subject)
  * B: [私は]賭け事で財産をなくした。 (賭け事で is adverbial)
  * 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)

And consider the phrase in question:

> これまでとは対向線路にあたる闇の向こう

We can think of the original sentence, which is either:

  * 闇の向こうはこれまでとは対向線路にあたる。
  * 闇はこれまでとは対向線路にあたる。  
The darkness corresponds to the oncoming lane (from the viewpoint of where we
came from)

So 闇 serves as the subject of the verb あたる in the original sentence, just like
木村さん is the subject of 犬を飼っている.

This sentence may have confused you because あたる is a verb that can denote an
appositive relation. In type D, there is no such a verb.

>   * 東京に行った話 (Type D; the relative clause is the direct content of 話)
>   * 東京に行った気になる話 (Type B: You feel as if you went to Tokyo _by_ the 話
> (adverbial))
>   * 東京に行ったことと関係する話 (Type A; 関係する is the subject of 話)
>

* * *

> > In English, noun phrases within a relative clause cannot be further
> relativized, but this is allowed in some cases in Japanese.
>
> Is this referring to nesting?

I think so. [頭が赤い魚を食べた猫](http://togetter.com/li/567493) can both mean:

  * a cat who ate a red-headed fish
  * a fish-eating cat whose head is red

But if I'm not mistaken, "a cat who ate a fish whose head is red" can only
mean the former (...am I right?)
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-29T00:30:22.830
39553
2016-09-29T01:53:02.027
2016-09-29T01:53:02.027
5010
5010
39551
answer