Welcome to Q&A for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of

the Japanese language check out the FAQ!

http://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1395/what-is-the-difference-between-the-
nominalizers-%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8-and-%E3%81%AE

Japanese Language and Usage
What is the difference between the
nominalizers and ?

As Derek mentioned in his postscript, both and are nominalizers that can turn a verb
into a noun.

I play the piano.

"

I like playing the piano.

"

I like playing the piano.

I had always thought was just a more formal version of , but it seems that's not the
case:
As a quick rule, is generally used when the outer action happens at the
same place or time as the inner action, while is generally used when the
two can be considered from a removed standpoint lacking immediacy.
Can someone elaborate more on the distinction between and ?
Which version is more appropriate when the outer verb is an emotion verb such as "

, etc?
Is generally more preferred in formal writing?

1 Answer

(This question had to show up eventually :) For my answer, I'll be borrowing most
example sentences and categorizations from pages 176-179 of )

|=

and from this PDF.

Cases where only is allowed
1. When the following verb deals with one of the senses: [

, [

, and so on.
,

I could hear someone

shouting in the house next door.

From inside
the boat, I can see fish swimming.
2. When the following clause occurs in concert with the preceding clause:

, , and so on.

I'm waiting for the

tennis court to dry.

Please help me
carry this computer.
3. When the following verb is one of

, , and so on.

I stopped him trying to

leave.
"

Stop smoking.
As you can see, the common thread running through these cases is that there is an
immediacy of time and/or location. That is, the outer clause necessarily occurs at the same
time and/or same location as the inner clause.
Cases where only is allowed
1. When the following verb deals with communication or internal thoughts: ,

, )

, |

, and so on.
,

5 '

Please tell
the teacher I can't make it to the seminar.

I'm praying that the

recovery proceeds quickly.
2. When the following clause is one of , , or .
|

"

My hobby is watching
movies.
(This is because if were used, it would be confused with the pattern.)
3. When the is part of a set pattern such as , ,
, , and so on.
|

I've lived in a foreign

country before.

I'm going to pretend I didn't see

that.
With , the immediacy expressed by is lost, and matters are considered from a more
abstract, removed standpoint.
Cases where both are allowed
In general, for any cases not covered in the above lists, you can use either or , but
there are some times when you might choose one over the other. For example, consider this
pair of sentences from a page in the |=Q&A at ALC:

"

I like relaxing with a

movie like this.

"

I like relaxing with a

movie like this.
The key here is the ("like this"), which indicates the speaker is making a statement
about something happening right now. Thus the statement has the immediacy of time and
place that is best for. Using here isn't technically incorrect, but it sounds a little
unnatural, so is the better option.
Non-nominalizing uses of
As a side note, there was one example sentence in the PDF I linked which doesn't belong, in
my opinion:
)

The reason I'm saving my allowance every month is

because I want to buy a new skateboard.
This use of is the "unspecific noun" pattern (I cannot seem to find the proper grammatical
term at the moment). In this sentence, could be replaced with the more specific P

.
Another example:
|

The first time I went to Japan

was five years ago.
could be replaced with |

here.


2

Great job trying to tackle a really difficult question. I'm not sure it's all there is to that,
but detailing everything would probably take half a book. Anyway, I don't think the
in the end is a not a nominalizer. Since it's still turns the entire clause into a noun, it's
still one. It shouldn't be thought of as meaning P or |, since you can translate the
sentence as: "As for not saving my allowance every month, that's because I want to buy
a new skateboard". So it's still nominalizer, but a very generic one. Boaz Yaniv Jun 21
at 22:54

Wow, I never knew any of this. Now I want to backtrack in my head through all the
conversations I've had and get an idea if I had picked it up implicitly or if I'm just using
it wrong. makdad Jun 22 at 11:03

@Boaz: I can see how you'd look at both uses the same way. I actually spent a lot of
time thinking about that part of my answer after I wrote it, and the more I think about it,
the blurrier the line gets. It feels like a slightly different use, but I'm not sure if it's
because it actually is or if it's because I was taught that way a long time ago. Derek
Schaab Jun 22 at 12:35

@Derek: You're right, things easily get blurry in grammar. The "reason" version of ,
for instance, can be seen and somewhat different than the ordinary nominalizer, and it
did eventually get to be something new in the case of . Originally, it's
plausible to assume that meant something like "It's the reason that means
that I'll go." but now it's rightfully viewed as an entirely different grammatical construct.
Boaz Yaniv Jun 22 at 16:21
Hey, I've got that book. A great book! crunchyt Jun 23 at 4:08
show 1 more comment
feedback

site design / logo 2011 stack exchange inc; user contributions licensed under cc-wiki with
attribution required
Japanese Language and Usage - Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled