1

I'm not sure what I'm missing here, but

来年の１月には３５歳になりますが、サッカーは年齢じゃないということを証明していきたいですし、若い選手に負けないように頑張りたいと思います。(source)

我々はお荷物じゃないことを証明しよう。

Aren't those 名詞節? Is the rule about は not occurring in subordinate clauses lax with 名詞節?

Note on terminology:

I am aware that snail in this answer refers to this type of clause as "gapless relative clauses", but 『日本語文法入門ハンドブック 著者: 加藤重広』, also recommended by snail, calls it 名詞節, which seems to make more sense because it often corresponds with content clauses in other languages.

Eddie Kal
  • 11,469
  • 5
  • 20
  • 41
  • Are all nominal clauses "content" clauses? – aguijonazo Mar 11 '22 at 03:04
  • @aguijonazo I believe so. My understanding is "content clause" is synonymous with "noun/nominal clause". But there does seem to be a discrepancy in terminology between Japanese and English grammar. It seems some もの/こと-ending clauses are relative clauses while others are close to noun clauses in English, at least semantically (i.e. when translated into English they form sentences with noun/content clauses). – Eddie Kal Mar 11 '22 at 03:28
  • 1
    Let me test my understanding. For example, 彼が言ったこと could be either nominal or adjectival. The former is the case when it is translated into something like “the fact that he said it/so.” The Japanese sentence could be rephrased to 彼が（そう）言った（という）こと so this meaning is clearer. The latter is the case when it is translated into “what he said.” In Japanese, this is the case when 彼が言った adjectivally modifies こと. If this understanding is correct, it seems to me that not all content clauses allow が to be changed to は because 彼は言ったこと sounds odd unless, of course, 彼 is put in contrast to someone else. – aguijonazo Mar 11 '22 at 03:56
  • @aguijonazo That distinction makes perfect sense. That's what I was reaching for but failed to arrived at. So am I correct in thinking the two sentences included in the question are 名詞節 as opposed to 連体節/修飾節? Also is it possible the answer I linked in the question made a mistake in claiming 東京に行ったことがない is a relative clause not a noun/nominal clause? – Eddie Kal Mar 11 '22 at 04:37
  • 1
    I have never been completely sure what exactly the term “relative clause” refers to when it is applied to Japanese. It sometimes seems to be used for any 連体修飾. As that answer suggests, there are two types of 連体修飾 in Japanese. They are called 内の関係 and 外の関係. What it explained as “gap-less relative clauses” corresponds to the latter. 連体修飾節 in 外の関係 seems to be also known as 内容節 or 同格節. I guess 内容節 here is the direct translation of “content clause.” 連体修飾節 in 内の関係, on the other hand, is known as 関係節, and this seems to correspond to “relative clause” in its narrower sense. – aguijonazo Mar 11 '22 at 04:59
  • I mean I don’t know if it is a mistake to use the term “relative clause” in that broader sense. – aguijonazo Mar 11 '22 at 05:00
  • @aguijonazo I just spent one hour boning up on 内の関係 and 外の関係. And things appear more complex than I thought and have read. Probably will take several questions for me to get a passable handle on it. – Eddie Kal Mar 11 '22 at 08:28

2 Answers2

1

It may be banal, but the simple answer is that there are always exceptions to rules.

The following are excerpts from 中上級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック p326-

基本的な規則は、従属節（および名詞修飾節）の中では「が」を使うというものです。

It gives two cases of exception to this rule:

主節と従属節の主語が同じ場合です。この場合は通常「は」が使われます。

  • 彼の本は面白いからきっと売れるよ

判断の根拠を表す「から」や「ので」の節や並列を表す「し」の節などの場合です。これらの節は独立度が高いため、「は」と「が」の区別の原則も短文の場合と同じになります。

  • 明日{は/が}定休日だから今日は混んでるでしょう

It gives further examples and some grammatical explanations, but basically the second example in the question is the case of 主節と従属節の主語が同じ and the first example should be understood as an example of the second exception above (although it is not a 判断の根拠, essentially it is an independent sentence. To me, サッカーは・が are both possible without changing the nuance).

There is even a book on the subject, cited by the handbook.

sundowner
  • 36,445
  • 2
  • 19
  • 57
-1

In the first case, サッカーは年齢じゃない is not a nominal clause, but a quotation. In such clauses, は is acceptable, for example:

先生は [テストは火曜日だ] と言った。

In the second sentence, 我々 is not the subject of a nominal clause, but the main one.

我々は [お荷物じゃない] ことを証明しよう。

This being said, there actually are cases of は occurring in nominal clauses. It is only appropriate when は is used as a contrast marker, not as a topic marker.

[昨日はここにあった]本が今日はない。 (The book which was here yesterday is not here today.)

kinai
  • 138
  • 7
  • 1
    我々 in the second sentence is almost certainly the topic of the relative clause that modifies こと. Unless a contrastive meaning (i.e., "although others don't prove, at least we prove") is clearly intended, saying 我々は in the main clause is pointless. – naruto Mar 12 '22 at 02:46
  • @naruto When the subordinate and the main clause share the same subject, it is normally omitted in the subordinate one. The version without ellipsis would be 我々は [我々がお荷物じゃない] ことを証明しよう. There's no such thing as a topic in a relative clause. If は appears in one, it's always the contrastive は, not a topic marker. – kinai Mar 12 '22 at 05:30