Quote:
Originally Posted by KyleGoetz
I'm not sure this is a helpful way of explaining it to a non-native speaker. Heck, I still have problems with why 運営者である私 is considered correct while 運営者の私. Is it because 運営者 cannot act as a noun/adjective thing with の, so you have to use である instead? It's not my confusion over relative clauses. I have zero problems with relative clause construction in Japanese when any verb is considered. ヘビの喰ったねずみ provides no problem for me. It's just when である is concerned. I wonder if I should be using の instead.
アメリカ人のカイル vs アメリカ人であるカイル is a very similar type thing. I've always had problems specifically with when to use 名詞である名詞. I remember back as a student this was always something that got corrected on my compositions.
masaegu, can you explain when to use 名詞である名詞 vs 名詞の名詞? I know sometimes の doesn't act as a possessive, so I'm not talking about the times when I mean "the X belonging to Y" as YのX.
|
Not sure what 運営者である私 and 運営者の私 has to do with Mercury's question. In the original question, ある means "to exist" but in yours, it means "=", the equation.
運営者である私 and 運営者の私 are both correct although the latter may sound rather informal if used in situations in which the listener/reader would expect the former to be used.
運営者である私 = I, who is the manager
運営者の私 = me, the manager
More emphasis on "being the manager" is implied in the former phrase. If you are talking about a task that should be performed by none other than the manager, you would want to use the former. If you used the latter to talk about such a task, you could end up sounding like you were saying it could possibly be performed by the next person in the hierarchy.
In other words, it would be wise to use the former on a more serious topic and the latter on a less serious one.
１．Ａ国の今回の行動は
アメリカ人であるカイルには受け入れがたい。
２．このサンドイッチは
アメリカ人のカイルには小さ過ぎる。
If you use the other phrase for #1, it would still be acceptable though slightly too colloquial.
It would sound fairly strange if you said #2 using the other phrase.