「のかを」

[Damicci]

「里絵子の両親とどう話すのかを私は考え過ぎるのは当然と思います。」

こんな文章に「のかを」の意味が何ですか？
What is the purpose for using [のかを] in this sentence?
I assume の becomes the nomalizer and か links to use woth another verb. Not sure the actual grammatical explanation for か here. but why を?

[Glenn]

It's more like [理恵子の両親とどう話すのか]を (marking the previous question as the object) 私は考え過ぎるのは当然と思います. Make sense?

[Damicci]

It's more like [理恵子の両親とどう話すのか]を (marking the previous question as the object) 私は考え過ぎるのは当然と思います. Make sense?
There was a question in that sentence?:souka:

I never completely understood the use of のか
Except for
Verb のか　Verb
例えば：
どうするのか知ってるが、〜〜〜〜

[Glenn]

Yeah, as in "I know what to do." In your first example you had "I (you?) think it's natural that I (you) would overthink just how to talk with Rieko's parents." It doesn't look like an outright question in English like it does in Japanese, because we don't have an explicit grammatical question marker like Japanese does.

[Edit] Oh, and のか is the question version of のだ.

[Damicci]

I think I underatand. I am not to clear on how you use を in an example like that but I will keep trying.
Thanks Glenn!

[Glenn]

Think of か like a nominalizer that turns the previous clause into a question, that can then be marked by any particle (because it acts as a noun).

どうすればいいかを知らない。 "I don't know what I should do."
どうすればいいかで困っている。 "I'm troubled by what I should do."

Well, I thought of one with に, but I'm not sure if it's all that natural. Just for the heck of it, here it is: 私達がどうすればいいかに話してください。 I was shooting for "please speak to what we should do," but I get the feeling that this sentence is really off.

Anyway, just be aware that this construction can be marked by any particle, and when (or if) you see it that should help you understand what's going on.

[Elizabeth]

Think of か like a nominalizer that turns the previous clause into a question, that can then be marked by any particle (because it acts as a noun).
どうすればいいかを知らない。 "I don't know what I should do."

Dou sureba (shitara) ii ka wakaranai.... I would definately drop the を in natural (even polite) conversation. :blush:

but in Damicci's sentence I would have made it 'to kangaesugiru' so maybe it's just me that's off balance today. :p

[Glenn]

In that case it would be どうすればいいかが分からない. If you drop it it's just an omission; that doesn't change that it's marked at some level.

[Elizabeth]

In that case it would be どうすればいいかが分からない. If you drop it it's just an omission; that doesn't change that it's marked at some level.
Yeah, sorry I'm too busy at work now and was just responding to the initial discussion on "wo". :-)

[Damicci]

It's just that before thisa sentence I have never seen を after のか so I was confused as to the general rule about を being listed after nominalized question.

[jt_]

In that case it would be どうすればいいかが分からない. If you drop it it's just an omission; that doesn't change that it's marked at some level.Actually, while it's very reasonable to think this, I'm pretty sure that this isn't actually the case -- the "embedded question" clause can connect directly to the following predicate with just "ka", and is far more commonly found _without_ an intervening ga/wo/etc. than with one, unless it's there for emphasis and/or clarification.

It's a very subtle point (and not really worth worrying about unless you're teaching Japanese language or linguistics), but sentences like the above aren't exactly parallel to something like 「ちょっと、これ見てくれる？」 or 「どこ行くの？」 or whatever, where a particle that is grammatically necessary has been dropped in casual speech.

Well, I thought of one with に, but I'm not sure if it's all that natural. Just for the heck of it, here it is: 私達がどうすればいいかに話してください。 I was shooting for "please speak to what we should do," but I get the feeling that this sentence is really off.IANANS, but it would sound a lot better to me if that 「に」 were 「について」 or (once again) nothing.

[Glenn]

Actually, while it's very reasonable to think this, I'm pretty sure that this isn't actually the case -- the "embedded question" clause can connect directly to the following predicate with just "ka", and is far more commonly found _without_ an intervening ga/wo/etc. than with one, unless it's there for emphasis and/or clarification.

I was under the impression that even though they may be more common without the particle now in speech, they probably are necessary in formal writing, which would mean that they are there. That's only an impression that I had about it though. I haven't actually researched the topic.

It's a very subtle point (and not really worth worrying about unless you're teaching Japanese language or linguistics), but sentences like the above aren't exactly parallel to something like 「ちょっと、これ見てくれる？」 or 「どこ行くの？」 or whatever, where a particle that is grammatically necessary has been dropped in casual speech.

I agree that it is subtle and a topic for linguistic debate, but I was trying to help Damicci understand what he came across, and I used the terms that I'm familiar with, because that's how I think about it. I think I know what you mean about them not being parallel, but to me they are (at this point in time).

IANANS, but it would sound a lot better to me if that 「に」 were 「について」 or (once again) nothing.

Then you're probably right. You're more dead-on about the language than you give yourself credit for, although I understand the reservation. By the way, that IANANS cracked me up! I've never seen that before; it's got to be one of the longest acronyms ever! :D:D

[Elizabeth]

I was under the impression that even though they may be more common without the particle now in speech, they probably are necessary in formal writing, which would mean that they are there.
I don't think they are necessary even in formal writing, or that most Japanese probably give it a lot of thought, but anyway the sentence is still a bit strange. Thinking too much is set out as a natural and standard expectation, of what ? According to whom ? :okashii: Thinking hard or thinking a lot （よく考える）may have been what was being implied ?

Also, の is simply inserted as a polite softener particle....it doesn't act to nominalize 話す。
　

[Damicci]

I don't think they are necessary even in formal writing, or that most Japanese probably give it a lot of thought, but anyway the sentence is still a bit strange. Thinking too much is set out as a natural and standard expectation, of what ? According to whom ? :okashii: Thinking hard or thinking a lot （よく考える）may have been what was being implied ?
Also, の is simply inserted as a polite softener particle....it doesn't act to nominalize 話す。
　
She did tell me:「話すか」と「話すのか」の意味は同じです。
So until you just mentioned the no being a softener I didn't realize it. I forget that alot with japanese that there are alot of "gobi" include din speech.

[nhk9]

Also, の is simply inserted as a polite softener particle....it doesn't act to nominalize 話す。
　

Whether or not の in noka is a 'softener' particle is probably still up for debate. Afterall, although you'd probably hear noka after infinitive form more often than just 'ka', the 'noka' in many cases don't seem to have any softening effect. I think Glenn's comment about it being similar to the question form of 'noda' is more appropriate. One thing for sure is that you definitely see 'noka' in kakikotoba more often in kaiwa.

[Elizabeth]

Whether or not の in noka is a 'softener' particle is probably still up for debate. Afterall, although you'd probably hear noka after infinitive form more often than just 'ka', the 'noka' in many cases don't seem to have any softening effect. I think Glenn's comment about it being similar to the question form of 'noda' is more appropriate. One thing for sure is that you definitely see 'noka' in kakikotoba more often in kaiwa.
Well, it is there for politeness and to give a slightly formal edge whether it is のだ or のか。 Perhaps the term softener was a bit misleading.　I dont think it is nearly as important within the sentence as with a true gobi at the end.

[Elizabeth]

She did tell me:「話すか」と「話すのか」の意味は同じです。
So until you just mentioned the no being a softener I didn't realize it. I forget that alot with japanese that there are alot of "gobi" include din speech.
そうですね。例文がないと、語尾だけでは意味がつかみ にくいのです。説明にくいのです。
前後、文脈によって語尾の意味は、変わりますね。

たとえば、文章の終わりには、「話すか」というのは、 男言葉ですね。
でも、文章の中なら、性によって「か」と「のか」が分 かれるという文法はないとおもいます。

[Damicci]

そっか
でも、私は「のか」の使い方が時々普通と思いました。
たとえば：
どするのか知ってる。
か
近所の人がなんて言うのか気になる？

このぶんしょうが違いますか？

[undrentide]

そっか
でも、私は「のか」の使い方が時々普通と思いました。
たとえば：
どうするのか知ってる。
か
近所の人がなんて言うのか気になる？
このぶんしょうが違いますか？
Ｄａｍｉｃｃｉさん、どちらの文章も「のか」の使い方 は正しいですよ。
:-)
「〜か」より「〜のか」の方がよく使われていると思い ます。

[Kyoko_desu]

Damicci さん、恋人（こいびと）の両親（りょうしん）に会（あ ）うのはちょっと怖い（こわい）ですね。
私（わたし）は、日本語（にほんご）の文法（ぶんぽう ）の教え方（おしえかた）がぜんぜんわからないので、 あまりあなたの力（ちから）になることができません。
でも、いつでもDamicci さんのことを応援（おうえん）していますよ！　がんば ってね！

Damicci-san, it's scary to meet your gf's parents, isn't it? Since I don't know how to teach Japanese grammar, I really cannot help you with it, but I am here and always wishing you good luck. Ganbatte ne!

:cheer:Your personal cheerleader, Kyoko:cheer:

[Damicci]

Ｄａｍｉｃｃｉさん、どちらの文章も「のか」の使い方 は正しいですよ。
:-)
「〜か」より「〜のか」の方がよく使われていると思い ます。

一番例文に「ど」と「う」を使いたかった。:p
ありがとう、Undrentideさん

きょこさん、
ね〜、超どきどきしていますが、頑張ります。私は恋人 の両親とよく話せたいだけと思います。
あらら　どうしよかな！:relief:

[Glenn]

I got a bit lost in this thread, so I'm going to reply to the best of my understanding.

I was under the impression that even though they may be more common without the particle now in speech, they probably are necessary in formal writing, which would mean that they are there. I don't think they are necessary even in formal writing, or that most Japanese probably give it a lot of thought, but anyway the sentence is still a bit strange. Thinking too much is set out as a natural and standard expectation, of what ? According to whom ? :okashii: Thinking hard or thinking a lot （よく考える）may have been what was being implied ?

Also, の is simply inserted as a polite softener particle....it doesn't act to nominalize 話す。

I'm not too sure about the formal writing point, because I haven't read enough recently to remember.

"Overthinking" is what I got out of it. Or just thinking too much. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm wondering now, though: where did you get this sentence, Damicci? It seems strange that you would ask for an explanation of a grammtical pattern that you found in your own sentence, yet the sentence seems to be what you want to say. Was it a correction?

I'm assuming that your (Elizabeth's) entire reply was in response to my post, but I'm not sure I ever said that the の nominalized 話す. Was that a response to my statement that のか is the question version of のだ? If so, whether the の is a nominalizer in either is up for debate, I would suppose. However, since だ only follows nouns and な-adjectives, の does seem to be a nominalizer here. Also, since だ gets dropped in questions in favor of か, and because in polite speech it would be のですか anyway, the の seems to be a nominalizer here as well.

I also don't think that being embedded in a sentence changes the nuance or meaning all that much. Perhaps it's a mistake to compare and contrast here, but the question part of "I'm not sure just what it is that I should be doing" and the sentence "Just what is it that I should be doing?" are identical to me, at least (aside from the inversion that questions undergo when they are full-blown sentences), and I see them as close enough to のか as translations to illustrate my point: both questions have the same meaning and nuance.

But, that makes me wonder whether どうすればいいのか is the same as it is in どうすればいいのか分からない. Also, just how different is that statement from どうすればいいのかが分からない and どうすればいいかは分からない? Does it fall in the middle of the two marked versions?

[Elizabeth]

I'm not too sure about the formal writing point, because I haven't read enough recently to remember.
I see it a lot without the を when reading the paper although mostly in the context of commentary, reviews, columns etc. It probably is still the standard for highly structured published materials like textbooks or encyclopedias and such.　

"Overthinking" is what I got out of it. Or just thinking too much. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Of course it boils down to a matter of judgment but I asked a friend about this just to be sure and he also thought just looking at that sentence alone it was kind of strange. On the other hand, the likely background in this case was Damicci's concern about talking with the family and how much of that was normal -- "Oh, don't worry, it's perfectly natural that you would think too much about what you should say." in a tone that meant more as reassurance and not to apply as a general rule or as a matter of course across situations. At least that is what I get out of it.

I'm assuming that your (Elizabeth's) entire reply was in response to my post, but I'm not sure I ever said that the の nominalized 話す. Was that a response to my statement that のか is the question version of のだ? If so, whether the の is a nominalizer in either is up for debate, I would suppose. However, since だ only follows nouns and な-adjectives, の does seem to be a nominalizer here. Also, since だ gets dropped in questions in favor of か, and because in polite speech it would be のですか anyway, the の seems to be a nominalizer here as well.
It was a response to Damicci's understanding of how the の was operating here. It may be a nominalizer, but one that can easily be omitted and is inserted for formality.

But, that makes me wonder whether どうすればいいのか is the same as it is in どうすればいいのか分からない. Also, just how different is that statement from どうすればいいのかが分からない and どうすればいいかは分からない? Does it fall in the middle of the two marked versions?
This doesn't get at any of the subtle or finer points, but the first I would personally hear as essentially a shortened version of the second. Adding が、はonly seems to emphasize the "what" part of the question. Assuming that something should or will be done, the only remaining question is its exact nature. For what it is worth....:p

[undrentide]

Also, just how different is that statement from どうすればいいのかが分からない and どうすればいいかは分からない? Does it fall in the middle of the two marked versions?

(1) どうすればいいのか分からない
I don't know what to do.

(2) どうすればいいのかが分からない
It is what to do that I don't know.

As Elizabeth san mentioned, が is to emphasize its preceding words/clause.
It could be a reply to a question such as "what don't you know?" "what did you say you don't know?".

(3) どうすればいいかは分からない
I don't know what to do (though I know what is the problem, though I know I have to do something about it, etc.)

は implies that there are several things and the speaker is picking up one of them.

As far as どうすればいいのか is concerned, (2) and (3) are used only under certain situation, otherwise (1) is the most natural.

[Damicci]

Yes it was a correction to a sentence I tried to make. Rieko explained it to me after you guys had mentioned のか and か to have basically the same meaning ecpet の works as a softener here. I have always used のか when stating know how to do something. but this particular instance of it's usage had me confused.

[Glenn]

Oops, I meant for the last sentence to be どうすればいいのかは分からない.

Anyway, thanks for the answers. I was starting to get that feeling.