Although you can ask questions in chat, more people will see them and have a chance to respond if you ask on the main site

Um.

Restrictive and nonrestrictive are two types of relative clauses

In Japanese, I'm not aware that they're distinguished grammatically or phonologically

Does Hasegawa say otherwise?

Well, first of all, IHRCs are a tiny subset of relative clauses. The vast majority are EHRCs

Yes

Japanese doesn't have correlative clauses

Um.

This is a difficult subject, so bear with me for a moment :-)

Kikuta says that IHRCs are non-restrictive

Do you understand what restrictive / non-restrictive means in this context?

Right, so non-restrictive relatives are "non-essential" and can be omitted without seriously changing the meaning of the sentence

Looks like

In a normal (externally headed) relative, you have 〔relative clause〕〔head〕, with the head linearly following the relative clause itself, right? But in an IHRC, the head is actually inside the relative, so in this case it would be 財布, and the relative clause as a whole tells you more information about it

That is, you can't exactly omit it (since it contains the head), but you could replace it with the head: 財布を拾った

And all you'd lose is the extra information about the 財布

I think so, I think the restrictive/nonrestrictive contrast cuts across the internal/external contrast,

But if I understand correctly and IHRCs are all non-restrictive

While EHRCs can be either restrictive or non-restrictive

Well, if someone asked you what 財布 you 拾った, you'd have to use an EHRC to answer it, because the EHRC could specify which 財布

But the IHRC with the same information would be presenting that information as extra

Kind of like how in English you can present the same information as part of a restrictive relative or a non-restrictive relative: "My sister, who is a lawyer, is coming to dinner" (the relative gives extra information and can be omitted) or "My sister who is a lawyer is coming to dinner" (now I'm telling you which sister, the one who's a lawyer)

@Anthony That の looks more like a complementizer, "know that ..."

I shouldn't arbitrarily change tense and clause type in glosses :-)

I'm not so good at this language stuff. And the JLPT is in two weeks. I'm doomed!

Are you taking it?

@virmaior I didn't know either! :-)

Sure.

I dunno. Anyone who can share my pain.

Woo hoo!

What is this double-I in your acronym, by the way?

@virmaior I've never taken it before.

I have two weeks left to come up with some kind of plan for test preparation, though. :-)

I'm actually totally prepared. I've got like, pencils and stuff.

I do have an eraser!

Eraser cases are for cheaters.

Well, maybe if you hollow out the eraser and put a super-powerful magnifying glass inside

Then you can shrink down an entire kanji chart to microscopic size.

All of my friends are somehow convinced that I'm actually good at Japanese and that I'll pass for sure

They have a surprise coming in three months :-D

How do you study for the reading section?

Just do a lot of reading?

@Anthony Thanks! :-)

@virmaior Uh oh! That sounds like something I don't know.

Woo hoo!

Good luck!

N1 will get me bragging rights: "Record for longest time between starting studying and actually passing N1"

@Anthony IHRCs (internally headed relative clauses) are a relatively unusual construction which resemble externally-headed relative clauses, except that the apparently non-referential dummy の takes the place of the syntactic head, and the constituent inside the relative clause that semantically functions as the head is not indicated

Most of the time when a clause is apparently nominalized it's not an IHRC

Hey, reading the questions first sounds like a decent idea.

@Anthony They both appear to be.

Try to understand them as though they're not IHRCs. You'll fail. That's how you know.

@virmaior Haha, um, but what makes that a tip exactly? :-)

A-ha!

Thanks to my study buddy, I have some practice tests I can try between now and then.

I can use them to gauge just how doomed I am!

Neither does anyone else! But I'll prove them wrong! :-D

Hee.

@Anthony I am curious what your book says about restrictive versus non-restrictive relatives in Japanese

Usually that's just a matter of semantic interpretation (figuring out which interpretation is intended in context)

That's something I rarely think about

I've never really considered it something you need to be taught about in Japanese, but maybe I should think about it more

Obviously it's part of learning English grammar, since there are a number of syntactic and phonological distinctions related to it!

Kamio (1977) and Ishizuka (2008) argue that it's possible to mark certain Japanese relatives as restrictive using demonstratives: その〔兄貴が買ってきた〕林檎

Although it seems to me like it's just more semantics

@YangMuye Ooh, thanks, that's on a topic I've been curious about! :-)

Hee

Oh, is it a typo?

Oh! Have a good night!

祠！

I learned it from a video game

I have some other words with that kanji in my notes but I can't actually remember any of them

I put 淫祠（いんし） in my notes

Apparently about 4 or 5 years ago

I have only the vaguest recollection that that word exists :-)