Artificial intelligent assistant

Question about consequential clause after conditional clause using 「たら」 For my understanding, the consequential clause would be a complete sentence until I faced the following conditional sentence. > **** Can a consequential clause after a -clause be a noun clause? Or is this an exception?

fully qualifies as a main clause of this sentence. Its subject, which is omitted, is , vaguely referring to the situation previously mentioned. Subjects are omitted all the time in Japanese sentences, and there is nothing special in this case. Technically, the last half of this sentence is not a noun clause, because it has no nominalizer and ends with , a copula (aka linking _verb_ ).

in this context is _end-of-life_ rather than _lifespan_. does not mean "It's a lifespan" here, but it means "is reaching / has reached the end of one's life," "is near one's end," "is dying a natural death," "is on one's last legs," etc.

In other words, is sometimes used as a no-adjective, usually in combination with .

> *
> The watch has reached the end of its life (and thus not repairable).
> *
> It stopped again? That means the watch has reached the end of its life.
> *
> * a smartphone near the end of its life / on its last legs
>


See:

xcX3v84RxoQ-4GxG32940ukFUIEgYdPy 27d1eacbf933e3271e604318d6f9be42