Zero-nominalisation - Why and When? Building on from Zhen Lin's answer to "The grammar of ~~", Brief explanation of Zero-nominalisation: > Nominalisation refers to the process of turning a word, or more generally a phrase, into a noun or noun phrase. For example, and are nominalisers for verb phrases. Zero-nominalisation is when the nominalisation happens without an overt word. Previously being examined: > has a modern grammar rendition: > >> [a] > > It is observed that the declension of the adjective is instead of as one would normally expect of -adjectives when used with a verb. > > Zero-nominalisation accounts for this idiosyncratic behaviour. **Question:** * Why does zero-nominalisation occur? * Why do the adjectives in [a] not take on the `` declension (along with deletion of the particle)? Would still be grammatical? * In what other instance(s) (if any) is zero-nominalisation appropriate?

Interesting question! The cases I can think of are , , ,

> It's faster to walk than to take the bus
>
> You need a visa to go to Japan
>
> Even if it's true, I'm still concerned
>
> This is necessary for participating

There are probably others.

As to why zero-nominalization occurs, I'm not sure. But it seems like it's an old construct in Japanese, which used to be more prevalent, but now only survives in certain combinations. So an more interesting question might be why it started to disappear.

would mean "do it well/do it often/make it well". would mean "make it a good one/choose a good one". I'm not sure if it's to distinguish from these cases that zero-nominalization survived here, but it might be a theory.