Complicated Japanese made easy: "ga particle becomes no in subordinate clauses"

"Ga can become no in subordinate clauses". This is what the textbooks tell you. It isn't false, but it's a bit like calling a cat a "carnivorous feline quadruped". It makes something simple and intuitive overcomplicated and confusing.▼See More ▼
▼The course-book for this course is Unlocking Japanese
learnjapaneseon...
▼Please visit us at KawaJapa
learnjapaneseon...

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

A quick nerdy note for those interested. I am not saying that "Ga can become no in subordinate clauses" is untrue. I am saying that it is an unhelpful description for the following reasons: 1. It gives a very abstract and complicated appearance to what is essentially a very simple and intuitive phenomenon. If you don't happen to know what a subordinate clause is already, it is useless. And it isn't a good idea to learn what a subordinate clause is just for the purpose (as I am sure many people do) because... 2. If you do know what a subordinate clause is, it is still inadequate and confusing because the point really isn't that the clause is subordinate. The point is that it is _adjectival_ . Using the general term "subordinate" just serves to make it fuzzy. 3. (And this is the crux of the matter) it gives the impression that ga is suddenly replaced by the unrelated particle no for no very apparent reason (other than "it just is, so learn it"). It also gives the impression that there is perhaps "another no" that means something completely different from the usual no. Actually no is doing something not all that different from what it usually does. We are in fact using the possessive/attributive function of no to attribute an (already stated or assumed) action or state to an already known person or thing. So in terms of practical grammar it does tend to de-emphasize the adjectival clause (marking it as "old news" as it were and throwing the spotlight more firmly onto the thing it is describing). 4. It just adds one more little twist to the process of obscuring ga. Ga is the heart and foundation of Japanese grammar and Western descriptions seem to be almost willfully throwing obstructions in the path of understanding the very key to the language. Of course there is nothing willful about it but it there might as well be. While this is nowhere near as damaging to the foundations of Japanese understanding as saying that _koohii ga suki desu_ really means "I like coffee", it just helps to muddy the waters of ga that little bit more. Maybe not such a quick note after all. ごめんなさい。

[@mortepcandvr8402]

Nerdy notes are the best notes, irrespective of length :-) The western imperative in English language for syntactic assignation of human agency to everything (as opposed to non-human agents or other external locii) is as much a part of blame culture as it is deeply ingrained in monotheistic roots of imperalism, manifest destiny, and sociology. Sadly, we will have to rely on the special few such as Kawajapa CureDolly who manage to successfully straddle the divide not only between language & culture, but go further than ever towards an understandable equivalent of unified theory for Japanese language constructs, clearly demonstrating an underlying logical rule-based elegance, as a counterpoint to the standard English mindset-driven rote learning of myriad seemingly disconnected examples, learned through observation without underlying context. This is akin to the Indian fable of the elephant encountered by six blind men, who are individually convinced it is a pillar, a rope, a thick tree branch, a big hand fan, a huge wall, and a solid pipe. Argument ensues...

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

I have always loved that elephant story! It is so true, and illustrates the basis of many false arguments. On the whole I try to restrict what I teach about Japanese purely to language, but I have made a few excursions into what I think are the deeper reasons behind the (really rather remarkable) fact that Western "Japanese grammar" has maintained so many inadequate descriptions for so long. Bridging the semantic chasm between Japanese and English was a massive undertaking and I would never belittle the work of the early pioneers in the field. However certain inadequacies in those early models which should have been left behind by following generations just never were. The reasons for this are of course less easy to establish than the simple fact that the inadequacies continue to exist (which I think I am demonstrating). However since their continued existence is so remarkable (a bit as if people went on refining computers but never moved beyond 8-bit architecture), one perhaps has to at least consider that an extra-linguistic reason could be holding things back. And I think what you are saying does indeed point at what that reason would be. Essentially that the underlying philosophical implications of Japanese are so alien to the Western way of looking at the world that Western teachers have genuine difficulty in acknowledging any grammatical constructs founded on their existence. Seeing Japanese as it is isn't _difficult_ but it does involve being able to stand outside the Western grammatical mindset. I think anyone can do it quite easily provided she isn't held back by too strong a prejudice in favor of the English language's "world-view". I think _not_ having much background in Western grammar theory can sometimes be advantageous here. One reason I don't talk about this a lot (apart from the fact that it is of not much practical use to people in actually learning Japanese) is that I imagine it could easily get mistaken for some kind of a "political stance", which in fact I don't take. Ironically enough, I would say that taking my diagnosis of the West's "Japanese problem" as "political" is almost exactly equivalent to saying that _koohii ga suki desu_ means "I like coffee": trying to cram something into a pre-made Western box that doesn't fit it.

[@AzwraithPL]

Some topics are hard to explore logically without tripping over deep-seated preconceptions and emotional biases in the process.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

That is very true. I think it may be why Rubin-sensei's work, despite its great popularity, never had much impact on the Japanese-teaching establishment (even "alternative" figures such as Tae Kim-sensei). In developing Rubin-sensei's work toward its logical conclusions I will probably be ignored, but if not I may be subject to a strong negative reaction from those very deep-seated preconceptions and emotional biases. Kind of scary. The coward in me rather hopes to remain obscureʕ•ᴥ•ʔ However I should also remember that hostile reactions are a sign of progress!

[@DavidJohnston_deadhat]

The complicated mapping of Japanese grammar to European grammar in my text books was a significant block to me being able to comprehend Japanese. Your videos and the book have enabled me to get over that hump and I've started to be able to follow the structure of some sentences based on the information in these videos. This one has unlocked a number of sentences I was tying to comprehend the translation of.

[@kami6374]

Great lesson! I miss you cure dolly sensei!!!

[@LordOfEnnui]

It might be my experience with how adjectival clauses work in english, but when I look at the sentence in this video, the たべたケーキ forms a kind of noun complex (another noun) in my head, which 私の seems to modify. But, I can also look at it like 私のたべた (もの) is an adjectival, the way you are doing. I don't know if it makes a difference either way, but the first seems easier to me.

[@visibleninja2576]

It's so interesting how Japanese Particles often work exactly like our German cases. Like I instantly got what you were trying to say when you used the example "Her shouting [...]" , it's basically the genitival form of the sentence. Whose shouting? Hers. And in JP, "の" marks it. So it's not a possessive marker, it's a genitive marker. Makes sense for me as a German speaker and this channel was and is mind blowing for me, because it shows me the parallels between German grammar and Japanese grammar. On a side note, i really find it funny how English speakers call their " 's " suffix possessive , when it's actually the remnant of the Germanic Genitive. :D

[@JuTakii]

Very interesting, I've been raised my whole life being told " 's " is possessive. Germanic Genitive is very interesting

[@inconnn]

So it's like owning the action? わたしのたべたケーキ it's like saying that the noun marked by の owns the action of eating the cake?

[@mcan-piano4718]

yesss actually in other languages like japanese, instead of ga , possesive no is used in those subourdinate clauses for possesing the action, but in japanese, if real clauses has wa , we use ga in subourdinate clauses . But, if real clause has ga, we use no in subourdinate clauses. so it shows that ga and no is both used for posssion of object or action. In old japanese, they would say !!wa ga na wa ... desu'' it means watashi no namae wa ... desu'' so in old days they would use ga for no as well. So its not really surprising to see no in subourdinate clause instead of ga

[@barrydanser4334]

And a very good book it is too ! Even if you this is too basic. I found getting back to basics to change my mindset very important

[@mcan-piano4718]

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, I was wondering about this for a logn time because some people say no cant be used but actually it can.... Finally I found this and made myself sure

[@dayveo]

Thank you! That was so clear! It's this kind of information about literal meanings that I think really helps me to start to "think" in Japanese and see the logic behind the particles.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Thank you! The logic behind the particles is really fundamental to Japanese and the fact that it isn't taught is the main reason so many people find the language so difficult, I believe. You might find my "organic" course useful - it is basic but the whole point is to re-model Japanese from the ground up as the consistent tapestry it really is as opposed to the patchwork quilt it is taught as kzbin.info/www/bejne/poTZeWysfZtjf8k

[@dayveo]

@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I'm currently on level 6 of the organic course, which is how I found my way to this video in the first place! :)

[@KylePandapatan]

本当にありがとうございます。

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

いいえ、どういたしまして。

[@KylePandapatan]

KawaJapa CureDolly I’d be lost in the sea of Eihongo without your work. すごく助かった。I really appreciate your sharing it. I read Unlocking Japanese (via Amazon Kindle) back in Dec 2016 when I had just started. Recently I’ve watched a video a day to review the grammar. And sharing it with all the other learners I know (^_^).

[@kunslipper]

先生ありがとうございました。

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

どういたしまして。

[@bude8234]

So, which one would you hear more often in everyday conversation in cases like this? Using the 'no' or the 'ga" particle after watashi?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

I don't think one is used overall more than another - there are all kinds of reasons why one might be chosen over the other in any given case depending on the shape of the sentence and the speaker's personal style also the ga-version lays a slight stress on the action being done and makes it feel a little less "incidental". I think suffice it to say that both are used all the time. For fun I Googled the exact phrase in quotes "私の食べたケーキ" vs "私が食べたケーキ" and the ga-version had about twice the results of the no version. However I wouldn't lay too much weight on that. They are both very common.

[@SoHyangisMyQueen28]

What I know is that in order to put No, too, in place of Ga in the subordinate clause... It has to be a relative clause... And so, the subject in the subordinate clause can be either No or Ga... Wa goes to the main clause! Also, The example you gave, I wouldn't translate it as ''My eatING the cake...'' (See that I put -ing?... --> note: In English, it's not written ''My eaten'' but is in -ing form as it could be written like ''Me eating the cake''... So, it's either Me or My...with -ing form) but I would translate it as we do in the relative clause by putting the relative pronouns (''who/which/that etc.) just to remind myself about which grammar we are talking about. Of course, the relative pronouns can be omitted in that sentence) So, it is... ''The cake (which) I ate was delicious'' (In English order though... TIP: For Japanese, what I do to remember/practice the order is to read them backwards in English and then write it in Japanese... That is ''I ate (which) the cake was delicious...!/ Watashi Ga tabeta keeki o oish(i)katta desu. So that I can get used to it) However, I have a question because there's a website that kind of explains this rule... Please, see the link: www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/japanese-relative-clauses/ And scroll down to the ''Grammatical Rules'' and go to number 2 I cannot understand the second example they give... I was like: - And then how am I supposed to know that the particle No can be used in place of Ga in the subordinate relative clauses?? Like, can't it be always used since there's a subject in the subordinate clause?? Hope I made you understand what I am struggling with... And I wish you could help me because I am about to die lol

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

I seriously recommend watching my basic structure course from the beginning kzbin.info/aero/PLg9uYxuZf8x_A-vcqqyOFZu06WlhnypWj because you can't mix real Japanese structure with the conventional Western Eihongo "Japanese grammar". You have to choose one or the other. You have to understand things like the fact that は is a non-logical particle - an entirely different _species_ from が and not another way of saying が. We have to discard concepts like "conjugation" (there is no conjugation in Japanese - that is just confusing it with European languages). So it's something you need to look at and decide for yourself. As for the "ing" translation. I wasn't trying to translate, into natural English. I was trying to show what the Japanese is doing structurally. Eihongo Japanese is based on NNEE (Nearest Natural English Equivalent) translations and juxtaposing them with differently-structured Japanese statements without ever explaining the structure. The Organic approach is rather different.

[@assault4537]

Thanks.. are these correct? 私がたべたケーキはおいしかった。 I eat the cake, it was delicious. (I eat the cake, cake was delicious) 私のたべたケーキはおいしかった。 I own eaten cake, it was delicious. (Maybe i ask a friend to taste it and the friend said the cake was delicious, but i am the one who made/bought the cake)

[@HughStew]

I have watched thega/no episode manytimes. I get to the same answer another way, and wonder if it is right:The basic sentence is keeki ga oishikatta. What kind of cake was it. It was an eaten cake: tabeta keeki ga oishikatta. Who’scake? Mine. Watashi no tabeta. keeki wa oishikatta.Is this approach flawed?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

The problem with this is that it can only apply in certain cases. Even if the cake belonged to someone else, if I ate it it would be "watashi no tabeta keeki". Or if I climbed a mountain I might refer to it as "watashi no nobotta yama" with no implication that the mountain itself is mine. What is mine is the climbing of the mountain or the eating of the cake. This is why this no is regarded as supplanting ga - which in fact it does - but does so by "claiming" the action for the actor. Thus we can't apply the possessive to the noun alone. It belongs to the noun bracketed with the action Watashi no {tabeta keeki} not Watashi no (tabeta) keeki X _Note: the squiggly brackets are used to indicate that the two words are locked together as a unit, while the regular bracket is used to indicate the (incorrect) idea that tabeta is not essential to the clause but is only additional information about the cake_ Similarly in English, if we say "a lot of trouble was caused by my broken window", we are not implying that I own the window (the trouble may well come from the fact that it was the neighbor's window). We are calling it "mine" only in relation to that one action: so the window and the action are an inseparable pair in such a statement. However ... Thinking about it more we could argue that the bracketed pair is being represented as the "property" of the doer. She may not own the mountain but she owns the "climbed mountain" of this particular instance.

[@LimeGreenTeknii]

What about in cases like 頭のいい人? The head's good person? The good person of the head?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Really this explanation of が→の is intended to show the origin of the transition and how it still works much of the time. It does now have a wider range and can substitute just about any が that is part of an adjectival for の.

[@pokroops]

I'm currently trying to process my first Japanese text, which is "11ぴきのねこ". I spent some time trying to produce a literal(ish) translation of the sentence "ひげの　ながい　じいさん猫が、やってきました。". Finally came up with "His whiskers being length-possessing, an elder cat approached [them]". What do you think of it? =)

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

In Japanese, nouns are modified by what comes before them (if it isn't a separate logical clause). This means that the phrase coming before can be regarded as an extended adjective. So what this means is "A long-whiskered elder cat approached (them)". More on this principle of sentence-analysis here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6DXZWyQbZqqhNU

[@pokroops]

@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Yes, sure, thanks to your wonderful course I think I now really understand this. Here I just wanted to play around a bit with literal translation of the "ひげの　ながい" construct to make more sense (and fun) of this の usage. =)

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

@@pokroops The thing here is that there are various phrases in Japanese that you probably know, like せがたかい = tall, あたまがいい = smart, and these are regarded as adjectives in themselves (adjectival compounds). These compounds are fairly freely formed and are treated as simple adjectives in practice, so ひげがながい / ひげのながい works like this also.

[@wizdofaus]

Thanks for this , but I'm curious about your example "Her shouting at the waiter upset me". If this were to be expressed in Japanese, I'd guess it might be something like 彼女が給仕に叫ぶのは動揺させた - but in this case *could* use の instead of が?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Translating that particular sentence is not relevant to the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that possessive constructs can be used to express an action taken by someone or something even in English. Not that the concept would be used in the same way in the same sentence.

[@AzwraithPL]

A video topic in part inspired somewhat by last week's inquiry perhaps?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Yes, though I am hoping to get back to mo (combined uses such as nanimo, nandemo, demo). Not sure how much I can cram in before I leave!

[@DavidJohnston_deadhat]

私はそれを理解した。ありがと

[@DavidJohnston_deadhat]

Although it may have taken me a while to work out the 'that' part. I may have got it wrong.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

嬉しいです。コメントをしてくれてありがとうございます。

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

You got it perfectly!

[@DavidJohnston_deadhat]

Thank you. That 'understood that' structure has gone into my notebook of things about Japanese that I think I understand.

[@sardinhunt]

How does "My broken window got me into trouble." imply that you were the one to break the window? Wasn't the broken window you owned that caused the trouble? Like, my broken car window got me into trouble, I was forced to repair my car.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

It could mean either, couldn't it? There are cases where every language has possible ambiguities and there are a very clear set of criteria we use to deal with them (usually without being much aware of them): kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZTFk4aNYrCoirM

[@jemimakaneko5426]

Thankyou😊

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

So happy to have helped.💞

[@hisodesu1]

Got that, so what does のは、のが、のを mean?. Is it just making a verb into noun, and then making that noun either the topic or the subject or an object ?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Yes, you're broadly right, but it's not only individual verbs. This の is a box-like pronoun that can hold the whole clause preceding it. Please see this article on the の-box (it is open to the public as are all my important teaching articles): www.patreon.com/posts/52089494

[@Flechashe]

So which one should we use? Is the の one used for this: "it does tend to de-emphasize the adjectival clause (marking it as "old news" as it were and throwing the spotlight more firmly onto the thing it is describing)."? Which one is more natural?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

Just like English there are various subtleties connected with when you use what. It may be used for the reason you state. It may be used just to prevent an unwieldy string of がs in a sentence. Generally speaking we will be much more likely to use が if we _do_ want to lay emphasis on the adjectival clause. However I don't recommend learning nuances in list form. They are better grasped from a lot of input. No amount of rules will give one a sense of what is natural-sounding in a given case. I regard learning structure as a _basis_ for learning Japanese. Learning Japanese itself is done by living Japanese (at least with a designated part of your life).

[@Flechashe]

KawaJapa CureDolly I see. Thanks :)

[@deedanner6431]

🤔😲😃

[@X33Ultras0und]

How exchangeable are these two? As they convey the same thing but only with a little nuance behind them. Do both definitely mean that the speaker ate the cake. Or could 私の食べたケーキ imply that I wasn't the one that ate it?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

の can pretty much always replace が in an adjectival (noun-modifying) clause. Can this occasionally lead to an ambiguity. Of course. All language is full of technical ambiguities most of which we never even notice because we jump to the right interpretations so intuitively. They follow certain basic rules which we apply unconsciously but it is worth becoming aware of them when learning new languages. You'll find them here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZTFk4aNYrCoirM

[@X33Ultras0und]

@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I got it! So just like in the English sentence: "As for my exclaimed joke, it was funny." As English isn't really logical, it seems unusual to say "as for my ate cake, it was delicious", but as Japanese is a more logical language, both are used because they both follow the same format. So logically, it would work the same way, English being alot more illogical is why it was hard for me to understand. Not anymore, thanks.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

​@@X33Ultras0und Yes this is right. The other thing to bear in mind is that English (like most European languages) doesn't have a grammatical topic/comment structure so with forms like "as for the cake, I ate it" we are only rather clumsily imitating the much more economical and elegant は-structure. We will see topic/comment structures much more often in Japanese because they are actually part of the grammar. Another way of saying this is that topic/comment structure is much more _agile_ in Japanese than in English. The concept of "agility" in language is important, though it isn't often discussed. I did a video on it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJWwlounrMp1gJI

[@epix4300]

done

[@Gankoittetsu]

Your comment is everywhere..

[@epix4300]

@@Gankoittetsu yeah use it so i know if ive done a lesson or not lol

[@Gankoittetsu]

@@epix4300 oh that's why... It's just sad she passed away...

[@epix4300]

@@Gankoittetsu ye

[@marukoss]

I think you should have used a little more complex sentence as example, I could see why が were replaced in the sentence you showed, but I still don't understand the logic behind sentences like "努力なんて 才能のないやつがするもんさ". I can't see why の is used here, I suppose the logic is the same, but don't appear that way, it's not like I can say "Talent's nonexistent guy"...or can I?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

The thing is that Japanese uses different expression strategies from English. We can talk about the non-existence of talent in English (or at a pinch "talent's non-existence). We can't use exactly the structures that Japanese does because English isn't Japanese. I was just trying to show the underlying logic of replacing が with の in modifying (adjectival) clauses - not trying to say that Japanese can be replaced with English on a one-to one basis.

[@marukoss]

@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I see, thanks a lot. Do you have any tips for for when I encounter sentences like that? Sentences where no matter if know the structure, I always feel like something is missing because Japanese is just too different from what I know. Or my only option is to immerse myself until it stop feeling weird? I know Japanese is completely different from European languages, but when the two languages I know era both from there, it's a little difficulty to change the way my brain works.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

​@@marukoss In this case I think that having understood the rationale you just need to know that の can be equivalent to が in these constructions. You don't need to think through the structure every time. Knowing the structure is helpful but the only thing that stops a language (or anything else, come to that) from feeling weird is getting used to it. So, as you say, immersion.

[@namename4980]

I'm bit confused, before I thought that verb should be in the end of the sentence. But in "watashi ga keeki wa oishikatta" it's in the middle. I do understand that in this case verb is more a participle, so that's the rule? Participle can be in any part of the sentence, and verbs only in the end?

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

There is no verb at all in that sentence and also it is not a correct sentence since watashi is marked as the subject (with ga) but it is not doing or being anything - so it can't be the subject. The subject of this sentence is the cake which is (or was) being oishii. Watashi is simply the topic on which the cake's oishisa is a comment - or to put it another way, the human context of the cake's oishisa. So it has to be marked with wa. What has to be at the end of a sentence is its Engine, which can be a verb, an adjective or a noun plus copula. The noun can be a regular noun or an adjectival noun (so-called "na adjective"). These are the three ways a sentence can end (other than any post-ending particles) and knowing this is the most fundamental thing in Japanese: kzbin.info/www/bejne/poTZeWysfZtjf8k So if the sentence were "watashi-wa keeki-ga oishikatta" (which _is_ a correct sentence) what is ending it is one of the three Engines, in this case an adjective. I strongly recommend that you watch the video I linked in the last paragraph. This is lesson one, and without it we have no chance of grasping Japanese.

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

PS - I said that "watashi ga keeki wa oishikatta" was ungrammatical, but that isn't completely true. Normally the wa statement would come at the beginning but it doesn't have to. The "action" - the engine - of the sentence is being delicious and the be-er is marked by ga so strictly this could be a grammatical if unusual sentence both in order and meaning. The meaning would be: "I am (as for the cake) delicious" which presumably would imply, "the cake finds me delicious".

[@namename4980]

Sorry, I meant sentence "watashi ga tabeta keeki wa oishikatta", from the video. Missed the word when typed it, sorry

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

In this sentence the ga is part of a white-car adjectival clause. So it could also be written as "watashi no tabeta keeki wa oishikatta". Or as "watashi no tabeta keeki ga oishikatta". Whether we give wa or ga to the cake it is the subject of the sentence (with wa there must also be a ∅が meaning the cake). This is not a verb sentence, it is an adjective sentence. The verb clause is an adjectival modifying clause telling us more about the cake (it was the cake I ate). If you don't understand about adjectivals please re-watch this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6q5i5-XetaIaJY

[@mcan-piano4718]

Can I ask you something, I understand that we can use no or ga instead of wa when the real sentence is made with wa and wo, watashi wa hambaga wo tabemasu -> watashi ga taberu hambaga or watashi no taberu hambaga. but for ore wa anata ga suki desu if we make this a adjectival, a confusion happens with these structures having both wa and ga sentence structures So if we make an adjectival Watashi ga suki na hito watashi no ga suki na hito watashi no suki na hito how should we differntiate - the person I like versus. the person who likes me. ? watashi no suki na hito= my liked person (the person I like) watashi ga suki na hito= liking me person (the person who like me) ? I am really confused and noone knows this answer. I would be so happy and appreciate too much if u would help me

[@organicjapanesewithcuredol49]

"Suki" does not mean "like". It is not a verb. It is an adjectival noun meaning "be likeable (to someone)" If you bear this in mind it should become clear.

[@mcan-piano4718]

Organic Japanese with Cure Dolly 🙏🏻😇 yes i m aware of that but while using it , i m wondering about the proper usage and meaning

[@thepierre396]

Really nice video. However, "my broken window" doesn't mean "the window I broke", just "my window which is broke". If my window was broken by someone else, it would still be "my broken window".

[@user-pc5kg3le7l]

＜３