Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagoyankee
Who taught you that? Your book? We use いること all the time!
|
Is it possible that chryuop is just confusing two grammatical uses of こと? You can use it (obviously) in many ways, but two major functions are nominalization and also as the word "thing." For example, you correctly can pair いる and こと as you pointed out well, Nagoyankee.
However, when using it to mean "thing" (e.g., "the thing that exists"), I don't think you can use いること. Simply put, こと here implies an inanimate object, while いる implies animatedness. もの or の might be better, right?
So, to summarize, am I correct in saying that いること is acceptable for nominalization for grammatical purposes, but いること is unacceptable when talking about "the thing that exists"? By that, I mean something like 鳴いていること is wrong when you're talking about an animal. The こと there implies that the thing crying/tweeting is inanimate (like a robot or something).
Obviously, I could be wrong. We're venturing into grammatical territory I take for granted in my mind now and cannot actually explain. But I do recall instances where いること is expressly forbidden by Japanese grammar. Similar to how いることは箱だ is (generally) forbidden grammatically, because a 箱 doesn't いる, it あるs.