Noun that has the quality of ~, with ~
Structure
- ～がある + Noun
[noun that has the quality of ～]
Is there a difference between がある and のある or can I use both? Examples:
とても価値のある話を聞いたよ。
彼は能力のある社員です。
質問のある方はどうぞ。
豆腐は栄養のある食べ物です。
It’s common for が to change to の in subclauses. I’m having trouble finding a grammar page to support that though.
1 Like
Yes, actually I’m finding more examples with のある than with がある.
Maybe @mrnoone should add this form to the structure.
First of all in subordinate clauses subject is marked by が, the topic particle は is not used(except as は contrast particle).
In a kind of subordinate clauses called relative clauses used to modify a noun(to tell more about it) が can be changed to の.
You can write it that way to point out that the subject is from the relative clause, not from the main clause. Like a marker.
Example:
誰かがあなたの忘れ物を見つけたの？
この人が「親の残した」形見を見つけてくれた。
Has someone found your lost property?
This person has found a keepsake my parents left behind.
By seeing the “の” you know that 親の残した is modifying the noun.
1 Like
Or perhaps it should be its own grammar point somewhere?
1 Like
Hey @mrnoone, what does this mean? I usually interpret ~ as “approximately” or “around”, like ~50 would mean “about 50”. Obviously that’s not the meaning here, so I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
On second look, it looks like you’re making a callback to the grammar structure, which says ～がある + Noun, but obviously I can’t see that during reviews so it’s very confusing.
1 Like
“A property or an attribute that differentiates a thing or person.” 
I wrote more detailed explanation, since we don’t have relative clause/modifying nouns section yet.
Is this the right place to report bugs? On my screen it shows at the bottom
[AがあるB - B that has A/B with A <br /> Example: [障害がある]人 - person [that has an injury]・person [with injury]・[injured] person<br /> the phrase [Aがある] modifies(qualifies) the noun B([Aがある] therefore becomes RELATIVE CLAUSE), or in other words describes the noun, similar to the adjectives creating one bigger noun. Since in Japanese there are no relative pronouns (that, which etc), the phrase simply directly precedes the noun(also like an adjective) that is modified. <br /> Relative clauses have some rules:<br /> 1.topic particle は cannot be used<br /> 2.subject particle が can be changed to particle の(this in a sense marks relative clause)
i.e. the HTML is unescaped and the Japanese phrases are all bracketed.
1 Like
Hey 
You can report bugs here:
May I ask if it happens in study mode?
Yeah, this was in study mode. Thanks for the pointer; will use that in the future!
1 Like
Then it is a bug we are aware of, the team is working on it
It has been fixed, forgot to notify you about it 
What does it mean by “The subject marker が can be replaced with の (this marks a relative clause)” and when can I replace が with の?
FYI, this grammar point is not in Minna No Nihongo I - chapter 9 as this lesson claims.
2 Likes
Neither in DBJG, it points to ある but not with this construction (I couldn’t find it in the book too). @Jake
1 Like
@mweibel
Hey 
This is not exactly about ある, but in DBJG, on page 376 you have an explanation of the relative clauses in Japanese, がある + Noun is a case of that.
Cheers 
PS
The monogatari series <3
1 Like
The first example sentence here is a mistake, right…? It seems to me this warning box is saying “don’t use はある” and then the example does just that.
2 Likes
Why is があります incorrect? As in ベッドがあります部屋。
Question/confusion regarding the example I was quizzed on here:
I honestly don’t think I would have gotten this right anyway, but it feels like the nuance explanation (A) doesn’t match up with this sentence, and feels at odds with the definition provided by the grammar entry (B). If you have an album with pictures, the album neither belongs to or exists within the pictures. It makes a little more sense if the nuance explanation was reversed, so I’m wondering if this is a typo? Either way it feels like the B explanation in the actual grammar point is more clear than what the nuance is trying to provide.
That said, I’m still a total noob, so big grain of salt from any armchair analysis over here!
Very quick EDIT: I was looking at the nuance explanation through the lens of the english translation - whoops! In this case A absolutely does exist within B, because 写真 comes first in the sentence when written in japanese - so 写真 is A, not B. My bad!