<p>In Taiwan, According to dictionary owned by Ministry of Education.</p>
<p><a href="http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&amp;searchid=W00000001927" rel="noreferrer">的</a> can mean:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>句尾助詞：置於句尾，表示肯定或加強的語氣。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(助詞 at end of the sentence denoting affirmation, or intensify tone.)</p>
<p>有一天你會明白的它 is not correct. You put 它 at wrong position. 有一天你會明白它的 can be better.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T18:23:02.207Z
Is 有一天 a fixed construction, or is 有 optional?
actinidia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T21:56:38.127Z
@TiwaAina 有 is not optional. Because 一天你會明白它的 is not complete to express an idea. People may have a hard time to understand 一天你會明白它的.
000
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T11:32:42.283Z
2020-09-08T11:32:42.283Z
000
<p>000's answer is correct.  的 in 有一天你会明白的 is for <em><strong>affirmation</strong></em>.  It implies that what the speaker can tell now is <em><strong>one day you will understand</strong></em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T15:55:13.040Z
2020-09-08T15:55:13.040Z
dan
<blockquote>
<p>有一天你会明白的</p>
</blockquote>
<p>加不加&quot;的&quot;的区别，在我看来，</p>
<p>不加&quot;的&quot;，感觉这句话没说完，听话的人还在等，&quot;有一天我会明白什么？&quot;</p>
<p>加&quot;的&quot;，明确表示这句话已经结束。</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T02:37:21.417Z
2020-09-10T02:37:21.417Z
Zhang
<p>000's answer is correct, 的 here is just a 句尾助語詞, no special meaning here</p>
<p>However I don't think any native speaker would say 「有一天你會明白它的」 ,it just sounds unnatural in any context. Maybe changing 它 to 他/她 would make much more sense to native speaker however that changes the whole sentence's meaning as well. So please just leave it as 總有一天你會明白的</p>
<p>Also Puco4's answer is not wrong, it's just irrelevant here, his/her mentioning the use of 的 is not applicable in this question. It is just a 句尾助語詞.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T09:05:32.713Z
2020-09-09T09:05:32.713Z
lun tom
<h2>General discussion of the particle 的</h2>
<p>According to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - <em>Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar</em>, the particle 的 is the <strong>nominalization particle</strong>, which allows that a verb, a verb phrase or a sentence to function as a noun phrase. The nominalization is characterized by:</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>Must contain a verb with at least one of its participants unspecified</strong> (e.g., subject, direct object, indirect object, etc.).</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>If there is only one participant unspecified, the nominalization refers to this participant.</strong> For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p>他没有<strong>我喜欢的</strong>。</p>
<p>He does not have what I like.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, 我喜欢的 is nominalized: because the subject 我 is specified, the verb 喜欢 (to like) is transitive and its object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean <em>what I like</em>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>种水果的</strong>很难过活。</p>
<p>It is difficult for fruit growers to make a living.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, 种水果的 is nominalized: because the verb 种 (to grow) has the object 水果 (fruit) specified, but its subject unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the subject to mean <em>fruit growers</em>.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p><strong>If both the subject and the direct object participants are unspecified, the nominalization will generally be understood to refer to the unspecified direct object of that verb.</strong> For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p>这种植物可以当作<strong>吃的</strong>。</p>
<p>（One) can take this type of plant as food。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, 吃的 is nominalized: because neither the subject or the direct object are specified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean <em>what is to be eaten = food</em>.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Moreover, a nominalization can also function to <strong>modify a following noun</strong> and to <strong>formulate the <a href="https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/The_%22shi..._de%22_patterns:_an_overview" rel="nofollow noreferrer">是...的 construction</a></strong>, which for example emphasizes details in the past or allows non-gradable adjectives to appear on the predicate.</p>
<hr />
<h2>Our example:</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>有<strong>一天你会明白的</strong>。</p>
<p>You will understand it one day.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, 一天你会明白的 is nominalized: because the subject 你 is specified, 明白 is a transitive verb and the object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean <em>what one day you will understand</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T15:56:35.153Z
There isn't any noun omitted in the OP's sentence. 000's answer is correct.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T19:31:41.890Z
@dan I edited my answer to include the explanations from Li and Thompson's book. I don't think both answers are contradictory, but instead supplementary: here I address the grammar behind (which can feel a bit peculiar), in your answer and 000's you address the implications in meaning.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T19:45:53.330Z
I agree with @dan , I really don't want do downvote this answer because it's well-written, but the OP's example is definitely not a case of nominalization. It's the sentence-final 的 used as a modal particle to express certainty, which is a well-understood piece of grammar. Suggesting that something is omitted is kinda misleading
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T19:50:05.050Z
@blackgreen I really do not see the difference between this example and the others I mentioned from the book, such as: "他没有我喜欢的。" or "这种植物可以当作吃的。" The only possibility this wouldn't work is if 明白 was intransitive, but from some examples I see it is transitive.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T19:53:44.477Z
Also, 有 is a transitive verb. So, it makes sense for 的 to nominalize the previous sentence to become the object of 有 right? Moreover, maybe this is some grammar appreciation that has changed over the years, but in Li and Thompson's book they mention there are only 6 sentence-final particles: le, ne, ba, ou, a/ya and ma (they do not mention this function of 的).
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T20:01:14.407Z
他没有我喜欢的 is nominalized because you can add something after that and it would still be grammatical -> 他没有我喜欢的(东西）whereas in the OP 有一天你会明白的 if you change it to 有一天你会明白的(东西) the sentence is not grammatical anymore. Incomplete, at best. The translation you give yourself (what one day you will understand) isn't a complete standalone sentence in English either... As I said in another comment, Li & Thompson is an old text. It can't be productively used to explain everything
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T20:08:12.127Z
@blackgreen I searched online for this sentence and I found a couple of examples with a head noun after 的: "有一天你会明白的概述图." and "意味着你对我的真感情总有一天你会明白的道理.".
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T23:36:55.420Z
Not sure if this can convince you, but 有一天你会明白 is also valid without the last 的. Your sentences can't be valid without 的, e. g. 这种植物可以当作吃 or 他没有我喜欢 is incorrect without 的. Do you think this is a prove?
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T23:42:14.653Z
@Puco4 Don't trust those online searches. Online search is just a reference, not a strong prove most of time. The examples you got are poorly constructed and incorrect sentences.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T06:53:33.623Z
That 的 is optional in 有一天你会明白的, does not convince me for believing that 的 does not function as a nominalization here, because I think 明白 can be both transitive and intransitive; while 喜欢 and 吃 are only transitive. However, I would be convinced if I see some example where there is a final 的 both with an intransitive verb and with a subject specified, so I can clearly distinguish that 的 functions only as a final particle to express affirmation (without nominalizing anything).
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T07:36:54.173Z
@Puco4 You have a strong believe on the grammar rules per se, other than being idiomatic.  Anyways, there are lots of examples that can meet your criteria. You can search them online.  I can provide you one here though you may argue over it.  Do you think 出去 is intransitive? If yes, then you can say 有一天你会出去的.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T07:55:00.303Z
Actually, the transitivity has nothing to do with the issue because even if it's an intransitive verb, it still can be turned to an attributive 的 phrase.  E. g.  出去的 is a valid attributive phrase as in 出去的路 even though 出去 is indeed an intransitive verb.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T11:33:39.247Z
Well, I am still unconvinced haha Anyway, I believe this is an interesting question on its own, so I address it in https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/41162/25265 . Feel free to provide these ideas there.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-08T11:10:27.687Z
2020-09-08T19:34:04.210Z
2020-09-08T19:34:04.210Z
Puco4
<p>From <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/3181/25265">Why is 的 used in 你是哪一天出生的 and 我们什么时候开始的 and 前天你什么时候来的这里?</a>, I understand <code>的</code> at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past.</p>
<p>However, I am not sure whether I understand the meaning of <code>的</code> at the end of this sentence correctly:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>有一天你会明白的。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This sentence emphasizes an event that might happen in the future. So <code>的</code> here is not describing an event that happened in the past. Correct?</p>
<p><strong>Why does it have <code>的</code> at the end? Is it because <code>它 = it</code> has been omitted?</strong> Such as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>有一天你会明白的它 = one day you will understand it.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T09:31:40.133Z
Just a heads up, also for future readers, that [the answer you linked](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/3181/25265) is *extremely* inaccurate grammar-wise. It's not your fault if you feel confused. The conclusion suggested in that thread "*的 at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past.*" is definitely *not* a rule that can be inferred about the usage of 的. The sentence provided as an example (你是哪一天出生的) just so happens to describe a past event. It's like saying that *will* in English describes travels because you can say "I will go to New York".
blackgreen
<grammar><meaning><meaning-in-context><phrase><particles>
What is the meaning of 的 in "有一天你会明白的"?
# What is the meaning of 的 in "有一天你会明白的"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-08)

From [Why is 的 used in 你是哪一天出生的 and 我们什么时候开始的 and 前天你什么时候来的这里?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/3181/25265), I understand `的` at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past.

However, I am not sure whether I understand the meaning of `的` at the end of this sentence correctly:

> 有一天你会明白的。

This sentence emphasizes an event that might happen in the future. So `的` here is not describing an event that happened in the past. Correct?

**Why does it have `的` at the end? Is it because `它 = it` has been omitted?** Such as:

> 有一天你会明白的它 = one day you will understand it.

**Tags:** grammar, meaning, meaning-in-context, phrase, particles

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Just a heads up, also for future readers, that [the answer you linked](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/3181/25265) is *extremely* inaccurate grammar-wise. It's not your fault if you feel confused. The conclusion suggested in that thread "*的 at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past.*" is definitely *not* a rule that can be inferred about the usage of 的. The sentence provided as an example (你是哪一天出生的) just so happens to describe a past event. It's like saying that *will* in English describes travels because you can say "I will go to New York".  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-09-08. Score: 8

In Taiwan, According to dictionary owned by Ministry of Education.

[的](http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=Wusername_2username_201927) can mean:

> 句尾助詞：置於句尾，表示肯定或加強的語氣。

(助詞 at end of the sentence denoting affirmation, or intensify tone.)

有一天你會明白的它 is not correct. You put 它 at wrong position. 有一天你會明白它的 can be better.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Is 有一天 a fixed construction, or is 有 optional?  
> **username_2**: @TiwaAina 有 is not optional. Because 一天你會明白它的 is not complete to express an idea. People may have a hard time to understand 一天你會明白它的.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-09-08. Score: 2

username_2's answer is correct. 的 in 有一天你会明白的 is for ***affirmation***. It implies that what the speaker can tell now is ***one day you will understand***.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-09-10. Score: 1

> 有一天你会明白的

加不加"的"的区别，在我看来，

不加"的"，感觉这句话没说完，听话的人还在等，"有一天我会明白什么？"

加"的"，明确表示这句话已经结束。


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-09-09. Score: 0

username_2's answer is correct, 的 here is just a 句尾助語詞, no special meaning here

However I don't think any native speaker would say 「有一天你會明白它的」 ,it just sounds unnatural in any context. Maybe changing 它 to 他/她 would make much more sense to native speaker however that changes the whole sentence's meaning as well. So please just leave it as 總有一天你會明白的

Also username_7's answer is not wrong, it's just irrelevant here, his/her mentioning the use of 的 is not applicable in this question. It is just a 句尾助語詞.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2020-09-08. Score: 0

## General discussion of the particle 的

According to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - *Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar*, the particle 的 is the **nominalization particle**, which allows that a verb, a verb phrase or a sentence to function as a noun phrase. The nominalization is characterized by:

1. **Must contain a verb with at least one of its participants unspecified** (e.g., subject, direct object, indirect object, etc.).
2. **If there is only one participant unspecified, the nominalization refers to this participant.** For example:

   * > 他没有**我喜欢的**。
     >
     > He does not have what I like.

     Here, 我喜欢的 is nominalized: because the subject 我 is specified, the verb 喜欢 (to like) is transitive and its object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean *what I like*.
   * > **种水果的**很难过活。
     >
     > It is difficult for fruit growers to make a living.

     Here, 种水果的 is nominalized: because the verb 种 (to grow) has the object 水果 (fruit) specified, but its subject unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the subject to mean *fruit growers*.
3. **If both the subject and the direct object participants are unspecified, the nominalization will generally be understood to refer to the unspecified direct object of that verb.** For example:

   * > 这种植物可以当作**吃的**。
     >
     > （One) can take this type of plant as food。

     Here, 吃的 is nominalized: because neither the subject or the direct object are specified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean *what is to be eaten = food*.

Moreover, a nominalization can also function to **modify a following noun** and to **formulate the [是...的 construction](https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/The_%22shi..._de%22_patterns:_an_overview)**, which for example emphasizes details in the past or allows non-gradable adjectives to appear on the predicate.

---

## Our example:

> 有**一天你会明白的**。
>
> You will understand it one day.

Here, 一天你会明白的 is nominalized: because the subject 你 is specified, 明白 is a transitive verb and the object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean *what one day you will understand*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: There isn't any noun omitted in the OP's sentence. username_2's answer is correct.  
> **username_7**: @username_4 I edited my answer to include the explanations from Li and Thompson's book. I don't think both answers are contradictory, but instead supplementary: here I address the grammar behind (which can feel a bit peculiar), in your answer and username_2's you address the implications in meaning.  
> **username_1**: I agree with @username_4 , I really don't want do downvote this answer because it's well-written, but the OP's example is definitely not a case of nominalization. It's the sentence-final 的 used as a modal particle to express certainty, which is a well-understood piece of grammar. Suggesting that something is omitted is kinda misleading  
> **username_7**: @username_1 I really do not see the difference between this example and the others I mentioned from the book, such as: "他没有我喜欢的。" or "这种植物可以当作吃的。" The only possibility this wouldn't work is if 明白 was intransitive, but from some examples I see it is transitive.  
> **username_7**: Also, 有 is a transitive verb. So, it makes sense for 的 to nominalize the previous sentence to become the object of 有 right? Moreover, maybe this is some grammar appreciation that has changed over the years, but in Li and Thompson's book they mention there are only 6 sentence-final particles: le, ne, ba, ou, a/ya and ma (they do not mention this function of 的).  
> **username_1**: 他没有我喜欢的 is nominalized because you can add something after that and it would still be grammatical -> 他没有我喜欢的(东西）whereas in the OP 有一天你会明白的 if you change it to 有一天你会明白的(东西) the sentence is not grammatical anymore. Incomplete, at best. The translation you give yourself (what one day you will understand) isn't a complete standalone sentence in English either... As I said in another comment, Li & Thompson is an old text. It can't be productively used to explain everything  
> **username_7**: @username_1 I searched online for this sentence and I found a couple of examples with a head noun after 的: "有一天你会明白的概述图." and "意味着你对我的真感情总有一天你会明白的道理.".  
> **username_4**: Not sure if this can convince you, but 有一天你会明白 is also valid without the last 的. Your sentences can't be valid without 的, e. g. 这种植物可以当作吃 or 他没有我喜欢 is incorrect without 的. Do you think this is a prove?  
> **username_4**: @username_7 Don't trust those online searches. Online search is just a reference, not a strong prove most of time. The examples you got are poorly constructed and incorrect sentences.  
> **username_7**: That 的 is optional in 有一天你会明白的, does not convince me for believing that 的 does not function as a nominalization here, because I think 明白 can be both transitive and intransitive; while 喜欢 and 吃 are only transitive. However, I would be convinced if I see some example where there is a final 的 both with an intransitive verb and with a subject specified, so I can clearly distinguish that 的 functions only as a final particle to express affirmation (without nominalizing anything).  
> **username_4**: @username_7 You have a strong believe on the grammar rules per se, other than being idiomatic.  Anyways, there are lots of examples that can meet your criteria. You can search them online.  I can provide you one here though you may argue over it.  Do you think 出去 is intransitive? If yes, then you can say 有一天你会出去的.  
> **username_4**: Actually, the transitivity has nothing to do with the issue because even if it's an intransitive verb, it still can be turned to an attributive 的 phrase.  E. g.  出去的 is a valid attributive phrase as in 出去的路 even though 出去 is indeed an intransitive verb.  
> **username_7**: Well, I am still unconvinced haha Anyway, I believe this is an interesting question on its own, so I address it in https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/41162/25265 . Feel free to provide these ideas there.  

---

