<p>You can find the answer in 百度百科 using the key word <a href="https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%AF%AD%E6%B0%94%E8%AF%8D/1267117" rel="nofollow noreferrer">语气词</a> in Baidu search.  Here is the quote relevant to your question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>普通话里最基本的语气词实际上只有六个：的、了、呢、吧、吗、啊。其他一些，有的用得较少，有的是因为语气词连用而产生连读合音的结果，例如“啦”是“了啊”的合音。这六个语气词根据在句子里出现的先后次序可以分为三组，</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It has a table listed all the usages of those 语气词.  I can't copy the table from my mobile device. But it has this example 我不会忘记你们的。to illustrate the usage of the 语气词 的.</p>
<p>It's written in Chinese though.  You can try to understand it using a translation tool.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T07:55:25.717Z
I'm not sure this solves my question though. That 的 is a final particle with a particular meaning does not exclude there is some nominalization going on (as in the 是...的 structure).
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T08:15:44.563Z
@Puco4 语气词 doesn't have any particular meaning. 语气 means 'tone'. You should read the details about it. Like 吗 in 你吃饭了吗？Anyway, that's how far I can bring you here.   This example is more obvious, 他是怎么走的？You wouldn't think 走的 implies any noun here, would you?
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T08:52:32.297Z
I actually think there is a nominalization, from the book I referenced: "The 是...的 construction is a special sentence type in which a nominalization is used. Structurally, it consists of a subject followed by the copula verb 是 followed by a nominalization: Subj + 是 + Nominalization. It has several features: First, the subject of the sentence must be the same as the missing subject participant in the nominalization. [...] This construction serves to characterize or explain a situation by affirming or denying some suppositions, as opposed to simply reporting an event."
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T09:51:45.157Z
@Puco4 Can you specify any noun you can fill in the sentence?
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T09:55:38.320Z
@Puco4 Or, in the sentence 我不会忘的, what noun is missing or implied?
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:03:02.647Z
是... 的...  is not a fixed structure.  It means you should not take it as a hard fast rule.  Sometimes, they just coincidentally meet together in the sentence.  The sentence I gave you is the case.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:05:52.983Z
I think in the case of the 是...的 construction, the noun is the same as the subject. So in your example, 怎么走的(他). At least that is what these linguists believed, even though it might sound weird to explicitly mention it. Your second example 我不会忘的, I am not sure. Maybe the whole sentence is nominalized like: "what I will not forget.", achieving in this way the affirmation you mentioned. But again this might sound weird and non-intuitive (and also, might not be necessary or useful in order to speak the language). Though I am interested in what linguists say about this.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:10:25.670Z
@Puco4 You picked wrong examples for the grammar you got.  The example you should take for your grammar is: 我的表是红色的, where 红色的 is nominalization.  It could be short for 红色的表.  That is, 我的表是红色的表.  But you can make it in my examples like that.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:22:00.713Z
Mm I think they apply also in both situations. Your case is an example of a distinguishing word, but the nominalization also occurs to emphasize details in the past. In the book they give as examples of nominalization: 他是昨天来的。or 我们是从日本走的。
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:29:38.570Z
@Puco4 Ok, if that works for you internally, that's fine.  Language is not about grammar rules.  As long as you can apply it well in practice, how you take it grammatically is not that important.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T10:42:13.393Z
I believe every one will have different opinions about this. I really believe in rules (I am a physicist, I like to understand how things work). They might not be relevant in order to communicate, but otherwise they are interesting from the point of view of how the language works.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-10T11:06:11.740Z
@Puco4 I have a Chinese grammar book handy, which is written in Chinese.  What I learned is quite different from those rules frequently discussed in this site. Anyways, everyone can choose what to believe given that there are many rules out there.  Whatever makes sense to ourselves is the best rules. Have fun!
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T23:45:02.227Z
2020-09-09T23:45:02.227Z
dan
<p>From my answer in <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/41142/25265">What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”?</a> and according to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - <em>Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar</em>, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the <strong>nominalization particle</strong>, i.e, <em>it allows that a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence or a part of a sentence to function as a noun phrase.</em></p>
<p>In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a <strong>final particle,</strong> it denotes <em>affirmation or intensifies the tone</em> and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might not be completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.</p>
<p><strong>Question: From a grammar perspective, does the particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing?
In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T11:55:51.590Z
Like many other particles,  的 functions differently in different contexts
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T11:56:11.770Z
I think this reference might be useful to understand this question, but it is in Mandarin and a bit unaccessible for me (maybe someone could use it for the answer): [Guo, R. (2000). The conversion of the expressional functions and an analysis of the particle de in Mandarin Chinese. Contemporary Linguistics, 1, 37-52.](http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DDYX200001003.htm)
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T12:00:26.573Z
If you think a good dictionary can be a good reference, I suggest you check it. It will show you all the usages of 的. You should be able to find this one there.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T12:02:59.797Z
@dan I would prefer some more technical reference (like a book or an article). I am not talking about meanings (which are listed in the dictionary) but about the underlying grammar functions.
Puco4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T12:24:49.060Z
@Puco4 If you use it often, you would find a good Chinese dictionary is not just for 'meanings'.  It addresses all the usages of a character.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T12:29:59.230Z
You would find something like this: {的 / de /

助词

1 

（用在定语的后面）:

clever child;

聪明的孩子

the economic lifeline of the country;

国家的经济命脉
 }But mine is a Chinese version.
dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T13:04:08.400Z
I have authoritative references but not in English, at this time :(
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-09T13:07:58.200Z
@blackgreen maybe you can translate and/or explain some parts in an answer. If you give the references, in a few years when I will be able to read it I might check it ;)
Puco4
<grammar><particles><syntax><linguistics>
Can the 的 particle ever function without "nominalizing"?
# Can the 的 particle ever function without "nominalizing"?

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

From my answer in [What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/a/41142/25265) and according to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - *Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar*, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the **nominalization particle**, i.e, *it allows that a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence or a part of a sentence to function as a noun phrase.*

In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a **final particle,** it denotes *affirmation or intensifies the tone* and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might not be completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.

**Question: From a grammar perspective, does the particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing?
In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.**

**Tags:** grammar, particles, syntax, linguistics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Like many other particles,  的 functions differently in different contexts  
> **username_0**: I think this reference might be useful to understand this question, but it is in Mandarin and a bit unaccessible for me (maybe someone could use it for the answer): [Guo, R. (2000). The conversion of the expressional functions and an analysis of the particle de in Mandarin Chinese. Contemporary Linguistics, 1, 37-52.](http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DDYX200001003.htm)  
> **username_2**: If you think a good dictionary can be a good reference, I suggest you check it. It will show you all the usages of 的. You should be able to find this one there.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I would prefer some more technical reference (like a book or an article). I am not talking about meanings (which are listed in the dictionary) but about the underlying grammar functions.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 If you use it often, you would find a good Chinese dictionary is not just for 'meanings'.  It addresses all the usages of a character.  
> **username_2**: You would find something like this: {的 / de /  助词  1   （用在定语的后面）:  clever child;  聪明的孩子  the economic lifeline of the country;  国家的经济命脉  }But mine is a Chinese version.  
> **username_3**: I have authoritative references but not in English, at this time :(  
> **username_0**: @username_3 maybe you can translate and/or explain some parts in an answer. If you give the references, in a few years when I will be able to read it I might check it ;)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-09-09. Score: 1

You can find the answer in 百度百科 using the key word [语气词](https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E8%AF%AD%E6%B0%94%E8%AF%8D/1267117) in Baidu search. Here is the quote relevant to your question:

> 普通话里最基本的语气词实际上只有六个：的、了、呢、吧、吗、啊。其他一些，有的用得较少，有的是因为语气词连用而产生连读合音的结果，例如“啦”是“了啊”的合音。这六个语气词根据在句子里出现的先后次序可以分为三组，

It has a table listed all the usages of those 语气词. I can't copy the table from my mobile device. But it has this example 我不会忘记你们的。to illustrate the usage of the 语气词 的.

It's written in Chinese though. You can try to understand it using a translation tool.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm not sure this solves my question though. That 的 is a final particle with a particular meaning does not exclude there is some nominalization going on (as in the 是...的 structure).  
> **username_2**: @username_0 语气词 doesn't have any particular meaning. 语气 means 'tone'. You should read the details about it. Like 吗 in 你吃饭了吗？Anyway, that's how far I can bring you here.   This example is more obvious, 他是怎么走的？You wouldn't think 走的 implies any noun here, would you?  
> **username_0**: I actually think there is a nominalization, from the book I referenced: "The 是...的 construction is a special sentence type in which a nominalization is used. Structurally, it consists of a subject followed by the copula verb 是 followed by a nominalization: Subj + 是 + Nominalization. It has several features: First, the subject of the sentence must be the same as the missing subject participant in the nominalization. [...] This construction serves to characterize or explain a situation by affirming or denying some suppositions, as opposed to simply reporting an event."  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Can you specify any noun you can fill in the sentence?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Or, in the sentence 我不会忘的, what noun is missing or implied?  
> **username_2**: 是... 的...  is not a fixed structure.  It means you should not take it as a hard fast rule.  Sometimes, they just coincidentally meet together in the sentence.  The sentence I gave you is the case.  
> **username_0**: I think in the case of the 是...的 construction, the noun is the same as the subject. So in your example, 怎么走的(他). At least that is what these linguists believed, even though it might sound weird to explicitly mention it. Your second example 我不会忘的, I am not sure. Maybe the whole sentence is nominalized like: "what I will not forget.", achieving in this way the affirmation you mentioned. But again this might sound weird and non-intuitive (and also, might not be necessary or useful in order to speak the language). Though I am interested in what linguists say about this.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 You picked wrong examples for the grammar you got.  The example you should take for your grammar is: 我的表是红色的, where 红色的 is nominalization.  It could be short for 红色的表.  That is, 我的表是红色的表.  But you can make it in my examples like that.  
> **username_0**: Mm I think they apply also in both situations. Your case is an example of a distinguishing word, but the nominalization also occurs to emphasize details in the past. In the book they give as examples of nominalization: 他是昨天来的。or 我们是从日本走的。  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Ok, if that works for you internally, that's fine.  Language is not about grammar rules.  As long as you can apply it well in practice, how you take it grammatically is not that important.  
> **username_0**: I believe every one will have different opinions about this. I really believe in rules (I am a physicist, I like to understand how things work). They might not be relevant in order to communicate, but otherwise they are interesting from the point of view of how the language works.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I have a Chinese grammar book handy, which is written in Chinese.  What I learned is quite different from those rules frequently discussed in this site. Anyways, everyone can choose what to believe given that there are many rules out there.  Whatever makes sense to ourselves is the best rules. Have fun!  

---

