4

(Question 1)

Are there any differences in nuance and usage of conjunctive form of verb (連用形) + をする compared to the plain form of those verbs whose conjunctive forms can be used as nouns?

For example:

  1. 間違える vs 間違えをする

  2. 考える vs 考えをする

  3. 逃げる vs 逃げをする

(Question 2)

Does (連用形) + をする follow the plain form in term of transitive or intransitive? E.g 逃げる is intransitive; is 逃げをする intransitive too?

Community
  • 1
Lukman
  • 19,547
  • 16
  • 91
  • 193
  • This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately the accepted answer does not provide an answer at all, just goes off on a tangent about correct or incorrect usage of examples. I suggest reopening the question (mark it unanswered) so someone could finally provide a meaningful explanation to the difference in usage of these two forms. – user1602 Mar 30 '20 at 05:35

1 Answers1

2

Q_1 I find those forms very unnatural, and even though some seem to be somehow used, it might be a mistake…

間違え as a name has no occurrence in ALC, so I find this name suspicious.

考え as a name is quite common. I found many occurrences preceded by a な-adj, like "否定的な考えをする", and also expressions "そんな時には、ヘタに考えをするよりも" and "というような考えをする人".

For 逃げ, it's mostly compound nouns: 売り逃げ、 勝ち逃げ、 飲み逃げ, where there seems to be no related existing compound verb.

I remark that 間違え is the only of those which comes from a verb that has an intransitive version too, and which seems not to be correct as a noun. This might be an important point in the validity of the derivation of a noun.

As for the nuance, I'd say there's one as in English, when you say something like "to escape" and "to do a (daring) escape". Making a noun from the verb by using its radix allows you to give a finer description by using adjectives, without the grammatically heavy use of "こと/もの".

Also, there's a nuance between "he did an audacious tentative of escape (noun)" and "he audaciously attempted to escape (verb)", which may be renderer similarly as you suggest.

Q_2

I don't understand very well your question. 連用形 becomes a noun, and it is the object complement of transitive verb する, whose subject is marked by が。 逃げをする could not be transitive. What would be its object?

Axioplase
  • 12,014
  • 29
  • 49
  • Both "間違えをする" and "逃げをする" give plenty of results on Google so I'm pretty sure people are using them out there. – Lukman Aug 11 '11 at 22:20
  • On an unrelated note, am I the only one seeing "answered in 5 hours" in the answer flair above? – Lukman Aug 11 '11 at 22:23
  • The answer flair is fine for me, but your comment is "5 hours ago". Pretty strange considering your question is only 1 hour+ old. – Flaw Aug 12 '11 at 03:48
  • @Lukman: I see many 連用形+逃げをする。 For 間違えをする, there are too some google results, but my quick search didn't not convince me it was *correct* usage. Especially since there is already a noun "間違い" (probably) coming from the intransitive verb. (and your comments are both "5 hours age", unlike Flaw's and my answer, according to what I see.) – Axioplase Aug 12 '11 at 04:12
  • @Axioplase I believe my question also covers 間違いをする vs 間違う. My examples might not be accurate, but my question is on the general side. – Lukman Aug 12 '11 at 04:22
  • There is a counting nuance there. "絶対間違いをしないでね": don't even do a single mistake. The problem with your question is that you're assuming that a noun exists for all verbs (as I'm not convinced by the existence of 間違え). The linked questions says "no"… When there is such a noun, the nuance is very likely the same as if you said "to do a 〜" and "to 〜", even though both may be naturally said the same way in English. – Axioplase Aug 12 '11 at 04:30
  • @Axioplase There is no such problem because I am not assuming a noun exists for all verbs, which was why I specifically wrote "for those verbs whose conjunctive forms can be used as nouns", and yup I read the Ignacio's answer and all the comments. Basically I'm only limiting the をする form to, I repeat, those verbs whose conjunctive forms can be used as nouns. In other words, I am excluding those verbs whose conjunctive forms CANNOT be used as nouns. Look, can please not just focus on the examples? Think abt the question when applied to general verbs whose conjunctive forms can be used as nouns. – Lukman Aug 12 '11 at 12:40