Usage of ～を好き outside of embedded clauses


日本語文法の初心者です :D

In general, を is not used with 好き because 好き is a na-adjective:

>   * 彼は猫が好きです。 -- correct
>   * 彼は猫を好きです。 -- incorrect
>

If this part is "embedded" as a clause, を is also acceptable, and this
phenomenon is asked and answered in other questions in this site:

  * [Why is を used in this situation? 私は先生がネコを好きだと思います](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/4210/5010)
  * [を vs が with use against 好き?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3473/5010)

>   * 私は彼が猫が好きだと思います。 -- correct
>   * 私は彼が猫 **を** 好きだと思います。 -- correct
>

Okay, this explains why 「彼が猫を好きな理由を教えて」「彼がどんな猫を好きか気になる」「彼が猫を好きって知ってた？」 and so
on are valid.

But my question is why the following sentences are also OK:

>   1. 誰が猫が好き？ -- correct
>   2. 誰が猫 **を** 好き？ -- correct (perhaps better than 1.), but why?
>   3. 彼はなぜ猫が好きなのですか？ -- correct
>   4. 彼はなぜ猫 **を** 好きなのですか？ -- correct, but why?
>

The accepted answers in the linked questions say that the outer verb (i.e. 思う)
plays the critical role as to why が is replaceable with を. But these sentences
are not related with "embedding". And I believe none of the four sentences
above are particularly slangy (but tell me if someone feels any of the four
sentences are slangy).

And I've also come up with [the phrase
「猫を好きになる」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/25743/5010), which I know is
perfectly fine on its own.

So I feel there must be another grammatical rule which I'm not aware of.




I think exceptionally using 「を」 with normally 「が」-marked words is not
something unique to 「好き」 and 「嫌い」.

Let me start by expanding the scope of your question: the other questions you
linked to explain why 「が」 can turn into 「を」 under 「〜と[certain verbs]」; they
did not explain why things like 「私は太郎が猫 **を** 嫌いな理由は未だに分からない。」 are just fine.

So I think **why 「が」 can sometimes turn into 「を」 in relative clauses** is
important to discuss as well.

## Relative clause weirdness

Consider the following examples:

> ×太郎は英語をわかる。 ⇒ 太郎が英語をわかるはずがない。  
>  ×太郎は英語をよくできる。 ⇒ 太郎が英語をよくできるはずがない。  
>  ×太郎は猫を欲しい。 ⇒ 太郎が猫を欲しい理由は分からない。

While を is not permissible in the first sentences, it is in the latter. The
difference in the latter of course being that the verb and its argument is in
a relative clause.

It turns out that, of all of the cases where I can think of that this happens,
the が that we would normally see (太郎は英語 **が** わかる) is the so called
"nominative object marker".

## Nominative objects

A nominative object is to be distinguished from a usual subject-subject
construction:

> 太郎はシラミがいる。 (subject-subject)

vs

> 太郎は猫が好きだ。 (subject-object)

We can distinguish these cases by a few tricks.

  1. Subject honorification:

> ×山田先生はシラミがおいでになる。 (subject-subject)
>
> 山田先生は猫がお好きだ。 (subject-object)

In the first case, the subject honorification ends up connecting to シラミ, which
doesn't make sense (cf., 山田先生は美しい奥さんがおいでになる).

In the second case, 猫 is a (nominative) object, so subject honorification
doesn't connect to it.

  2. 自分:

> 太郎は恋人が自分の家で自殺した。 (subject-subject)
>
> 太郎は花子が自分の妹より好きだ。 (subject-object)

In the first case, 自分 binds to 恋人. Some native speakers find it ambiguous and
think it can also bind to 太郎.

In the latter case, 自分 must bind to 太郎, because 花子 is an object.

To learn more about nominative objects, read

> Miyagawa, S., & Saito, M. (2008) [Nominative
> Object](https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=4CS07LRO8O8C&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false).
> In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics.
>
> Kuno, S., & Johnson, Y. (2005) On the non-canonical double nominative
> construction in Japanese.

(The latter is an absolutely fantastic paper but I can't seem to find a un-
paywalled copy of it online.)

## Nominative objects in relative clauses

My claim is that when you have one of these verbs that mark their object with
が in a relative clause, it sometimes becomes permissible to mark them with を.
I can't seem to find any relevant papers.

I think this is not _always_ the case -- for example...

> 君が羨ましい  
>  君を羨ましい理由は分かる？

I think the latter sentence may not work. There are other cases where I'm not
entirely sure, but I am unfortunately not a native speaker.

Here's a list from Kuno 1973 of predicates that accept nominative objects:

  * Competence: 上手、苦手、下手、得意、上手い、できる 
  * Feeling: 好き、嫌い、欲しい、怖い 
  * Nonintentional perception: 分かる、聞こえる、見える 
  * Possession and need: ある (have)、要る

If any native speakers could try embedding these in relative clauses and
seeing which ones do and don't allow for を, perhaps we could come up with an
even more refined argument.

But at least, in all cases where を _does_ work in a relative clause yet
doesn't outside of a relative clause, as far as I can tell it's always a
nominative object outside of the relative clause.

In other words, while this is not true:

> is nominative object → can be marked by 「を」 when in relative clause

I think this _is_ true:

> can be marked by 「を」 when in relative clause → is nominative object

## Question sentences

With question sentences, it seems that verbs that can use 「を」 are the same as
the ones that can in relative clauses.

Taking できる, for example,

> この部屋では誰が英語をよくできる？

seems fine.




I think exceptionally using 「を」 with normally 「が」-marked words is not
something unique to 「好き」 and 「嫌い」.

Let me start by expanding the scope of your question: the other questions you
linked to explain why 「が」 can turn into 「を」 under 「〜と[certain verbs]」; they
did not explain why things like 「私は太郎が猫 **を** 嫌いな理由は未だに分からない。」 are just fine.

So I think **why 「が」 can sometimes turn into 「を」 in relative clauses** is
important to discuss as well.

## Relative clause weirdness

Consider the following examples:

> ×太郎は英語をわかる。 ⇒ 太郎が英語をわかるはずがない。  
>  ×太郎は英語をよくできる。 ⇒ 太郎が英語をよくできるはずがない。  
>  ×太郎は猫を欲しい。 ⇒ 太郎が猫を欲しい理由は分からない。

While を is not permissible in the first sentences, it is in the latter. The
difference in the latter of course being that the verb and its argument is in
a relative clause.

It turns out that, of all of the cases where I can think of that this happens,
the が that we would normally see (太郎は英語 **が** わかる) is the so called
"nominative object marker".

## Nominative objects

A nominative object is to be distinguished from a usual subject-subject
construction:

> 太郎はシラミがいる。 (subject-subject)

vs

> 太郎は猫が好きだ。 (subject-object)

We can distinguish these cases by a few tricks.

  1. Subject honorification:

> ×山田先生はシラミがおいでになる。 (subject-subject)
>
> 山田先生は猫がお好きだ。 (subject-object)

In the first case, the subject honorification ends up connecting to シラミ, which
doesn't make sense (cf., 山田先生は美しい奥さんがおいでになる).

In the second case, 猫 is a (nominative) object, so subject honorification
doesn't connect to it.

  2. 自分:

> 太郎は恋人が自分の家で自殺した。 (subject-subject)
>
> 太郎は花子が自分の妹より好きだ。 (subject-object)

In the first case, 自分 binds to 恋人. Some native speakers find it ambiguous and
think it can also bind to 太郎.

In the latter case, 自分 must bind to 太郎, because 花子 is an object.

To learn more about nominative objects, read

> Miyagawa, S., & Saito, M. (2008) [Nominative
> Object](https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=4CS07LRO8O8C&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false).
> In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics.
>
> Kuno, S., & Johnson, Y. (2005) On the non-canonical double nominative
> construction in Japanese.

(The latter is an absolutely fantastic paper but I can't seem to find a un-
paywalled copy of it online.)

## Nominative objects in relative clauses

My claim is that when you have one of these verbs that mark their object with
が in a relative clause, it sometimes becomes permissible to mark them with を.
I can't seem to find any relevant papers.

I think this is not _always_ the case -- for example...

> 君が羨ましい  
>  君を羨ましい理由は分かる？

I think the latter sentence may not work. There are other cases where I'm not
entirely sure, but I am unfortunately not a native speaker.

Here's a list from Kuno 1973 of predicates that accept nominative objects:

  * Competence: 上手、苦手、下手、得意、上手い、できる 
  * Feeling: 好き、嫌い、欲しい、怖い 
  * Nonintentional perception: 分かる、聞こえる、見える 
  * Possession and need: ある (have)、要る

If any native speakers could try embedding these in relative clauses and
seeing which ones do and don't allow for を, perhaps we could come up with an
even more refined argument.

But at least, in all cases where を _does_ work in a relative clause yet
doesn't outside of a relative clause, as far as I can tell it's always a
nominative object outside of the relative clause.

In other words, while this is not true:

> is nominative object → can be marked by 「を」 when in relative clause

I think this _is_ true:

> can be marked by 「を」 when in relative clause → is nominative object

## Question sentences

With question sentences, it seems that verbs that can use 「を」 are the same as
the ones that can in relative clauses.

Taking できる, for example,

> この部屋では誰が英語をよくできる？

seems fine.

