「砂を噛むように味__ない。」: Which particle(s) to use best, and how do the meanings differ?


The sentence I encountered was originally:

> 「砂を噛むように味のない。」

Which I would translate as follows:

> (Something) lacks taste so much that it is just like chewing on sand.  
>  *Don't try this at home.

I began to wonder if I changed the particle の with a different particle, when
would the meaning actually change, and when would it become ungrammatical.

Below are the variations I can think of, and that which appear grammatical to
me, along with the meanings I think they have. The translation may well be
unnatural.

> 砂を噛むように味がない。  
>  (There is / This is) no taste like chewing on sand.
>
> 砂を噛むように味がある。  
>  The taste that is like chewing on sand exists. This has the taste like
> chewing on sand.
>
> 砂を噛むように味である。  
>  This taste is like chewing on sand.
>
> 砂を噛むように味 では/じゃ ない。 This taste is not like chewing on sand.

Again, I try to retain a more literal translation irrespective of naturalness,
because I think this helps comparing the difference.

I believe this may be an issue many beginners such as yours truly encounter. I
would really appreciate it if anyone could take a stab at this for me. Thank
you so much!




I think 砂を噛むように味のない is bit unnatural, because a noun is necessary after 味のない
like 砂を噛むように味のない昼飯.

砂を噛むように味がない is natural.

砂を噛むように味がある would be grammatically correct, but it is not appropriate for a
metaphor of taste.

砂を噛むように味である(はない) is unnatural. It is 砂を噛むような味である(はない). You must change
continuous form ように to attributive form ような.




I think 砂を噛むように味のない is bit unnatural, because a noun is necessary after 味のない
like 砂を噛むように味のない昼飯.

砂を噛むように味がない is natural.

砂を噛むように味がある would be grammatically correct, but it is not appropriate for a
metaphor of taste.

砂を噛むように味である(はない) is unnatural. It is 砂を噛むような味である(はない). You must change
continuous form ように to attributive form ような.

