What is the role of の in 「お父さんのバカ!」


How did the の get in the expression 「◯◯のバカ!」? Was the expression originally
longer? Is there any other example of usage other than insults?

(other example I know of: 「つよし君のエッチ!」 or anything to the same effect)

Edit: Another example by Pacerier: 「Tsunadeのばあさん」. Seeing that バカ is also a
noun, that would make them similar grammatically.

Edit 2: Or maybe not. I think what I hear in old-fashioned candy stores are
surnames, not first names, e.g. 高橋のばあさん, whereas it would mean "the grandma of
Takahashi household (whose store sells candies)". I don't know if Tsunade is a
surname or not though.

I did a quick search and miraculously, one BBS that is discussing construct
uses the exact same sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」:
<http://mentai.hanako.2ch.net/gengo/kako/981/981698334.html>




Some people (e.g. Samuel E. Martin, John R. Bentley, Alexander Vovin) argue
that this の is actually (or originally) a "defective verb", distinct from
genitive の. Here's Vovin's explanation, from "A reference grammar of early
Japanese prose" (2003):

> 5.2.1.4 Defective verbs  
>  
> The traditional grammar makes no mention of defective verbs, these being
> verbs with fewer paradigmatic forms than other verbs. There are three
> defective verbs in Classical Japanese, _n-_ "to be", _to_ "to say", and _to_
> "to be". I include below a detailed description of the existing paradigmatic
> forms of these defective verbs.  
>  
> 5.1.2.4.1 Defective verb _n-_ "to be"  
>  
> The defective verb _n-_ "to be" has only three paradigmatic forms:
> infinitive _n-i_ , gerund _n-ite_ , and attributive _n-o_. Its major
> function is that of a copula. Samuel E. Martin was the first scholar who
> proposed to treat the various forms of _n-_ as rudimentary copula forms
> (Martin 1988:34). In traditional Japanese grammar they are usually treated
> as 接続助詞 "connective particles" (Ikeda 1975:205-218). [...]  
>  
>  5.1.2.4.1.3 Attributive form of the defective verb _n-_ "to be"  
>  
>  The function of the attributive form _n-o_ is the same as that of its
> modern counterpart _no_ in the Modern Japanese examples _tomodati no
> gakusei_ "a student who is [my] friend", _mei no Sumiko_ "Sumiko who is [my]
> niece". [...]  
>  
>  竹とりの翁  
>  Taketori n-o okina  
>  Taketori be-ATTR old man  
>  old man Bamboo-Cutter (TM 29.2) [...]

Vovin argues that this is also the /no/ we see used with numbers in
constructions like _Shichinin no samurai_ ("The Seven Samurai").

I'm not convinced at this point that treating these phenomena as defective
verbs solves more problems than it creates (i.e. that it isn't easier just to
view them as semantic extension of the particles they resemble) -- but then, I
don't have nearly as comprehensive an understanding of the details as
Martin/Bentley/Vovin do. So I'm throwing this in here as something interested
parties might want to read up on.

Incidentally, this analysis would be susceptible to the same counterargument
as Axioplase's 犬のボビー: specifically, the objection that 犬のボビー that means
"Bobby, who is a dog", but お父さんのばか means "My father is an idiot", not "The
idiot, who is my father". But I think that expressions like お父さんの馬鹿 can be
understood as exclamations directed _at_ the person they describe. "You fool!"
→ "You fool, who art my father!" (cf "Our father, who art in Heaven"). This
works even if the addressed person is not present, just as I can cry "Damn
you, Mendoza!" if I discover Mendoza's evil handiwork long after Mendoza has
fled town.

