"Grammatically-correct" particle-less phrases/sayings


I know that within an informal/familiar setting, people often leave out
particles. Whether or not this is grammatically correct I'm not positive, but
for the sake of this question, I'll say that it's not.

What I'm talking about are modified nouns without particles that seem to be
grammatically correct. Furthermore, I've never seen them _with_ particles, and
the particle-less form seems to be the only one. Here are a few that seem to
be accepted as particle-less ("accepted" meaning I've found these exact forms
in at least one dictionary).

> 父なる： 父なる神様 → Father God / God the Father  
>  聖なる： 聖なる人々 → (a) holy people  
>  単なる： 単なる過失 → a simple/mere mistake

Here are some others that I've seen/heard before, but not sure if these forms
are accepted as particle-less, or if they are just informally left out (could
not find any of these exact forms in the dictionaries I have).

> 息ある： 息あるもの → living things ("thing that are breathing")  
>  影響ある： 影響ある政治家 → an influential politician  
>  力ある： 力ある人 → a powerful/strong person

My question is, why are certain expressions like this accepted as not having
particles? How did they become this way? Are there many expressions like these
in additions to the ones I put? Is there some type of rule that governs when
an expression can acceptably leave out the particle?

Or am I wrong about the whole thing?

* * *

**Update** : some other examples I remembered:

> 内なる： 内なる人 → Our inner-self; the person we are on the inside  
>  大【おお】いなる： 大いなる功績 → a great achievement




For your first three examples, they are predicates within a relative clause,
and they are followed by `なる`, which may be considered a copula, and which
originates from `にある`, and indeed includes a particle `に`.

Your example 影響ある sounds artificial/awkward. It is just simple omission, and
is more natural with が or の (because it is within a relative clause).

息ある and 力ある sounds somewhat idiomatic, departing a little bit from the literal
meaning, so you can consider it as a fixed expression.




For your first three examples, they are predicates within a relative clause,
and they are followed by `なる`, which may be considered a copula, and which
originates from `にある`, and indeed includes a particle `に`.

Your example 影響ある sounds artificial/awkward. It is just simple omission, and
is more natural with が or の (because it is within a relative clause).

息ある and 力ある sounds somewhat idiomatic, departing a little bit from the literal
meaning, so you can consider it as a fixed expression.

