In the book I'm reading, I came across the following sentence:
あたしは[怒]{おこ}るに[怒]{おこ}れなくなった。 (furigana added by me)
My translation is something like "I couldn't stay angry [at him]". ("My anger melted away.")
I don't actually understand the grammar, though. The phrase 「怒るに怒れない」 has what appears to be particle-に following the dictionary form of a verb. It sounds contrastive. I can't seem to find this pattern in my dictionaries, though, so I feel unsure.
I'm interpreting it as 「怒る(の)に怒れない」, with a zero-nominalizer after the verb. Is this correct?
Is this a set phrase preserving old grammar of some kind?
Answer
This is a common pattern that means "even if I wanted to V, I cannot V" or "no matter what, I cannot V". As such, in your sentence, it means " I could not get mad even if I wanted to.".
As for the grammar, this is a conjunctive particle (接続助詞). Rather than attaching to the "dictionary form" (終止形), though, it attaches to the attributive (連体形). That is why there is no need for a (zero-) nominalizer.
No comments:
Post a Comment