From my answer in What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”? and according to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the nominalization particle, i.e, it allows that a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence or a part of a sentence to function as a noun phrase.

In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a final particle, it denotes affirmation or intensifies the tone and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might not be completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.

Question: From a grammar perspective, does the final particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing? In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.

From my answer in What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”? and according to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the nominalization particle, i.e, it allows that a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence or a part of a sentence to function as a noun phrase.

In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a final particle, it denotes affirmation or intensifies the tone and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might not be completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.

Question: From a grammar perspective, does the particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing? In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.

From my answer in What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”? and according to Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the nominalization particle, i.e, it allows that a verb, a verb phrase or a sentence to function as a noun phrase.

In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a final particle, it denotes affirmation or intensifies the tone and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might be not completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.

Question: From a grammar perspective, does the final particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing? In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.

From my answer in What is the meaning of 的 in “有一天你会明白的”? and according to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, I believed the function of the particle 的 from a grammar perspective is always that of the nominalization particle, i.e, it allows that a verb, a verb phrase, a sentence or a part of a sentence to function as a noun phrase.

In the other answers it was argued that when 的 occurs as a final particle, it denotes affirmation or intensifies the tone and that 的 does not actually nominalize anything. However, it seems to me this meaning might still be compatible with a nominalization function from a grammar perspective (even though it might not be completely straightforward to realize). The same situation occurs for example with the 是...的 construction, when its meaning is to emphasize details in the past but from a grammar point of view (according to the book I referenced) it is still a nominalization.

Question: From a grammar perspective, does the final particle 的 function in this (or any other) situation without nominalizing? In order to justify your reasonings, please provide some (technical) references.