From Why is 的 used in 你是哪一天出生的 and 我们什么时候开始的 and 前天你什么时候来的这里?, I understand at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past.

However, I am not sure whether I understand the meaning of at the end of this sentence correctly:


This sentence emphasizes an event that might happen in the future. So here is not describing an event that happened in the past. Correct?

Why does it have at the end? Is it because 它 = it has been omitted? Such as:

有一天你会明白的它 = one day you will understand it.

  • Just a heads up, also for future readers, that the answer you linked is extremely inaccurate grammar-wise. It's not your fault if you feel confused. The conclusion suggested in that thread "的 at the end of a sentence describes an event that happened in the past." is definitely not a rule that can be inferred about the usage of 的. The sentence provided as an example (你是哪一天出生的) just so happens to describe a past event. It's like saying that will in English describes travels because you can say "I will go to New York".
    – blackgreen
    Sep 9, 2020 at 9:31

5 Answers 5


In Taiwan, According to dictionary owned by Ministry of Education.

can mean:


(助詞 at end of the sentence denoting affirmation, or intensify tone.)

有一天你會明白的它 is not correct. You put 它 at wrong position. 有一天你會明白它的 can be better.

  • Is 有一天 a fixed construction, or is 有 optional?
    – actinidia
    Sep 9, 2020 at 18:23
  • 1
    @TiwaAina 有 is not optional. Because 一天你會明白它的 is not complete to express an idea. People may have a hard time to understand 一天你會明白它的.
    – 000
    Sep 9, 2020 at 21:56

000's answer is correct. 的 in 有一天你会明白的 is for affirmation. It implies that what the speaker can tell now is one day you will understand.







General discussion of the particle 的

According to Charles N. Li, Sandra A. Thompson - Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, the particle 的 is the nominalization particle, which allows that a verb, a verb phrase or a sentence to function as a noun phrase. The nominalization is characterized by:

  1. Must contain a verb with at least one of its participants unspecified (e.g., subject, direct object, indirect object, etc.).

  2. If there is only one participant unspecified, the nominalization refers to this participant. For example:

    • 他没有我喜欢的

      He does not have what I like.

      Here, 我喜欢的 is nominalized: because the subject 我 is specified, the verb 喜欢 (to like) is transitive and its object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean what I like.

    • 种水果的很难过活。

      It is difficult for fruit growers to make a living.

      Here, 种水果的 is nominalized: because the verb 种 (to grow) has the object 水果 (fruit) specified, but its subject unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the subject to mean fruit growers.

  3. If both the subject and the direct object participants are unspecified, the nominalization will generally be understood to refer to the unspecified direct object of that verb. For example:

    • 这种植物可以当作吃的

      (One) can take this type of plant as food。

      Here, 吃的 is nominalized: because neither the subject or the direct object are specified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean what is to be eaten = food.

Moreover, a nominalization can also function to modify a following noun and to formulate the 是...的 construction, which for example emphasizes details in the past or allows non-gradable adjectives to appear on the predicate.

Our example:


You will understand it one day.

Here, 一天你会明白的 is nominalized: because the subject 你 is specified, 明白 is a transitive verb and the object is unspecified, the nominalization makes reference to the direct object to mean what one day you will understand.

  • 2
    There isn't any noun omitted in the OP's sentence. 000's answer is correct.
    – dan
    Sep 8, 2020 at 15:56
  • @dan I edited my answer to include the explanations from Li and Thompson's book. I don't think both answers are contradictory, but instead supplementary: here I address the grammar behind (which can feel a bit peculiar), in your answer and 000's you address the implications in meaning.
    – Puco4
    Sep 8, 2020 at 19:31
  • 2
    I agree with @dan , I really don't want do downvote this answer because it's well-written, but the OP's example is definitely not a case of nominalization. It's the sentence-final 的 used as a modal particle to express certainty, which is a well-understood piece of grammar. Suggesting that something is omitted is kinda misleading
    – blackgreen
    Sep 8, 2020 at 19:45
  • @blackgreen I really do not see the difference between this example and the others I mentioned from the book, such as: "他没有我喜欢的。" or "这种植物可以当作吃的。" The only possibility this wouldn't work is if 明白 was intransitive, but from some examples I see it is transitive.
    – Puco4
    Sep 8, 2020 at 19:50
  • 1
    他没有我喜欢的 is nominalized because you can add something after that and it would still be grammatical -> 他没有我喜欢的(东西)whereas in the OP 有一天你会明白的 if you change it to 有一天你会明白的(东西) the sentence is not grammatical anymore. Incomplete, at best. The translation you give yourself (what one day you will understand) isn't a complete standalone sentence in English either... As I said in another comment, Li & Thompson is an old text. It can't be productively used to explain everything
    – blackgreen
    Sep 8, 2020 at 20:01

000's answer is correct, 的 here is just a 句尾助語詞, no special meaning here

However I don't think any native speaker would say 「有一天你會明白它的」 ,it just sounds unnatural in any context. Maybe changing 它 to 他/她 would make much more sense to native speaker however that changes the whole sentence's meaning as well. So please just leave it as 總有一天你會明白的

Also Puco4's answer is not wrong, it's just irrelevant here, his/her mentioning the use of 的 is not applicable in this question. It is just a 句尾助語詞.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.