So this is what I understand from what I read so far:
– **のは**
is when you mention an action, object etc, among other ones that we know could also be mentioned but are just not. 漢字を読むのは難しい, you mention kanji, you don’t mention katakana nor hiragana, but we know they also exist and could be mentioned, so maybe they are also difficult, maybe not. In your sentence, you just focus on kanji among other things.
– **のを**
is to mention something, through a noun that would require を in an other sentence (ラメんを食べる), or through an action performed and mentioned with a verb using を (何かをする), but when there are no other related points of focus that you could also mention about the topic you’re talking about.
You were supposed to cook ramen, not anything more: ラメんを作るのを忘れた。
If you were supposed to cook ramen, fried potates and risotto, but just forgot ramen, you would say ラメんを作るのは、、(ah, Tanaka san, you’re asking me if I cooked ramen… – here は is referring to the just mentioned topic, otherwise it wouldn’t be very natural to use it here), ごめん、ラメんを作るのは、忘れた (I’m sorry to tell you that about what you are mentioning, I forgot it, – but I didn’t forget the other things.)
Or, more naturally, in a complete and square sentence, you would use のが : Ah, I got everything right but the ramen I forgot to cook them, ラメんを作るのが忘れた。(Well, actually, it is very not recommended that you cook ramen before your guests are sitting at the table.)
– **のが**
is a bit like the most common way of using が in a sentence without の, meaning you mention something among other things, not because “you just don’t mention the other things”, but because you “elect” this particular thing: you choose to say that the interesting / beautiful / strange / etc thing, is not the other things that you could mention, but this one specifically. You don’t like beer, wine, whisky, shouchu, there is only one alcool worth interest to you: 日本酒が美味しいです。
– And then, there is the specific case of **好き/ 嫌い**, with which you always use **のが** like you do in sentences without の：漫画が好き、漫画を読むのが好き。
Ok.
So first, are these distinctions correct?
– And second, there is
**the “の+other particle” form versus the “Verb+こと” form**.
After reading many examples, the impression I have beyond specific cases is that the nuance would be something like this:
**- 1)** First, whatever you do, **you don’t use こと with 好き or 嫌い**, as you will always use が with these ones, so there is no question there.
**- 2)** Second, 何か**すること** is mentioning an activity that appears in a sentence where there is **no nuance of “electing” this activity among others that are present in the conversation, explicitly or implicitly enough to be close to explicit**, because in that case case you would use のが.
A: 私の趣味は、映画を見ることです。
B: え、本当？私は音楽を聞くのが楽しいと思います。
(I purposely didn’t use 好き in B’s answer, because we already know that 好き goes with が).
So here, when A is talking, he doesn’t oppose movies to something else, he just talks “on a blank page” about his hobby, and well, his hobby is eiga.
But when B answers, as eiga has now already been mentioned in the conversation, he opposes ongaku to eiga, hence the が, that “elects” ongaku over eiga.
– And **3)**, it feels to me that the nuance between Verb + の(は、を、が） and Verb + こと is that:
First, Verb + こと takes the activity as a whole, like a noun that you can not divide into sub-pieces of meaning: 何かをすること is a whole in itself. (Although の something is also technically used to form a nominal verb.)
For instance, **音楽を聞くこと transforms “listening to music”, that is one verb + one object, into “the musiclistening”. An activity as whole, not dividable**.
This is not the actual translation you would use, but it would be the idea.
And the other point would be that, at this very moment, **with こと, you mention this activity as some sort of “abstraction”, in the sense that in your sentence, there is no idea of an actualization of this activity**.
When saying 映画を見ること, you’re not talking about seeing a movie yesterday, today, tomorrow, you don’t even talk about you particularly seeing movies, you talk about “the fact of watching movies”.
What I call abstraction is not opposed to something concrete in its meaning, as watching a movie is a concrete activity, I use it to oppose it to an actualized activity.
Actualized doesn’t necessarily mean actualized in the very moment you speak (to be doing something now), but still connected to something specific that actualizes it, even not now or not here: a certain person, a certain place, a certain time…
Opposed to actualized, “abstract” would mean an activity that is referred to, in this very sentence, not as taking place in some point of time and space, but as almost “theoretical”, like, “you’re just talking (about this activity)”. Like you would talk about cats or dinosaurs, you’re not referring to a cat or a dinosaur you have personally met, you just talk about the __species__ “dinosaurs” or the __species__ “cats”.
An example to get my distinction would be in English:
“Walking my dog is fun”, you are referring to yourself personally watching your own dog Toby.
“Walking a dog is fun”, you are referring to the abstract, or if you prefer, the **”general”** – maybe a better wording – activity of walking a dog.
“I like walking my dog”: you would use が, because walking a dog is actualized in the personal subject that you are, and because walking refers to a concrete subject, your dog. Whether you are doing it now or not.
“I like walking a dog”: whatever the dog doesn’t matter, you are just referring to the general activity of “walking a dog”, so you would use こと.
In our example above, **if you say you like watching movies, it’s not depending on a certain movie**, you like **the activity __generally speaking__**, as a whole, the Watchingmovies activity. Hence 見ること。
Which could also explain, for instance, why you always use の when following the activity with verbs like 見る、聞く、待つ、手伝う、やめる… “I _see_ or _can see_ Tanaka san playing tennis”, by definition this sentence includes an actualized version of the tennis playing activity.
**Does that make sense?**
I’m sure there are many things in this that need to be corrected, but at least am I roughly on the right track?
Of course any correction or refinement will be more than welcome, as I’m trying to understand this correctly 🙂
Thank you very much in advance!