The differance between 小さい & 小さな

[StandAlone2323]

yeah, the title basically says it all. are they interchangable or what? i'm forced to teach myself what i can for now and this is the only way i think i can find out. though, i guess thats what this sub-forum is for but, enough of my rambling.

please help. muchos gracias

[Nall-ohki]

Basically two variations of the same word. You can use either, but 小さい is more common.

[Elizabeth]

The differences between 小さい & 小さな are basically similar to the ones between 大きい　＆　大きなthat were laid out in this thread. If you come up with a specific example, that always helps too. :)


http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31590

[epigene]

In terms of practical usage, the two are interchangeable when used as adjectives directly modifying a noun.

小さい学校・小さな学校 (small school)

However, when used as predicate:

○　学校が小さい。[(The) school is small.]
×　学校が小さな。

HTH! :wave:

[Elizabeth]

In terms of practical usage, the two are interchangeable when used as adjectives directly modifying a noun.
小さい学校・小さな学校 (small school)
I had been wondering whether after the last discussion if there was truly a difference between concrete, physical v. abstract (not objective or measurable) nouns when adding な or not. But evidently not. So 小さい・大きい問題　are fine as well for a small/large problem ? :? That makes sense since it is 小さな that seems slightly more emotional or impressionistic.



At least in theory for this example....I do realize there may be better ways of saying both these things. :-)

[epigene]

I had been wondering whether after the last discussion if there was truly a difference between concrete, physical v. abstract (not objective or measurable) nouns when adding な or not. But evidently not. So 小さい・大きい問題　are fine as well for a small/large problem ? :? That makes sense since it is 小さな that seems slightly more emotional or impressionistic.



At least in theory for this example....I do realize there may be better ways of saying both these things. :-)
My last post was to give an elementary description of use of the two types of adjectives. It by no means is a blanket definition.

The delicate difference between the two is difficult to explain even for native speakers, and there are instances when ookina/chiisana is OK but ookii/chiisai isn't. (Sorry, can't think of an example right now!) For this thread, I personally thought that the discussion of nuances is not appropriate for the OP.

And, yes, it has been said that ookina/chiisana describes absolute size and ookii/chiisai describes the speaker's subjective cognition of size. Still, this cannot explain every instance of use where the two are easily interchangeable. :relief:

[Elizabeth]

[quote]For this thread, I personally thought that the discussion of nuances is not appropriate for the OP.
I think you're right about that...

The delicate difference between the two is difficult to explain even for native speakers, and there are instances when ookina/chiisana is OK but ookii/chiisai isn't. (Sorry, can't think of an example right now!)
the only one I know is 小さな親切 and that is straight from a dictionary ! :p

[undrentide]

the only one I know is 小さいな親切 and that is straight from a dictionary ! :p

I guess you meant 小さな親切？

I found the explanation on this page from 日本語Ｑ＆Ａ is helpful, too.
http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/qa/keiyoushi-1.htm (Q5)

日本語Ｑ＆Ａ
http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/

[StandAlone2323]

huh, i see. ok thanks guys.　ありがとうございます。

[hkBattousai]

From my knowledge, -na adjectives were originated from Chinese, and -i adjectives were Japanese originally. In this case what can you say about 大きー　and　小さー ? Which language were they originated form?
:?

[JimmySeal]

Both from Japanese. A fine example of how blanket statements rarely work.

[undrentide]

From my knowledge, -na adjectives were originated from Chinese, and -i adjectives were Japanese originally. In this case what can you say about 大きー　and　小さー ? Which language were they originated form?

Simplest answer to your question is that "-na adjectives were originated from Chinese" is wrong.
You can make -na adjective by combining noun (mostly abstract ones) + na, and those nouns are often kanji compound which takes on-yomi (originall Chinese), thus someone came up with the idea, I guess.
e.g.
大変な、綺麗な、重大な

However, there are many other -na adjectives which are not the case.
e.g.
大きな、小さな、穏やかな、賑やかな、おかしな、

[nhk9]

I remember my teacher in university used to say that one is used more often for tangible objects, and the other for intangible, abstract objects.

Google Results Figures

小さな城　14400
小さい城 510000

大きな城 16700
大きい城 354000

For "Shiro", a physical castle, "i-adj" outnumbers "na-adj" significantly

小さな問題 122000
小さい問題 42700

大きな問題 2510000
大きい問題 180000

For "mondai" or "problem", the "na-adjective" wins out in this case.


I don't think this is a universal rule (if it's a rule at all) and you're bound to find　many exceptions. But the huge disparity between the na and i adjectives in both cases illustrates that on some cases i-adjectives are preferred and for other cases na-adjectives are preferred. In any case your safest bet is to learn them one by one.

[nekocat]

大きな
大きい

-na adjectives tend to be more subjective. Similar to French subjective adjectives (bon, neuf, etc.), which modify a noun that follows them.

-i adjectives are the non-marked （無標). Think of them as the basic adjectives.

大きなお鼻の　
トナカイさんは

大きな栗の
木下で

＞大きい: descriptive. unmarked. objective.
>大きな: subjective. marked.

[undrentide]

nekocat san, I'm not familiar with the technical terms of linguistics.
I've found some explanation on marked/unmarked （有標・無標） but still I don't have a clue about "na adjective = marked" "i adjective = unmarked".
:clueless:
Could you please elaborate?
:bow:

[nekocat]

i-adjectives are more 普通の options to pick, na-adjectives are 特別な, わざわざの　options.

Suppose I'm a highschool student. When I'm asked who I am, if I answer "私は高校生" "高校生" is unmarked.
If I answer "私は女子高生" "女子高生" is marked.

When I'm asked which is my home prefecture, if I answer "兵庫県", it's unmarked. If the answer is "兵庫県、芦屋！"　to impress the listener, it's marked!

[Elizabeth]

I remember my teacher in university used to say that one is used more often for tangible objects, and the other for intangible, abstract objects.

Google Results Figures

小さな城　14400
小さい城 510000

大きな城 16700
大きい城 354000

For "Shiro", a physical castle, "i-adj" outnumbers "na-adj" significantly

小さな問題 122000
小さい問題 42700

大きな問題 2510000
大きい問題 180000

For "mondai" or "problem", the "na-adjective" wins out in this case.


I don't think this is a universal rule (if it's a rule at all) and you're bound to find　many exceptions. But the huge disparity between the na and i adjectives in both cases illustrates that on some cases i-adjectives are preferred and for other cases na-adjectives are preferred. In any case your safest bet is to learn them one by one.
From the first link undrentide-san posted above basically confirming this analysis of the available data. :relief:


では『大きい犬』と『大きな犬』に違いがあるのでしょうか。
どちらを使っても間違いではないし、意味的にもそれほど違いがないでしょう。
ただ、私としては、多少ニュアンスが違うように思っています。
『大きい犬』は、単に犬が大きいという事実を表しています。
それに対し『大きな犬』は、発話者の感情が入っているーー。
びっくり、感動、愛情等。

『大きい』を使うか『大きな』を使うかは、ケースバイケースだと思います。

ゆうさんに補足していただきました。

「大きい」と「大きな」の違いについてですが、
私の意見も述べさせて ください。
大きい家　大きな家　とどちらも言うことができますが、
例えば抽象的な言葉「自信」「愛情」というような名詞には
「大きな」しかつけられ ないように思います。
大きい自信、大きい愛情　というとなんとなく違和感があります。
日本人は無意識の うちに 大きな自信、大きな愛情　と
抽象的なものには「大きな」を使っているのではないで しょうか？


I found the explanation on this page from 日本語Ｑ＆Ａ is helpful, too.
http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/qa/keiyoushi-1.htm (Q5)

日本語Ｑ＆Ａ
http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/
それはとてもとても私の役に立つと思います。どうもうありがとう。　

いつか、ｕｎｄｒｅｎｔｉｄｅさんのお役にたてればとてもうれしいです。:happy: :bow:

[undrentide]

i-adjectives are more 普通の options to pick, na-adjectives are 特別な, わざわざの　options.

Thank you, nekocat san, I think I'm beginning to understand it now.
Thank you for the explanation & examples.
:wave:

You're welcome, Elizabeth san!

日本語Ｑ＆Ａ is very informative and helps me to understand my own language and how it works which I normally take granted and would not think twice.



いつか、ｕｎｄｒｅｎｔｉｄｅさんのお役にたてればと てもうれしいです。:happy: :bow:

そのときにはよろしくね。:wave: