大きい and 大きな

[yevgeny]

Hi,

All Japanese learning books claim that in Japanese there are two types of adjectives: i-adjectives and na-adjectives (e.g. 高い and 静かな).
But recently I paid attention that some adjectives have both forms. For example: 大きい and 大きな, 小さい and 小さな.

Are there many such adjectives with both forms? Is it a separate category of adjectives?

Thanks,
Yevgeny

[nice gaijin]

To my knowledge, there are very few adjectives with both い and な forms. Just think of them as more or less exceptions to the rules.

[drakkar11]

Although you might think Ookii is a na adjective, it is not. Ookii is a -ku adjective.

[nice gaijin]

大きな is a na-adjective, 大きい is an i-adjective. There is no such thing as a "ku adjective."

[Toritoribe]

大きい・大きな 小さい・小さな
細かい・細かな おかしい・おかしな
一見、これらもイ形容詞とナ形容詞にまたがるものに見 えますが、よく考えると、これらの「−な」の形は、基 本形「−だ」の形、およびその変化がありません。（「 ×大きだ・おかしだ」）
ですから、これらはナ形容詞ではなく、連体詞とみなさ れます。イ形容詞と似た意味を持つ「−な」の形の連体 詞というわけです。これらの対の微妙な違いはよくわか らないのですが、「−な」のほうが日常的な、慣用的に よく使われる言葉になりやすい、ということが言われて います。「小さな親切運動」「大きな顔をするな！」な どのように。

from 庭三郎『現代日本語文法概説』


So both are basically i-adjectives.
another exceptions,

暖かい・暖かだ（名詞の前ではそれぞれ「暖かい・暖か な」）
柔らかい・柔らかだ (柔らかい／柔らかな 日差し)
四角い・四角だ (四角い／四角な／四角の 箱)
真っ白い・真っ白だ (真っ白い／真っ白な／真っ白の 雪)

in his classification,
暖かい・暖かだ 柔らかい・柔らかだ i-adjective and na-adjective
四角い・四角だ i-adjective and na-adjective and 名詞述語(predicative noun)
真っ白い・真っ白だ basically i-adjective and na-adjective, exceptionally usage 真っ白の

[yevgeny]

Can you please translate to English what you have written above?
Also, can you please explain the だ form you mentioned? If I am not mistaken, it's some form of na-adjective.

[ハダカ]

Cmon Eugene man, gather yourself! だ form has nothing with the adjectives! Examples:
”あなたは間抜けです。” - polite form, desu.
”何故貴様か莫迦だ！” - casual form, da.

[yevgeny]

ハダカさん, I think you didn't understand the question. I didn't mean だ as the plain form of です. I meant だ as a suffix of 綺麗だ, which is a form of 綺麗な or vice versa.
But anyway, thanks for your comprehensible examples.

[Toritoribe]

Exactly. −だ is the basic form of na-adjectives.

i-adjective conjugations
root 高
basic 高い
negative 高くない
past 高かった
negative past 高くなかった

na-adjective conjugations
root 静か
basic 静かだ
negative 静かではない
past 静かだった
negative past 静かではなかった

In the case of 大きい, the conjugations are 「大きい、大きくない、大きかった、大きくなかった」 (not 「大きだ、大きではない、大きだった、大きではなかっ た」). So 大きい is an i-adjective.
大きな、小さな、細かな、おかしな are considered "attributive". (連体詞って英語ではなんて言うんでしょうね？)

暖かい 柔らかい have both type of the basic forms and thier conjugations, like 「暖かい/暖かだ、暖かくない/暖かではない...」

[nice gaijin]

Exactly. −だ is the basic form of na-adjectives.
i-adjective conjugations...
Although your conjugations are correct, I feel that this statement over-simplifies things and could lead to confusion.

だ is a form of です, and goes with な-adjectives because they are conjugated as nouns. Although they appear in the dictionary form to simply end with だ, that is a function of its conjugation, and not a form of the adjective itself.

This site (http://www.matsu-kaze.net/keiyoushi.php) put it quite succinctly:
notice that unlike い-adjectives, when な-adjectives are informal and at the end of the sentence they are followed by だ. な-adjectives must always be followed by a predicate or by -な.

[yevgeny]

Ok, so for those few adjectives that have both i- and na- forms, can we use both forms in the same way where possible?
For example, are the following sentences equivalent?

1) それは大きいビルです。
2) それは大きなビルです。

and

1) そのビルは大きいです。
2) そのビルは大きです。 //This is the na- form. Intuitively, I doubt this second sentence is correct.

[nice gaijin]

2) そのビルは大きです。 //This is the na- form. Intuitively, I doubt this second sentence is correct.you're right, these particular adjectives may have na forms, but they can only be used as na-adjectives when preceding the subject they describe (in other words, they can only be used with the na particle, not with a predicate) your other sentences are acceptable uses for the adjectives.

[Toritoribe]

だ is a form of です, ...
About －だ、－です, there's difference between i-adjective and na-adjective.

i-adjective conjugations
polite basic 高いです
polite negative 高くないです
polite past 高かったです
polite negative past 高くなかったです

In this case, です is not conjugated. So it's considered as "adjective + 丁寧を表わす無変化の助動詞(non-conjugated auxiliary verb)です". (The meaning doesn't change without です.)
EDIT:
This です is not a polite form of だ, because the conjugations 「高いだ、高くないだ...」 can't be used. (sounds like Touhoku dialect...)

na-adjective conjugations
polite basic 静かです
polite negative 静かではありません
polite past 静かでした
polite negative past 静かではありませんでした

These are considered as one word (conjugations of adjective).

2) そのビルは大きです。 //This is the na- form. Intuitively, I doubt this second sentence is correct.
Right. The last sentence is incorrect. Because 大きい doesn't have conjugations as na-adjective.
暖かい 柔らかい have both forms.

1) そこは暖かい部屋だった。
2) そこは暖かな部屋だった。

1) その部屋は暖かかった。
2) その部屋は暖かだった。

All expressions are correct.


note:
conjugations of adjective.

i-adjective
語幹 　高
基本形 高－い　
中立形 高－く
テ形　 高－くて
ナイ形 高－くない
タ形　 高－かった
タリ形 高－かったり
タラ形 高－かったら
バ形　 高－ければ
推量形 高－かろう

na-adjective
語幹 静か
基本形 静か－だ
中立形 静か－に
テ形　 静か－で
ナイ形 静か－でない
タ形　 静か－だった
タリ形 静か－だったり
タラ形 静か－だったら
バ形　 静か－なら（ば）
連体形 静か－な
(same as "noun + だ" except 連体形(attributive form) - 静かな部屋/彼女の部屋)

[yevgeny]

About －だ、－です, there's difference between i-adjective conjugations
polite negative 高くないです
polite negative past 高くなかったです


I learned (e.g. in the Pimsleur course) the following forms as polite negative forms of i-adjectives:

polite negative 高くありません
polite negative past 高くありませんでした

while the corresponding forms you mentioned are written in another learning book as plain ones (without です of course).

[Toritoribe]

I learned (e.g. in the Pimsleur course) the following forms as polite negative forms of i-adjectives:
polite negative 高くありません
polite negative past 高くありませんでした
[−くありません]
イ形容詞の否定の形にはもう一つ別の形があります。「 −ないです」の部分を「−ありません」に置き換えた次 の形です。
［Ai−くありません：Ai−くありませんでした］
今年の夏は暑くありません（でした）。
こちらのほうがやや「丁寧」あるいは「あらたまった」 感じがします。日本語教育としてはどちらを先に教えて もいいと思いますが、ここでは「−ないです」の形にし ておきます。そうする教科書があることと、そのほうが 丁寧体から普通体への移行がやさしいからです。
もちろん、適当な時期にもう一つの否定の形も教える必 要があります。
日本語教師は、自分の使っている教科書がこの二つの形 のどちらを使っているかを忘れないようにして、その形 で学習者に話しかけるようにしないと、学習者が混乱し ますから、注意が必要です。

i-adjectives have two types of polite negative form.
−くありません is more polite, formal than −くないです.

[nice gaijin]

na-adjective conjugations
polite basic 静かです
polite negative 静かではありません
polite past 静かでした
polite negative past 静かではありませんでした

These are considered as one word (conjugations of adjective).
I see what you were sayings; it seemed at first that you were simply equating な (the particle) and だ (the predicate). This makes much more sense.

Could you please cite your source for these excerpts? I would like to read more about Japanese grammar in Japanese.

[Toritoribe]

Could you please cite your source for these excerpts? I would like to read more about Japanese grammar in Japanese.
Sure!

庭三郎の現代日本語文法概説

Please google with "現代日本語文法概説",
becase of the "You do not have enough posts yet to add URLs to third-party websites." error, sorry.
It's quite extremely long though... (tough to read...)

[Tomii515]

i-adjective conjugations
polite basic 高いです
polite negative 高くないです
polite past 高かったです
polite negative past 高くなかったです


Isn't is also more polite to conjugate as the following?:

高いです
高くありません
高かったです
高くありませんでした

I don't know. Before I got the book I'm using now, I used what you said. And the book taught what I just wrote (and had notes about the bottem saying something like "some speakers use blah balh somethign this form:" and then is conjugatedwhat you had and stuff...

So, that's something I made a thread about a while ago, and no one really answered my question... :okashii:

[Chidoriashi]

I know you may feel you want to know particulars, but this is not a big deal. It is just one of those things you will learn to use naturally by being around Japanese and just repeating what they say. Personally I feel that when　大きな is used though, it kind of seems to form more of a connection to the noun it is modifying. But its not a make or break you point of communication. In my journey of learning Japanese I found myself wasting a lot of time an energy trying to understand particulars, that in the end really didn't matter that much... not even on a test.

[nice gaijin]

Sure!
庭三郎の現代日本語文法概説
Please google with "現代日本語文法概説",
becase of the "You do not have enough posts yet to add URLs to third-party websites." error, sorry.
It's quite extremely long though... (tough to read...)
http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/ is this the page? there seems to be a problem with the encoding, EDIT: nevermind, I found an encoding that works for it. I'll have to work through it later. Big thanks for the link!

For future reference, if you write the URL and just change it slightly, you should be able to post it

like www.jref.com -> www(dot)jref(dot)com

[Toritoribe]

Isn't is also more polite to conjugate as the following?...
conversation with boss
「費用はかかったの？」
「いえ、思ったほど高くありませんでした」

at a checkout counter
「合計○○円になります」
「よかった。思ったほど高くないですね」

Some textbooks teach −です polite form first, since it's easier to learn (just add です in the end of plane form).

I know you may feel you want to know particulars, but this is not a big deal. It is just one of those things you will learn to use naturally by being around Japanese and just repeating what they say. Personally I feel that when　大きな is used though, it kind of seems to form more of a connection to the noun it is modifying. But its not a make or break you point of communication. In my journey of learning Japanese I found myself wasting a lot of time an energy trying to understand particulars, that in the end really didn't matter that much... not even on a test.
As for communication, that may be true. If I hear the expression 「この服は高いじゃなかったです」「あそこが静かなか っただった」(same as my awkward English...), probably I can understand what he/she wants to say.
So it depends on the purpose to learn, for reading novels, working in a Japanese company, watching TV, traveling in Japan...

For future reference, if you write the URL and just change it slightly, you should be able to post it
awesome! thanks a lot!

[nice gaijin]

I think after 20 or 25 posts you'll be able to post links normally, so it shouldn't be a problem for long :)

[82riceballs]

Sorry, what does the conversation with boss mean?
「費用はかかったの？」 Have you spent the expenses?
「いえ、思ったほど高くありませんでした」???
I'm still a beginner... sigh...

[Toritoribe]

Sorry, what does the conversation with boss mean?
「費用はかかったの？」 Have you spent the expenses?
「いえ、思ったほど高くありませんでした」???
費用はかかったの？: How about cost? (= Was it expensive?)
いえ、思ったほど高くありませんでした: No, it was not as expensive as I expected.

[yevgeny]

We spoke here a lot about adjectives and 2 types of Japanese adjectives - i-adjectives and na-adjectives.
I found another adjective that I don't know to which of 2 types above is related.

The adjective is:

晴れた
adj. (Hira=はれた) sunny, illuminated by the sun, filled with sunlight; cheerful, pleasant, fine

Also I'd like to know how it is conjugated.

[Toritoribe]

That's a conjugation of the verb 晴れる, ta-form/attributive past.

晴れた疑い、曇った空、届いた手紙、割れたガラス...

[yevgeny]

That's a conjugation of the verb 晴れる, ta-form/attributive past.
晴れた疑い、曇った空、届いた手紙、割れたガラス...

Just to make sure I understud.
Can I make the following sentence?
食べた林檎は美味しかったです。

Meaning, "The apple that I ate was delicious". Literally, "the eaten apple", where the word "eaten" (食べた) functions as an attributive of the verb 食べる.

[Toritoribe]

Just to make sure I understud.
Can I make the following sentence?
食べた林檎は美味しかったです。
Meaning, "The apple that I ate was delicious". Literally, "the eaten apple", where the word "eaten" (食べた) functions as an attributive of the verb 食べる.
Yes, that's sounds natural.

食べた; attributive past

明日食べる林檎は美味しいに違いない。
The apple that I'll eat tomorrow should be delicious.

[yevgeny]

Thank you for your answer.
One more thing. Can you please explain me the role of 違いない in your example? Is it some form/conjugation of the verb 違う?

[Chidoriashi]

違いない "means without a doubt" or "must be" or "surely"
君は冗談を言っているに違いない。　(You must be joking)

明日食べるリンゴは美味しいに違いない。Though grammatically correct, this sentence sounds quite awkward in Japanese. And i confirmed it with my one of my Japanese co-workers.
I think it is better for you to say 明日食べるリンゴは美味しいと思います。

[Chidoriashi]

oh and the "eaten apple" or "the apple that was eaten" would actually translate more like 食べられたリンゴは美味しかったです。 So the meaning is simply as you stated before, "The apple that I ate was delicious." It's just that the first part of the sentence ”私が” has been omitted.

[Toritoribe]

確かに「に違いない」は文語、つまり書き言葉ですから話し言葉の例文としては相応しくなかったかもしれませ んね。ただ文法的に正しいというだけでなく、叙述体として小説や論文、映画・ドラマのナレーション等で日常 ごく普通に使われる表現です。

次に動詞「食べる」について。最初に断っておきますが、以下は「食べる」特有の性質も含めた説明です。一般 論ではなく。そこに踏み込むと、本を一冊書かなければなりませんから。仰るとおり「食べられる」は「食べる 」の受身形です。ただ無生物である林檎を主格補語にして文章を作る機会は、詩的な表現を除けば多くはありま せん。

(私が)食べた林檎は美味しかった。

これを強いて作ると

私に食べられた林檎は美味しかった。

こういう特殊な文型の場合、通常、対象の補語「私に」は省略されません。それは「食べる」が一段活用動詞で あるというのも理由の一つです。つまり活用形「食べられた」は受身だけでなく可能、尊敬の意味も持ち得ます から、単に

食べられた林檎は美味しかった。

とした場合、通常使われない受身よりも可能の意味として読み取られる可能性が高いのです。

(腐ったり未熟だったりして食べられなかった林檎以外の)食べられた林檎は美味しかった。

のように。省略に関することで付け加えると、実は

食べた林檎は美味しかったです。

は単文としてはやや不自然です。たとえば時制を加えて

昨日食べた林檎は美味しかったです。

にすると安定します。さらに「林檎は食べられる」というのは常識として万人に知られている事実なので、「食 べる」もしばしば省略されます。

昨日の林檎は美味しかった。

日本語としては何の不自然さもありませんが、これを"yesterday's apple"と訳すと日本語の原文とまるで違う意味になりかねません。同様に、受身だからという理由で単純 に"eaten"を「食べられる」と対比させるのも間違いの元になります。おそらく翻訳というのはこういう各言語特有の背景 を越えていく作業なんでしょうね。

in English later, sorry.

[Toritoribe]

違いない is from 違ひなし, "attributive of archaic verb 違ふ ＋ terminal of archaic adjective なし". It's a literary style, used in novels, narrations in movies/dramas...

plane: (私が)食べた林檎は美味しかったです。
another passive(quite awkward though): 私に食べられた林檎は美味しかったです。

Second one is not a usual sentence, so generally 私に is not omitted. Besides, as specific reason for 食べる, it's a 一段活用動詞(1-row veb). passive/possessive/honorific are all 食べられる. So 食べられた林檎は美味しかったです tends to be read as the possessive without 私に, since it's usual.

(腐ったり未熟だったりして食べられなかった林檎以外 の)食べられた林檎は美味しかったです。
(except the inedible ones like rotten/unripe)The edible apple was delicious.

That's the one of the reason hard to use 食べられた.Plus, actually, 食べた林檎は美味しかったです is a little bit awkward. 昨日食べた林檎は美味しかったです sounds natural. What's more, we all know as the fact that apples are edible, so even 食べた is often omitted.

昨日の林檎は美味しかったです。

Although it's quite natural as Japanese, "yesterday's apple" probably doesn't make sense as English. By the same token, "eaten" is not always translated as 食べられた. That's the interpretation, in my opinion.

[grlwthchpstcks]

I believe there are some adjectives that are both i & na, such as ookii. :-)

[yevgeny]

Hi again,

I learned that 大きな and 小さな are neither i-adjectives nor na-adjectives - they belong to a third category of Japanese adjectives called attributives (連体詞) or attributive adjectives.
The main common rule about this third category of adjectives is that they may only occur before nouns, not in a predicative position.

I would like to know which other adjectives belong to this category.
Some examples: 所謂 (いわゆる), 大した (たいした).

Also, is it correct to say that all attributives can be divided by suffixes into 4 groups?
1. 「 - の」
2. 「 - る」
3. 「 - な」
4. 「 - た（だ）」

Thanks,
Yevgeny

[Toritoribe]

連体詞 (e.g. いわゆる, 大した, あの, 或る, 去る etc) does NOT CONJUGATE. So they don't belong to adjectives. 大きな and 小さな are generally considered as i-adjectives. (Some dictionaries indeed classify them as 連体詞, though)


JFYI, the classification system by 村木新次郎

subjective/objective/
adverbial form　　　　　　　adnominal form　　predicative form　　excamples
　－が(－を)　－に　－く　　　－の　－な　－い　　－だ　－い　

(1)　　＋　　　＋　　－　　　　＋　　－　　－ 　　　　＋　　－　　　りんご－　机－　遊び－　
(2)　　＋　　　＋　　－　　　　＋　　＋　　－ 　　　　＋　　－　　　健康－　自由－　親切－
(3)　　＋　　　＋　　＋　　　　＋　　－　　＋ 　　　　＋　　＋　　　丸－　四角－　茶色－
(4)　　－　　　＋　　－　　　　＋　　－　　－ 　　　　＋　　－　　　大荒れ－　上々－　がらあき－
(5)　　－　　　＋　　－　　　　＋　　＋　　－ 　　　　＋　　－　　　わずか－　特別－　さまざま－
(6)　　－　　　＋　　－　　　　－　　＋　　－ 　　　　＋　　－　　　しずか－　おだやか－　立派－
(7)　　－　　　－　　＋　　　　－　　＋　　＋ 　　　　＋　　＋　　　暖か－　柔らか－　細か－
(8)　　－　　　－　　＋　　　　－　　＋　　＋ 　　　　－　　＋　　　大き－　小さ－　おかし－
(9)　　－　　　－　　＋　　　　－　　－　　＋ 　　　　－　　＋　　　長－　高－　かた－

Group (1): typical noun
Group (2): overlapping of noun and na-adjective
Group (3): overlapping of noun and i-adjective
Group (4):
Group (5): na-adjective + "－の" adnominal form
Group (6): typical na-adjective
Group (7): partial overlapping of na and i-adjective in adnominal and predicative form
Group (8): partial overlapping of na and i-adjective in adnominal form
Group (9): typical i-adjective

He named Group (4) "the third adjective". (the first; i-adjective, the second; na-adjective)


There exists many hypotheses...

[yevgeny]

Thank you very much for your detailed answer.