gday guys.

Im looking at the nouns used in the いadj and なadj.

I won't say this with 100% confidence - not by a long shot (n5𝘪𝘴𝘩 here).

I'm noticing the nouns in the:

*なadj are all like 'abstract nouns'. And the

*adj seem to use many nouns that are closer to 'concrete nouns'.

Even when similar words like "wide" etc

*いadj appears (to me) to refer to something more physical or a thing.

*なadj (to me) seems to more abstract.

Is there some sense to that, at least in proper grammar terms?




Yes, your observation is basically correct. Most na-adjectives are based on Sino-Japanese words (aka kango), which are words borrowed from China along with kanji, whereas most i-adjectives are etymologically truly native to Japanese (yamato-kotoba or wago). Naturally, many i-adjectives are simple and fundamental ones like 大きい ("big"), 赤い ("red"), 重い ("heavy"). On the other hand, na-adjectives tend to be difficult, abstract or technical ones, because such words were not necessary in ancient Japan :-)

Sometimes the same concept can be described using both an i-adjective and a na-adjective. For example an i-adjective 鋭い ("sharp") means roughly the same thing as a na-adjective 鋭利 ("sharp"). In such cases the na-adjective version tends to sound more technical, stiff or formal.

Similar thing can be said for suru-verbs and "normal" verbs. While normal verbs cover most of the day-to-day verb usages (e.g., 歩く "walk", 食べる "eat"), most suru-verbs are kango and can describe more advanced or abstract concepts (e.g., 運転する "drive", 保証する "warrant").

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy