2013-02-22, 03:12 | Link #3621 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
|
yasashii (優しい) does not end with 'ii'; it ends with 'shii'. same for oishii (おいしい).
osoi (遅い) is an i-adjective and ends with い. All i-adjectives end with い. But the converse is not true, thus we have to memorize by heart which are na-adjectives and which are i-adjectives. |
2013-02-22, 12:37 | Link #3626 | |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Now in Japanese there are a variety of kana that represent some consonant or consonant cluster with the final "-i" sound, i.e "ki", "shi", "chi", "ni" etc. When I say that the consonant does not matter, I mean that what is essential is the doubled "ii" sound, not the "k-", "sh-" or whatever. So in "yasashii", even though it is written in kana "ya-sa-shi-i" (can't type kana on this computer, sorry), there still exists the "-ii" final sounds. In "kirei", written "ki-re-i", there is no doubled "i" sound because there is only ONE "i". If it was "ki-ri-i" then you would be correct. |
|
2013-02-22, 13:08 | Link #3628 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2013-02-22, 13:20 | Link #3629 | |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 32
|
Quote:
JINNSK gave the kanji 綺麗 for "kirei" and said that it is not an adjective. Actually it is in noun form ("beauty", I guess), but it can be made into an adjective simply by adding "-na" to it. As another example there is the word "zankoku" (cruel), written 残酷, which is also in "noun form" (cruelty), so it takes "-na" as well. Note that none of these examples end in a double "-ii" sound. Also, all of these examples are in the On'yomi form of pronunciation, i.e. adapted directly from Chinese, while the "-ii" examples like "yasashii", "mezurashii" or "muzukashii" are Kun'yomi and therefore native Japanese words. |
|
2013-02-23, 15:04 | Link #3630 |
Onee!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quick TL question for a change.
How far would you say localising should go? Run into a part where a character refers to their aunt as お母様. A straight up TL (I believe anyway) would kill off a ton of the implications in that term. Then again I can't romanise it either because it's a pretty fringe term already (compared to Onee san or the like) and those who do understand JP may take it to mean mother instead. Thoughts?
__________________
|
2013-02-23, 15:44 | Link #3631 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 21:39 | Link #3632 | |
今宵の虎徹は血に飢えている
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-23, 23:49 | Link #3636 | |
勝利は単純な魂の中に
Join Date: Nov 2010
|
Quote:
Unfortunately that rule is not correct. Counterexamples: 奇異な(きいな)、軽易な(けいいな). |
|
2013-02-24, 12:09 | Link #3638 | |
Franco's Phalanx is next!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Little England, Europe and Asia
|
About J-adjectives: The original question makes little sense, both types of adjectives are always used as adjectives, just follow different conjugation rules. If you have to use a noun as an adjective, use the no particle. Now what LeoXiao wrote is correct and this is how textbooks introduce adjectives. But it does not cover everything, if one succumbs to japanese grammar nazism
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-24, 22:34 | Link #3639 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
|
Quote:
To phrase it another way, it sounds to me that you were saying that if it doesn't contain '-ii' sound, it will take 'na' during conjugation with nouns, which I know to be false. That's why I quoted 'osoi' as an example. I might have misunderstood your post and your meaning though, and apologize if that's the case. Nevertheless, my 2 cents is that, determining conjugation rules from how words sound is not the proper way. And I'm curious as to what textbook uses this manner of teaching, as none of my textbooks, reference books, nor the language school I had attended taught me in this manner. The proper way is to learn what class of words does a word fall into, whether it's a noun, i-adjective, na-adjective, godan verb, ichidan verb etc. etc., and learn the conjugation rules for that class and their exceptions. Quote:
Quote:
It's fine to see them as nouns if you want to (though I'm personally against that line of thought), but one must be careful to remember that they are not nouns in the truest sense, i.e. they cannot stand alone by themselves as a subject by taking the 'が' and 'は' particles. |
|||
2013-02-25, 01:49 | Link #3640 |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 32
|
Thanks for the informative response. My "-ii" theory has been further invalidated.
The explanation about "noun-adjectives" makes sense, as they are indeed not really used as nouns. So far I have noticed that all the "-na" adjectives mentioned are Sino-Japanese words, so maybe that is the rule. |
Tags |
hiragana |
|
|