no vs. na

[Whodunit]

こんにちは、　

I'm still trying to figure out the exact meanings of all the interesting particles. As far as I know, there are several "adjectives" that require "na" or "no" to work as adjective:

之が綺麗な山です。
Kore ga kirei na yama desu. (This is a beautiful mountain)

But unfortunately I can only find adjectives with "na," not any with "no." And are there some adjectives that change their meaning depending on whether they take "na" or "no?" (I'm thinking of French, where the adjecive can change the meaning when it is placed before or after the respective noun.)

From what I have read, "no" could function as a nominalizer. Thus, would the following work?
之山は綺麗乃です。
Kore yama wa kirei no　desu. (This mountain is a beautiful one.)

I doubt it, but you can never know.

 

[Anatoli]

Wait for native speakers but you need to know, which adjective uses -na, and which -no. The dictionary usually gives the full form. -na is much more common than -no. Kirei-na is OK but not kirei-no. ほんの is a -no adjective.

Both -na and -no drop endings in front of copulas. Grammatically they are identical (only with a different syllable) and quite different from -i adjectives takai, utsukushii, etc.

You can consider "-no" adjectives as adjectives formed by nominalisation, IMHO. 病気の - sick, 独特の - peculiar but as I said they are the same as -na adjectives. Not to mix up with the particle -no. (Not just possession particle "no" but also ending question particle "no"!)

 

[Whodunit]

Wait for native speakers but you need to know, which adjective uses -na, and which -no. The dictionary usually gives the full form. -na is much more common than -no. Kirei-na is OK but not kirei-no. ほんの is a -no adjective.

Thank you very much for the thorough answer. But do you always write the adjective particle in hiragana? So, what is "乃" for, then?

You can consider "-no" adjectives as adjectives formed by nominalisation, IMHO. 病気の - sick, 独特の - peculiar but as I said they are the same as -na adjectives. Not to mix up with the particle -no. (Not just possession particle "no" but also ending question particle "no"!)

Can you give an example sentence where an adjective is nominalized and has the particle "no?" Is the ending question particle "no" different from "ka?"

 

[Anatoli]

Thank you very much for the thorough answer. But do you always write the adjective particle in hiragana? So, what is "乃" for, then?

Yes, always in hiragana in modern Japanese.

Can you give an example sentence where an adjective is nominalized and has the particle "no?" Is the ending question particle "no" different from "ka?"

Not sure exactly what you mean by the first part. byooki-no (sick) from my example is derived from byooki (desease, illness). Nihongo-no hon - Japanese (language) book. You can think of "nihongo-no" as of an adjective or a noun with a genitive (possession) marker.

Question particle "-no" is colloquial.

Ashita konai no? Aren't you coming tomorrow?

There are too many usages of -no

 

[jorge_val_ribera]

Daniel, as I understand it (but it might be wrong or incomplete), the function of の as nominalizer is used for verbs. Just like you would use the gerund in English, you use the の in Japanese in order to be able to directly modify that verb. For example:

泳ぐのが好きです。Oyogu no ga suki desu. "I like swimming."
Here, you are turning the verb 泳ぐ into a noun by attaching の. Notice that you must use a particle after の because now this is a noun.

I haven't ever heard of の nominalizing adjectives. Adjectives (well, i-adjectives) are nominalized in other ways, not using の.

 

[Anatoli]

I think, I misunderstood Whodunit's question.

 

[Whodunit]

I think, I misunderstood Whodunit's question.

No, Anatoli, you didn't. Jorge, I wasn't talking about verbs or gerunds but about adjectives. I understood Anatoli's second exaplantion well, however this question remains:

How would you say "This mountain is a beautiful one" in Japanese? This is what I understood by "nominalization," but it's now obvious to me what you mean by that.

 

[jorge_val_ribera]

I know you weren't talking about verbs, but you were talking about nominalization with の, and I was just explaining that I only learned nominalization with の in the case of verbs.

As for your sentence, I don't know any way to say it other than この山はきれいです。(kono yama wa kirei desu.)

 

[Anatoli]

"One" can be translated as の into Japanese. Although, Jorge_val_ribera's sentence is correct it doesn't show what Whodunit was trying to ask.

きれいな山はあそこにあるのです。
The beautiful mountant is the one that's over there.
(EDIT: corrected typo, thanks)

In this case, "NO" functions as an indefinite pronoun, it's not the possession particle NO.

Another example of usage of "NO"
飛行機が飛んでいるのは見えます。

I can see a plane flying. ("the fact that")

 

[s_a_n_t_i]

きれい山はあそこにあるのです。
きれいな山はあそこにあるのです。

きれいな山は、あそこにあるのです。
きれいなのは、あそこにある山です。
あそこにあるのは、きれいな山です。
They all mean the same, but it depends on what you want to enphasize on, either the mountain, the place where it is or the fact that is beautiful.
Correct me if I am wrong [english or japanese].

でーは。
ばい！
サンティ・Santi

 

[Anatoli]

Thanks, Santi, corrected. It was a typo.

 

[Flaminius]

Another example of usage of "NO"
飛行機が飛んでいるのが見えます。

I can see a plane flying. ("the fact that")

This -no can be interpreted as a relative clause marker. 飛行機, or plane, acts as a nominative noun in both the subordinate and the regent clauses. Unlike ordinary relative clauses, the noun does not undergo movement.

The following is an illustration of a relative noun acting as an object in both clauses:
家でサンドイッチを作ったのを学校で食べた。
I ate the sandwich at school that I made at home.

In both illustrations, -no acts as the "place-holder" for the relative noun in the regent clause. When the nouns are moved to the regent clause, -no should be deleted (an underscore or, _, shows the position of the noun in the subordinate clause):

_飛んでいる飛行機が見えます。

家で_作ったサンドイッチを学校で食べた。

I think relative marker -no is actually an extention of nominalising -no because nomilalisation means that the nominalised component is enabled to assume case markers and assigning a different case to the moved noun is the major function of relative clause.

Flam

 

[地獄の森_jigoku_no_mori]

I always thought that "na" was used to turn nouns into adjectives. Perhaps I'm wrong on this?

 

[Anatoli]

I always thought that "na" was used to turn nouns into adjectives. Perhaps I'm wrong on this?

No, you're not wrong.

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

The diference between "が”　and " は"　is simple. But, many non-Japanese
people at a beginnig level w3ill make mistake.
Kore ga kirei na yama desu. This means : " It is this mountain which is
beautiful. and implies that other mountains are not beautiful.


Hiro Sasaki

 

[Whodunit]

Thank you all so much for the information. I will try to understand every single post later. Well, however 地獄の森, I'd like to ask you a question:

I always thought that "na" was used to turn nouns into adjectives. Perhaps I'm wrong on this?

I'm not sure what you are ferring to. Could you please elaborate on this? Anatoli said that "Nihongo-no" means "Japanese" (adjective), and this is what I'd call "to make a noun an adjective."

 

[Flaminius]

"Nihongo-no" means "Japanese" (adjective), and this is what I'd call "to make a noun an adjective."

No. Nihongo (日本語) means the Japanese language (日本 being ethnic name and -語 is the morpheme to make a language name). In anatoli's example, 日本語の本 (nihongo-no hon), -no functions a connection between two nouns, of which the latter is the head. This is in my opinion a genitive marker.

 

[Anatoli]

Flaminius and Hiro Sasaki, thanks for your explanations. I am aware of the differences between "が”　and "は" but I still get them wrongs sometimes. I also think that my sentence still make sense, doesn't it? I wasn't explaning these particles, actually.

Whodunit and 地獄の森_jigoku_no_mori, both methods (no and na) are to make nouns into adjectives but I don't think there's a rule, when you can add -na and when you can only add -no.

-na is very common with words of Chinese origin ("kango" (漢語), kirei-na (奇麗な) is one of them, modern Chinese Mandarin: 奇丽/ 奇麗] qílì - extremely beautiful or another spelling: 绮丽 / 綺麗] qǐlì beautiful; gorgeous) and more recent loanwords ハンサムな (hansamu-na from English "handsome") but -no is derived from genitive case (possession).

 

[Flaminius]

Moderētā Flaminius;

A discussion whether 「きれいな山」 is a good-sounding phrase has been branched to a new thread, Positive Adjectives and Mountain. I would like to remind posters that the topic of the present thread is the usage comparison of particles -no and -na. Discussions about example sentences are useful insofar as they help clarifying the topic.


Poster Flaminius

I find some of the sentences posted as examples are rather too strange to be used by native Japanese speakers. However, they are grammatically correct sentences making valid points to the current discussion. I made corrections when necessary.

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

修飾的（しゅうしょく　てき　）　形容詞的な　noun の後に　”の”　をつけるのは　間違いです。　例えば　　きれいの人、　親切（しんせつ）の人、　有名の人、　正直（しょうじき）の
人　など　すべて　間違いです。　”東京の人　”　”ロシアの人”　は　正しいです。　

Hiro Sasaki

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

I've made a wrong posting. I repeat the same post here.

地獄の森　correct. 地獄な森　wrong, 　地獄のような森　infernal forest.( correct)

I've nver heard that there are forests in Inferno or Hell. If you meant
"infernal forest ", the correct phrase must be 地獄のような森。

Hiro Sasaki

 

[Flaminius]

修飾的（しゅうしょく　てき　）　形容詞的な　noun の後に　”の”　をつけるのは　間違いです。　例えば　　きれいの人、　親切（しんせつ）の人、　有名の人、　正直（しょうじき）の人　など　すべて　間違いです。　”東京の人　”　”ロシアの人”　は　正しいです。　

Hiro Sasaki

Are you saying きれい, 親切, 有名 and 正直 are nouns? Consider the following;
*きれいから醜いへ (in sense of "from beauty to ugliness")
*有名を求める (in sense of "seek popularity")
*正直を称える (in sense of "praise honesty")
(where an asterisk <*> denotes that the illustrations are ungrammatical)

Besides, your point does not explain why 独特の is more acceptable than 独特な (From *独特を being ungrammatical, one can conclude 独特 is not a noun). 独特の is okayed only as an adjectival form. The -no here is used as a derivational morpheme to make an adjective: quite different from -no as in 東京の人.

I agree with Anatoli that there is no clear-cut rule governing the selection of no/na when making an adjective.

 

[Flaminius]

I've made a wrong posting. I repeat the same post here.

地獄の森　correct. 地獄な森　wrong, 　地獄のような森　infernal forest.( correct)

I've nver heard that there are forests in Inferno or Hell. If you meant
"infernal forest ", the correct phrase must be 地獄のような森。

Hiro Sasaki

Then I have never heard there is a crash course offered from the Ministry of Infernal Affairs. Yet I'd imagine there are not a few combat units in the world that train their soldiers by 地獄の特訓. 地獄の is used adjectivally here.

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

Oh My God ! きれいは　形容詞です。　！　Anyway, きれいの人　is wrong.

有名を求める　sounds odd. 名を求める　is better.

美しいの　noun は　美（び）　または　うつくしいこと。　その反対は　醜　（しゅう）　または
醜（みにく）いことです。

正直を称（たた）える。　 正直さを称える　sounds better.

xxx は　京都の独特な食べ物です。　

I've explainted about general rules.

xxxx は　京都特有の習慣です。There must be some sub-rules. I can not
think oｆ other examples　of 形容的名詞　＋　の。　It's difficult to explain
some exceptions.

きれいから醜いへ は　”美から醜へ”が正しいと思いますが　　美しいことから　醜いこと
へ　を　” 美しいから　醜いへ　”と　形容詞を名詞化する方が　文章が　引き締まって
聞こえます。　サントリーの　マカディアという飲物の宣伝文句に　”きれいと元気”と
いうのが　あります。　これは文法を破壊していますが　訴える力があります。　
copy writing の世界では　破格の文法の文章がよくあります。　native speakers
でない人は　まず　general rules を覚えてください。　

Hiro Sasaki

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

Then I have never heard there is a crash course offered from the Ministry of Infernal Affairs. Yet I'd imagine there are not a few combat units in the world that train their soldiers by 地獄の特訓. 地獄の is used adjectivally here.

地獄の特訓　can be considered as a familiar set phrase. Therefore, you
don't need to say 地獄のような特訓。　天国よいとこ　一度は　おいでという歌が
ありましたが　天国の生活と　天国のような生活では　意味が違います。　地獄の森は
どちらの意味か　わかりません。　アニメか　なにかで　地獄に森があるのかも　わかりません。　Therefore、　I asked what he meant.


Hiro Sasaki

 

[Flaminius]

Hiro Sasaki,

Are you saying きれい, 親切, 有名 and 正直 are nouns?

No, they are not nouns. But you implied so when you wrote, "修飾的（しゅうしょく　てき　）　形容詞的な　noun の後に　”の”　をつけるのは　間違いです。　例えば・・・・・" (Emphasis by Flaminius)

At least they are not as perfectly as noun as 美, 憐憫, 名聞 and 誠実性. This is the reason *きれいの, *親切の, *有名の and *正直の are all unaccepta ble. What is confusing is that some of the items in the former group can act as a noun in certain context.
E.g.,
OK 正直は儲からない (Honesty does not pay.)
OK 親切を施す (to give charity)
(where OK means the illustrations are acceptable)

But the general rule for deriving adjective is, of course, affixing -na.

 

[Hiro Sasaki]

I have explainted only about " の”　and "　な”。　That is the title of the subject. I would not like to discuss about " を”、nor は　because my posts might be moved to other places and I will lose the thread. In every Japanese dictionary, 美　is 名詞。　More specifically 抽象名詞。
小学館　国語大辞典　says : " 美、醜、力、精神、　経済、　向上、　長さ、　”

Hiro Sasaki

 

[Flaminius]

I have explainted only about " の”　and "　な”。　That is the title of the subject. I would not like to discuss about " を”、nor は　because my posts might be moved to other places and I will lose the thread.

My point has been, and still is, that some morphemes take -na and others take -no in order to derive adjectives. In order to further clarify the details of the former -na group, I demonstrated the behaviour of this group when affixed with -o and -ha.

In every Japanese dictionary, 美　is 名詞。　More specifically 抽象名詞。
小学館　国語大辞典　says : " 美、醜、力、精神、　経済、　向上、　長さ、　”

You misunderstand again. I based my arguments on the fact that 美, 憐憫, 名聞 and 誠実性 are "perfectly nouns."