3471
While studying Japanese I've met some problems with distinguishing some
vocabulary.

For example we have:

>   * 赤{あか} = Red (color)
>   * 赤{あか}い = Red (adjective)
>

But what about 赤色{あかいろ}? Is there a difference between that and 赤{あか}?

Is the former just there in order to study the Kanji, or are there differences
in usage (and maybe "acception") between the two?

I suspect it's the second, but it would be nice to have a good explanation
about it.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-09T11:07:16.783
3418
2012-01-01T02:00:04.040
2011-12-30T17:10:27.613
37
37
question
usage words
Is there a difference between 赤{あか} and  赤色{あかいろ}?
1. I think the same difference applies in English i.e. "red" versus "red colour".

"red colour" forces you to perceive it as a colour, while "red" has no such
limitation.

This means "red" can be used symbolically to represent other things. (Much
like how "white" is to "purity", and "green" is to "environment" etc.)

This means `赤{あか}` and `赤{あか}い` can be used symbolically, while `赤{あか}色{いろ}`
forces you to perceive a colour (less likely to be perceived symbolically).

  2. From a grammar standpoint, 

    * `赤{あか}月{つき}`(red moon) is a noun on its own. 

    * `赤{あか}い月{つき}` is the noun `月{つき}` modified by the adjective `赤{あか}い`. 

    * `赤色{あかいろ}の月{つき}` is the noun `月{つき}` modified by the noun `赤色{あかいろ}` via the genitive case1 particle `の

Semantically I see no difference.

  3. This is my conjecture: Using "red" means that the object is being inherently red or has "red" as an intrinsic quality; and "red colour" implying that the object is not inherently red or does not have "red" as an intrinsic quality.

**EDIT:** There are compound nouns that are of the form 赤～ such as:

> 赤{あか}狼{おおかみ} - Red wolf
>
> 赤{あか}蕪{かぶ} - Red turnip
>
> 赤{あか}狩{が}り - Communist hunting, red-baiting (Harassment or persecution (of
> someone) on account of known or suspected communist sympathies.)

This leads me to conjecture that things that are inherently red in colour or
are closely associated with the colour red or the concept of "red" (see point
1.) can have compound nouns that are formed by `赤+[noun]` (First bullet of
point 2.) And things that are not take on the `赤い+[noun]` structure (Second
bullet of point 2.).

Also consider why "Red carpet" takes on the `赤い+[noun]` construction:
`赤いじゅうたん` even though it feels like a complete noun on its own. Carpets do not
have to be inherently red, the colour is incidental.

So this leads me to conclude that if the colour (or its related symbolic
concept) can be incidental, `赤い+[noun]` is used. If it is not incidental then
it is quite likely that `赤+[noun]` will be an acceptable word.

* * *

1: Genitive Case: It is the grammatical case that marks a noun as modifying
another noun. A genitive construction involves two nouns - the head (modified)
noun and the modifier noun. The modifier noun modifies the head noun by
expressing some property of it.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-14T17:14:34.900
3471
2011-10-18T15:22:14.910
2011-10-18T15:22:14.910
542
542
3418
answer
赤 and 赤色 are both the same. When you start using the first, then other color
will be without 色, in conversation with your friends. If you use the second
one, then your friend will or may use 色, with other color as well.

But it does not matter in general conversation.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-01T02:00:04.040
4139
2012-01-01T02:00:04.040
1007
3418
answer