46422
In this question [When can adjectives be used with the particle
"no"?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/46396/when-the-adjectives-
can-be-used-with-the-particle-no) I was taught that "next" in Japanese is a
noun. In English, the definition of adjective is "A describing word which
qualifies a noun, a noun phrase or a pronoun". As far as I can tell, "next" in
the phrase "tsugi no sekai" is qualifying a noun, so it seems either there are
some other different definitions of adjective in English, or the definition of
adjective in Japanese is different than the English one. Which is the
definition of adjective in Japanese?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-04-09T18:32:38.307
46398
2021-11-12T22:31:38.380
2021-11-12T21:36:53.987
30454
9878
question
grammar adjectives parts-of-speech
What is the definition of adjective in Japanese?
The definition of adjective varies from linguist to linguist, from textbook to
textbook. First, not every "describing word which qualifies a noun" is called
an adjective, even in English. Just because you can say "credit card" and
"phone number" doesn't mean "credit" and "phone" are English adjectives.

In traditional Japanese grammar taught in _Japanese_ schools, 次 is a noun, and
の is an independent linking particle similar to "of" in English. As a native
speaker of Japanese, I had never thought 次 could be an adjective before I
started visiting this site. In other words, 次の世界 is structured more like "book
of chemistry" rather than "next book". (Can you call "of chemistry" an
adjective even though it modifies a noun?)

However, many people who learn Japanese as a second language like to treat 次の
as an adjective, calling it a **no-adjective**. The concept of no-adjective is
actually very "foreign" to native Japanese speakers. Nevertheless, [jisho.org
categorizes 次 as a no-adjective](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%AC%A1), and you can
say so, too. Some color names such as 緑 are other typical examples of no-
adjectives.

  * [So-called の-adjectives - how does の *really* work?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2770/5010)

Moreover, you will soon come across articles that say "Na-adjectives are not
adjectives but actually nouns" or even "There are no true adjectives in
Japanese; only verbs and relative clauses exist" (like
[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/43249/5010)). Certainly confusing
at first, but this [post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1016/5010) from
a structural linguist is worth taking a look at. You don't have to wonder [why
だ is not used with
i-adjectives](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/43244/5010) once you accept
they are actually verbs.

* * *

To summarize:

  * i-adjectives (赤い, 美しい): Safely considered as adjectives both by average English and Japanese speakers. However a few experts say it's technically a verb. 形容詞.
  * na-adjectives (簡単, ハンサム): As a Japanese learner you can usually safely call them adjectives. But some say it's technically a noun. 形容動詞.
  * no-adjectives (緑, 次): As a Japanese leaner you may call them "so-called no-adjectives", but most Japanese people believe it's a noun. Even some western people dislike this concept.
  * attributives (大きな, 色んな): They definitely modify nouns, but don't call them adjectives if you want to avoid confusion. 連体詞.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-04-10T03:30:02.613
46422
2021-11-12T22:31:38.380
2021-11-12T22:31:38.380
30454
5010
46398
answer