# 近く and 近い



## Kuma777

Hi,

I have a question about the translation from Japanese when using 近く or 近い. My sample sentences with my translation are;

1.私の家は図書館の近くにある. My house is (situated) near a libary.
2.私の家は駅に近いです. My house is near a station.


I understand grammatically how they differ, 近く being a noun and 近い being a い adjective but I was just curious if they would be any difference in the translation depending on which was used.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## jazyk

> I understand grammatically how they differ, 近く being a noun


I'd say that chikaku is an adverb, just like other -ku adverbs formed from adjectives.


----------



## Wishfull

Hi,
Basically, there is no difference. You may choose whichever you like. The meaning is the same although the structure is a little different. 
Usually the writer/speaker doesn’t distinguish the two sentences.

1.私の家は図書館の近くにあります。
＝私の家は図書館に近いです。
My house is (situated) near the/a  libary.
2.私の家は駅に近いです。
＝私の家は駅の近くにあります。
My house is near the/a station.

In this thread, as you were asking about the nuance, so I think it for a while.
If there might be any difference, although it is very small, and usually not conscious one, it would be;
私の家は駅の近くにあります。＝My house is near* the* station. =My house is near the station building. (The writer just states the fact of positional relationship.)
私の家は駅に近いです。=My house is near* a* station. =The location of my house have a good access to trains. =(I am pleased that I can easily use trains because) my house is near the station.

Maybe you and I am thinking too much about the difference.
Wishfull


----------



## Kuma777

Thanks a lot for both your help. I understood that if there was a difference it would probably be a small one, but your explination is great Wishfull. Jazyk yeah you're right of cause that with い adjectives we can know off い and add く to make it a adverb but in my experience 近く as an adverb means almost, soon (I accept this could be wrong) also the fact it's linked to 駅 with の and followed with the position marker に in this case I would think of it more in the case of a noun. 

私の家は駅に近くあります　I would think implies it being more of an adverb. Though I don't think this sentence really makes sense.

However I do accept I could be 100% wrong! I'd hate to have the worng idea so please correct me if I'm incorrect.


----------



## Wishfull

Hi.
I am an ordinary native Japanese, who seldom thinks about his native tongue's grammar.
So I might be wrong too, but I vote one for Kuma777 in this context.
I think it is a noun in this context.

I'm not a Japanese grammar teacher, so I will wait for the teacher's true answer about that.

Wishfull


----------



## lammn

jazyk said:


> I'd say that chikaku is an adverb, just like other -ku adverbs formed from adjectives.


 
Jazyk, as a general rule, the adverb of i-adjective is formed by inflecting the "i" into "ku", while the noun is usually formed by inflecting the "i" into "sa" or "mi".
There are a few _exceptions_ to this general rule, though.
For words like "chikaku" and "ooku", they are both noun and adverb conjugated from the adjective "chikai" and "ooi".
Whether they are noun or adverb in a given sentence will have to be determined by context.

*In the example sentence given by Kuma, "chikaku" is a noun, not an adverb.*



Kuma777 said:


> 1.私の家は図書館の近くにある. My house is (situated) near a libary.
> 2.私の家は駅に近いです. My house is near a station.
> 
> I understand grammatically how they differ, 近く being a noun and 近い being a い adjective but I was just curious if they would be any difference in the translation depending on which was used.


 
Wishfull has already provided an excellent explanation on how the two sentences differ in _nuance_.

As for differences in translation, it is absolutely okay to translate both 近く and 近い as "near".
If you want a _literal translation_, however, you can see the difference as follows:

私の家は図書館の*近く*にある。
My home/house is in the *neighborhood* of a/the lib*r*ary.

私の家は駅に*近い*です。
My home/house is *near* a/the station.

However, literal translation may not be a good translation.
I think it will be more _natural_ to translate 近く above as "near".

As a side note, not many Japanese own a "house" in Japan. You have to be careful with your translation.


----------



## Morrow

Kuma777 said:


> My house is [near/close to] a *the* station.
> =My house is not far *from* the station.



"Station" is the starting point from which the distance is measured.  You can only identify the location of "my house" if you know which station is referred to.  

Of course, the English language allows you to say just that the distance is rather short as in (i). 
(i) I don't mind where we live as long as it's [near/close to] *a *station.

But as far as your example sentence is concerned, "a station" is a marked case, because for many people, there is only one station available in their daily lives.  

So what you're doing is trying to understand what is an unmarked way of saying it in Japanese by using the marked counterpart.

I'm afraid the wrong premise will result in a nightmare.

Morrow


----------



## Kuma777

Thanks agiain everyone for your help. All your input is very helpful; my main concern was when translating a simple sentence 'X is near to Y' which form of 近い to use, but I think I've got a better understanding of the very slight difference in each. As Morrow said with out any context (if the reader/hearer knows where the station is) if may be difficult to get a exact literal translation. But I agree with lammn that a more natural translation is better than literal in this case. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Derselbe

Morrow said:


> Of course, the English language allows you to say just that the distance is rather short as in (i).
> (i) I don't mind where we live as long as it's [near/close to] *a *station.
> 
> But as far as your example sentence is concerned, "a station" is a marked case, because for many people, there is only one station available in their daily lives.


 
But that has nothing to do with definte and indefinite articles in English. Even if there is only one station near my house and I'm talking about that particular one station and no other station, "my house is near a station" is an absolutely valid and correct sentence in English. Definite or indefinite articles have nothing to do with the question of how many stations there are near the house. The question whether you can use "the station" has more to do with your counterparts knowledge of the station and whether you have told him about that station before.

Actually "my house is near a station" means that there is probably only one station and not two.

I'm afraid, you might have taken the wrong premise when thinking about English articles


----------



## Morrow

Kuma777 said:


> My house is near a station.



Hi, Kuma777,
Just out of curiosity, why did you choose "a" instead of "the" here?

In this syntactic environment, "the" is the norm or unmarked, because for many people, there is only one station *available in their daily lives*.  Likewise, since there is only one star* in our solar system that gives light and heat*, we speak of *the* sun but not *a* sun.

Of course, "a station" itself can be ambiguous in an affirmative sentence. It can be specific or unspecific.  In this case, you're talking about where your house is located, so "a" must be specific, and you can add "certain" to ensure the whole NP is specific.   

Then in what situation do you prefer "*a* station" over "*the* station"?
Just as I said before, "the station" is the norm or unmarked.  What are you saying by choosing the marked case?   

Morrow

cf. 
(i) a. Lisa goes to the convenience store every day.
    b. Lisa goes to a convenience store every day.
Again, "the" is the norm or unmarked here.  It would help us if you could refer to Grice's cooperative principles.


----------



## Kuma777

I think my choice in noun may have been unwise, as you said for many people there's only one station in their daily lives and so 'the' would be a better translation, but when I chose the noun 駅 I was thinking train station but omitted saying it as I wanted to be ambiguous as you saw, a poor move I think on my part.

I think the translation of 'a vs the' depends on one main point;

1.If that is the only station in the area.

If there is only one station in the area then 'the' would be the better chose as there is no other station, so 'a station' wouldn't sound incorrect as you have pointed out, we speak of the sun not a sun.

However if they are multiple station, so say in London they are many Tube stations. If someone was describing where their house is, I would think they would say ' My house is near a (tube) station.' 

I guess ultimately it depends on context but as always, I accept I could be wrong. I certainly understand your argument, unfortunately I don't know of Grice's cooperative principles so couldn't refer to them.


----------



## Morrow

Thank you for your help and comments, Kuma777



Kuma777 said:


> I accept I could be wrong.


Let me begin by clearing up the misunderstanding.

"駅" in (1a) has definite meaning.  And so contrary to your expectations, (1a) doesn't correspond in idea to (1b).  That's all I meant. 

(1) a. 私の家は*駅*に近い. 
     b. My house is near *a station*.

Grammatically, there is nothing wrong about (2a), but apparently it is strange when it comes to pragmatics.  Instead, you need to choose "私の家" as the starting point and use (2b). Note that "X の近くに" collocates with "ある/いる," a verb denoting "existence," and that "X" has definite reading, as you can tell from "私の家."  

(2) a. *?*私の家は[コンビニ/交番]に近い.
　　　b. 私の家の近くに[コンビニ/交番]がある. (There is a [convenience store/Koban] near my house.)

"コンビニ" and "交番" as they stand don't work as a useful landmark by which to estimate the distance to your destination (i.e. "私の家").  That's the reason that makes (2a) sound odd.

You can fix (2a), however, if you use a proper noun to refer to that landmark:
(3) 私の家は[セブンイレブン千駄木店/壱岐坂交番]に近い.

This is supporting evidence that "駅" in (1a) is supposed to mean "*the* station" but not "*a* station."

Finally, _大辞泉_ mentions "距離の隔たりが少ない。遠くない。「駅に近い」"　This means that "に近い" tells you just that the distance is not so long.   Put differently, it doesn't tell you specifically about direction.  So depending on context, "XはYに近い" could imply either that X is not far from Y" or vice versa (Y is not far from X).

Since (4b) means "My house is not far *from* the station," (4b) covers only part of what (4a) can really mean.

(4) a. 私の家は*駅*に近い. [=(1a)]
     b.  My house is [near/close to] the station.

When you mean (4b), you can also say, "私の家は駅*から*近い."

For (5), however, "私の家は駅に近い" actually means "私の家は駅*まで*近い," where the relation between source and destination is reversed, meaning "The station is not far from my house."
(5) A: あら、もう駅なの.
     B:　だから言ったでしょ、私の家は駅に近いって.

Morrow


----------



## Starfrown

jazyk said:


> I'd say that chikaku is an adverb, just like other -ku adverbs formed from adjectives.





Kuma777 said:


> Thanks a lot for both your help. I understood that if there was a difference it would probably be a small one, but your explination is great Wishfull. Jazyk yeah you're right of cause that with い adjectives we can know off い and add く to make it a adverb but in my experience 近く as an adverb means almost, soon (I accept this could be wrong) also the fact it's linked to 駅 with の and followed with the position marker に in this case I would think of it more in the case of a noun.
> 
> 私の家は駅に近くあります　I would think implies it being more of an adverb. Though I don't think this sentence really makes sense.





lammn said:


> Jazyk, as a general rule, the adverb of i-adjective is formed by inflecting the "i" into "ku", while the noun is usually formed by inflecting the "i" into "sa" or "mi".
> There are a few exceptions to this general rule, though.
> For words like "chikaku" and "ooku", they are both noun and adverb conjugated from the adjective "chikai" and "ooi".
> Whether they are noun or adverb in a given sentence will have to be determined by context.
> 
> In the example sentence given by Kuma, "chikaku" is a noun, not an adverb.


Part of the problem stems from the application of western grammar to the Japanese language. I would argue that Japanese has almost no--if any--true adjectives or adverbs. *What are regularly described as adjectives in textbooks are in fact either descriptive verbs or nouns followed by na, a form of the copula, or no.*

The truth is that the _-ku_ form of the descriptive verbs is what is called the 連用形, or _ren'youkei,_ in Japanese grammar. Beginners may not realize that the relationship between 殺し and 殺す is the same as that between 近く and 近い.

Also, consider the following:

斬り殺す
速く殺す

There is no real difference in behavior between 斬り and 速く in these forms. Why then would we call the latter an adverb but not the former? For convenience, of course; it simply makes the language easier to relate to and to translate.


----------



## Derselbe

Morrow said:


> (2) a. *?*私の家は[コンビニ/交番]に近い.
> b. 私の家の近くに[コンビニ/交番]がある. (There is a [convenience store/Koban] near my house.)
> 
> "コンビニ" and "交番" as they stand don't work as a useful landmark by which to estimate the distance to your destination (i.e. "私の家").  That's the reason that makes (2a) sound odd.
> 
> You can fix (2a), however, if you use a proper noun to refer to that landmark:
> (3) 私の家は[セブンイレブン千駄木店/壱岐坂交番]に近い.
> 
> This is supporting evidence that "駅" in (1a) is supposed to mean "*the* station" but not "*a* station."



Hi Morrow, I was really looking forward to your reply. 
I think now I understand what you're saying. I never meant to doubt your words regarding Japanese. But I'm still not really convinced that the difference you pointed out is consistent with definite articles in English. However, I think I've understood the Japanese issue.

Just to make sure, correct me if I'm wrong. This is what I understood:

If I want to explain to someone where my house is, so that he maybe can find it, I can use:
私の家はところに近い 
But of course I have to use a place which is suitable to give someone an idea as to where my house is. So I have to use a definite place that the person knows and will find.

If I just want to talk about my house and its environment I can say:
私の家の近くにところがある
Here I don't need a place someone will find, because I'm just describing my house. 

Is that the difference?
Many thanks again!


----------



## Flaminius

Wishfull said:


> If there might be any difference, although it is very small, and usually not conscious one, it would be;
> 私の家は駅の近くにあります。＝My house is near* the* station. =My house is near the station building. (The writer just states the fact of positional relationship.)
> 私の家は駅に近いです。=My house is near* a* station. =The location of my house have a good access to trains. =(I am pleased that I can easily use trains because) my house is near the station.


I think you have a point there.  私の家は駅に近いです means there is a station in the vicinity of one's place. It does not matter what its name is or which railway service it belongs to. Without context 駅 is non-specific. 駅に近い equals to "easy access to train services."

In terms of measuring the distance from a place to another (*Morrow*), it should be measuring the distance between 私の家 and a train station.  In other words, one can say 私の家は駅に近いです if one sets out from one's place and gets to a station within a short period of walking, bicycling, or even driving, depending on the environment one lives in.  There is a station in the vicinity of one's place.  It does not matter what its name is or which railway service it belongs to.  Without context 駅 is non-specific.  駅に近い equals to "easy access to train services."



Morrow said:


> (2) a. *?*私の家は[コンビニ/交番]に近い.
> b. 私の家の近くに[コンビニ/交番]がある. (There is a [convenience store/Koban] near my house.)
> 
> "コンビニ" and "交番" as they stand don't work as a useful landmark by which to estimate the distance to your destination (i.e. "私の家").  That's the reason that makes (2a) sound odd.
> 
> You can fix (2a), however, if you use a proper noun to refer to that landmark:
> (3) 私の家は[セブンイレブン千駄木店/壱岐坂交番]に近い.
> 
> This is supporting evidence that "駅" in (1a) is supposed to mean "*the* station" but not "*a* station."



私の家は[コンビニ/交番]に近い doesn't strike me as odd but abrupt.  I'd expect the speaker would proceed to explain the implications of having a convenience store or a _koban _near one's place:
私の家はコンビニに近いので、急に必要なものができたとき便利だ。
私の家は交番に近いので、安全な気がする。

Back to the original question, we were looking to find out the difference between Xに近い and Xの近く.
a. 私の家は図書館の近くにある。 My place is near the library.
b. 私の家は図書館に近い。 My place is near a library.

Sentence *a* directs one from the library (interlocutors share an understanding as to which library it is) to the speaker's place.  The distance, whatever the standard is, is short.  Compared to Sentence *b*, this has a more neutral attitude for living near a library.

Sentence *b* takes one to a short itinerary from the speaker's place to a library.  There isn't necessarily a shared understanding as to which library they are talking about.  If the library is indefinite, there is a presupposition as to what having a library in one's vicinity means to the speaker.  E.g., As a bookworm, I like spending much time reading.


----------



## Kuma777

Thanks everyone for your help! It is much appreciated! It's very intresting how 近く and 近い can alter the meaning of a sentence. I think these explinations have been great. Thanks again to everyone who answered!


----------



## Morrow

Kuma777 said:


> how 近く and 近い can alter the meaning of a sentence


I'd say that is wrong.  The three sentences in (6) virtually mean the same thing:
(6) a. 私の家は駅の近くにある. 
     b. 私の家は駅に近い. 
     c. 私の家は駅に近いところにある.

The difference in acceptability in (7a) comes down, as I already said, to whether something can work as a landmark.  "駅" and "大学病院" are good landmarks, helping you easily judge where "私の家" is, but the other three are not.  Since landmarks are something that pre-exists in cognition, "駅" and "大学病院" are definite in nature.

(7) a. 私の家は[駅/大学病院/?病院/?交番/?コンビニ]に近い.
     b.[駅/大学病院/病院/交番/コンビニ]に近ければ[=近いのであれば]、住むのはどこでも構わない.

Acceptability may change if you put (7a) into a larger sentence.  In (7b), "大学病院" is probably still definite, "駅" may be difinite or indefinite, and the rest are all indefinite.  But just because "駅" in (7b) may be indefinite doesn't mean that "駅" in (7a) is also indefinite.  This is a different story, so don't confuse linguistic phenomena in simple sentences with those in complex sentences.  

As you already know, "X に近い" is neutral as to the direction from source to destination, so you can use either sentence in (7).  And there is no doubt about the definiteness of X in the two sentences.

(8) a. あなたの家は、[どの駅/どこの駅]に近いですか?
     b. [どの駅/どこの駅]があなたの家に近いですか?

And let's see what will happen if we change (6b) into a negative and interrogative sentence.

"駅" can be a focus in both sentences.   
(9) a. 私の家は、駅に(は)近くない. [=It is not 駅<focus> that 私の家が近い.]
     b. あなたの家は、駅に近いですか? [=Is it 駅<focus> that あなたの家が近い?]

In terms of Maxim of Qauntity, or quantity of information, "駅" has to be definite.  "駅" is only informative if it is interpreted as being definite.  If the speaker were to mean "a station" for "駅," the sentences in (9) would make no sense, because you have no idea which station they are referring to. 

"駅" in (10a) is actually either only one station in your area or the nearest station.  Anyway, it is definite in meaning. (It would be interesting to note that the idea of "shared knowledge" that "the" is supposed to convey is actually not the knowledge the speaker really shares with the listener but rather the knowledge *the speaker thinks *he or she shares with the listener.  So you may not know the name of that only one station or the nearest station.)  So you need to use "the" in the counterpart, as in (10b). 

(10) a. 私の家は駅に近い. (=[6a])
       b. My house is [near/close to] the station. 

Morrow

It is possible to find the couterpart of (i), though. Let's suppose "a station" is not one of the stations in his area but only one station in his area.
(i) His house was [near/ close to] a station.
But it is only possible in Japanese to put it at the beginning of a narrative discourse.
(ii) その方の家は、とある駅の近くにございました.  
This interpretation is a marked one.


----------



## Derselbe

Morrow said:


> (7) a. 私の家は[駅/大学病院/?病院/?交番/?コンビニ]に近い.
> b.[駅/大学病院/病院/交番/コンビニ]に近ければ[=近いのであれば]、住むのはどこでも構わない.


 
So in 7a. 病院/交番/コンビニ don't make sense, because they are not suitable to define the location of the house, right? I hope I got that right now.


----------

