Why the adjectival form is used instead of the adverbial form?


"活発な意見が交された。""There was a lively exchange of opinions."

Why it's not "活発に意見が交された。" ?

The sentence and the translation are both from the deck (of flashcards)
core10k.




I don't think there'd be anything "wrong" with using 活発 adverbially here, so
it's hard to answer "why" without knowing the author's intent.

> 活発な意見が交わされた Lively* opinions were exchanged.
>
> 意見が活発に交わされた Opinions were exchanged in a lively manner.

Either way, the difference boils down to a slight nuance if you read the
sentences literally. The "issue" here is that the translation you provided
smoothed over the difference to be more readable in English (which isn't
actually a problem) at the cost of being a less literal rendering of the
Japanese.

*"活発な意見" in this case is likely a use of hypallage as an opinion can't actually be in and of itself "lively," which explains in part the translator's motivation for affixing the idea of liveliness to the exchange of the ideas.




I don't think there'd be anything "wrong" with using 活発 adverbially here, so
it's hard to answer "why" without knowing the author's intent.

> 活発な意見が交わされた Lively* opinions were exchanged.
>
> 意見が活発に交わされた Opinions were exchanged in a lively manner.

Either way, the difference boils down to a slight nuance if you read the
sentences literally. The "issue" here is that the translation you provided
smoothed over the difference to be more readable in English (which isn't
actually a problem) at the cost of being a less literal rendering of the
Japanese.

*"活発な意見" in this case is likely a use of hypallage as an opinion can't actually be in and of itself "lively," which explains in part the translator's motivation for affixing the idea of liveliness to the exchange of the ideas.

