Verb and Adjective Types

I know the focus of Wanikani is on kanji and not vocab, but I think it would be helpful if it showed the type of verb (ru, u) with the verbs that show up, as well as the adjective type (na, i) with the adjectives.

1 Like

It does!





(for verbs, it says godan (五段) for う-verbs and ichidan (一段) for る-verbs, and it also specifies transitive and intransitive)


u and ru ARE ichidan and godan tho
一段活用 is ru 五段活用 is u.

That’s why I said “doesn’t specifically say”, like it doesn’t explicitly say “ru-verb” and “u-verb” like OP was requesting

Hm, just the way I read that makes it sound like you mean something else, I guess.

O-oh. I didn’t notice.

1 Like

No you’re right, I typed that in a really confusing way for some reason :thinking: I’ll edit to clarify

@MacMalarkey no worries :slightly_smiling_face:


What if you intentionally typed it in a way that you knew would cause me to misunderstand, which would lead me to post in here saying that ichidan=ru and godan=u to explain that to OP, who may not have known.

Miss misc confirmed rick and morty fan


the foundation of my IQ was built by watching spongebob

thanks spongeboob


WK teaches us the Japanese readings and the Chinese readings, which is nice and all, but what if we also learned the kunyomi and onyomi I’m always hearing about.


音読み and 訓読み are cool and all, but what about the 音訓 readings.


Agreed, sound instructions are always important.:sunglasses::turtle:


Let’s not be having with all this Japanese mumbo-jumbo. They’re clearly “group 1” and “group 2” verbs.

1 Like

Speaking of which, interesting that verbs are indeed listed as Ichidan and Godan rather than -ru and -u but adjectives are still Na and I Adjectives rather than Keiyoushi and Keiyoudoushi. Has anyone sat in a 国語 class or know if the Japanese actually call them ナ形容詞 and イ形容詞?

On second thought, seeing the romaji for those words bothers me more than expected.

It’s not the actual Chinese readings though.

Depends what you mean by actual. They’re modified to conform with Japanese pronunciation rules, and they are taken from ancient, not modern, Chinese, but they are all from Chinese.

It’s somewhat related to the original Chinese pronunciations, yes.

If by “somewhat related” you mean, they are all derived from Chinese… then yes. :wink:

Not sure what the argument is.

EDIT: And yes, I was poking fun with that first post. Sorry about that.

I hear hiragana are somewhat related to kanji. :wink:

I mean, you weren’t really making fun of anyone so there is no reason to apologize. I assumed this was just all playing off of the misunderstanding I had with miss’s post.

1 Like

Speaking of which, I actually heard that kana is derived from kanji. I need to investigate this further