Well, it my sound obvious, because we all know that いる　is used when referring to animated subjects (animals, people), while ある　is for inanimate subjects. But what is the meaning of あります in sentences like:
1) あなたは兄弟がありますか。
2) 兄は子供が二人あります。
3) まだ両親があるのはとても幸せだ。
All examples above are refering to people who are alive, so why あります　is used instead of います?

I'm pretty sure they all should use imasu :|

Where did you get these sentences from?

LazyNomad Wrote:Well, it my sound obvious, because we all know that いる　is used when referring to animated subjects (animals, people), while ある　is for inanimate subjects. But what is the meaning of あります in sentences like:
1) あなたは兄弟がありますか。
2) 兄は子供が二人あります。
3) まだ両親があるのはとても幸せだ。
All examples above are refering to people who are alive, so why あります　is used instead of います?

1) Incorrect sentence... Seems to me, that would be a pretty rude thing to ask someone.
2) Incorrect sentence again.
3) Once again, incorrect.

I take it you got all of those from one source, can you give some information on it? Seems whoever wrote it either didn't know Japanese well or there's some other special reason for using arimasu, maybe it's a story about trees or something.

ある used to be used for everything. ex: 昔、男ありけり。

The OP's text isn't premodern though.

I guess ある here is used to indicate possession, rather than existence...
From A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar:

When aru is used to express the idea of having and the object is animate, that object must be someone who maintains a very close relationship with the possessor, such as a family member, a relative or a friend. Thus, (1) is acceptable but (2) is odd.

(1) 私（に）は子供が三人ある。
(2) ??　私（に）は運転手がある。

Examples 1 and 2 I took from the book　日本語初歩　that was published by The Japan Foundation and Japanese Language Institute. This book is for beginers, but there is a lesson that is called "兄は子供が二人あります", in which lesson there are other examples of using あります while referring to people. 2nd sentence is one of such examples. The whole book is written in Japanese and there is no explanation, aside from initial text (dialogue) and drilling grammar exercises after.
As for the 3rd example I took it from Japanese-Russian Kenkyusya Vocabulary (研究者和露辞典) from the article on ある.
So, all the sentences are correct, but I guess there is a delicate nuance in usage of ある　and いる.

I think these are considered wrong/obsolete: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:i1Rd...clnk&gl=us

日本語初歩 is a pretty old textbook. It was the first one I used in classes and iirc was compiled during the 1970s and published in the early 80s. Everyone in the pictures was certainly 70s fashion. I have no idea why my first university used such an old text. Maybe the bookstore had a bunch of stock leftover and refused to bring in something else.

I looked it up in my electronic dictionary. It explains at the beginning that usually いる is used for living things and ある for non-living things. Then it says this:

ただし、「兄弟がＸ」のように、漠然と有無を問題にするだけの表現では、「居る」「ある」の両方も用いられる。

If I read it right, if the existence of a thing is being called into question then ある can be used even if the thing is living. All the cases LazyNomad shows are like this.

(Note: This is from an elementary school grammar dictionary that was released in 1994 and last edited in 2003. It's pretty recent.)

Edit:
Actually, example number three is interesting. If I'm correct about the above, using いる in that example would be more ambiguous. As it is, まだ両親があるのはとても幸せだ, it has to mean "I'm really glad that my parents are still alive." If it was まだ両親がいるのはとても幸せだ it could mean either "I'm really glad that my parents are still alive" or "I'm really glad that my parents are still here."

Toddi Wrote:I guess ある here is used to indicate possession, rather than existence...
From A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar:

When aru is used to express the idea of having and the object is animate, that object must be someone who maintains a very close relationship with the possessor, such as a family member, a relative or a friend. Thus, (1) is acceptable but (2) is odd.

(1) 私（に）は子供が三人ある。
(2) ??　私（に）は運転手がある。

I don't think I've run across it before, but if A Dictionary of Basic Japanese grammar mentions it, it's probably true, those books are extremely comprehensive.

Tobberoth Wrote:

Toddi Wrote:I guess ある here is used to indicate possession, rather than existence...
From A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar:

When aru is used to express the idea of having and the object is animate, that object must be someone who maintains a very close relationship with the possessor, such as a family member, a relative or a friend. Thus, (1) is acceptable but (2) is odd.

(1) 私（に）は子供が三人ある。
(2) ??　私（に）は運転手がある。

I don't think I've run across it before, but if A Dictionary of Basic Japanese grammar mentions it, it's probably true, those books are extremely comprehensive.

It goes on to clarify that:

"Since aru in this usage is a possessive expression, it cannot be used in
situations where the idea indicates existence. Thus, (6) is unacceptable.
(6)私(に)は母がもうありません。

In this case, iru must be used. "

So I'm thinking that if you're treating the animate object as an abstract possession you could use ある?

To speculate even more baselessly -- if ある used to be common with animate objects, and it began to be replaced by いる, I wonder if the reason it can still be used in the above way when it refers to an object 'very close' to the possessor in a rarer, formal sense, is because it can create a kind of distance between the two by being more abstract? Or rather, that might be 'why' one would do it.

Jarvik7 Wrote:日本語初歩 is a pretty old textbook. It was the first one I used in classes and iirc was compiled during the 1970s and published in the early 80s. Everyone in the pictures was certainly 70s fashion. I have no idea why my first university used such an old text. Maybe the bookstore had a bunch of stock leftover and refused to bring in something else.

psst Kuno 1973 =]

hehe

There is a difference between an old out of date textbook that was never good to begin with and an academic tome which is still the basis for all discussion about certain grammar aspects though.

Before I even started studying Japanese, I told myself I wanted to have enough skills that I could read Kuno, et al, with the same understanding that I have with English works (the kind that gives me that fuzzy pleasurable feeling in the brain area when I read it). (Want to know the feeling I'm talking about? Take a pencil and point it just between your eyes, as close as you can without touching. Do that for a few seconds. The feeling you'll get then, imagine that all over your brain. Yup.)

I don't get why ある isn't usually written with kanji... If those sentences used 有る it'd be more clear what the meaning was.

Jarvik7, 日本語初歩　was first published in 1981, however the book that I have was published in 2002 and it was 20th printing of this textbook. Though, I guess there is no any difference between 1981 and 2002 printings. The book is outdated not only in itｓ grammar examples (as in ある　usage), but also uses outdated words. (e.g. 洋品店).
I would not recommend it to anyone nowadays, but it was my first japanese textbook back in university 13 years ago,　so I am using it to brush up my japanese.

Tzadeck, thanks for explanation.

Nestor, thanks for valuable link. Indeed, it seems that ある usage for animate beings is gradually becoming obsolete.

At the same time, ある　is still actively used in Japan by the elder generation. This creates an interesting situation. Probably, younger Japanese subconsciously attributed a certain level of politeness to such usage of ある and may use it in addressing to the elders. After all, they (younger generation of Japanese) were not told by grammarians that this usage is obsolete, but they run into it from time to time when speaking with older people. So they have to deal with it in one way or another.

I have one more question regarding the topic. When speaking about the existence of 神 (gods), which one would you use ある　or いる？

I tried to sell my copy of 日本語初歩, but Bookoff wouldn't take it They did buy my copy of 日本語中級I though (the next book in the series). I am tempted to buy 日本語中級II (if I can find it anywhere) just so I can say I finished the series.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I tried to sell my copy of 日本語初歩, but Bookoff wouldn't take it They did buy my copy of 日本語中級I though (the next book in the series). I am tempted to buy 日本語中級II (if I can find it anywhere) just so I can say I finished the series.

Maybe they just didn't like the cut of your jib (too retro).

5 years ago I bought　日本語初歩, 日本語中級Ｉ　and 日本語中級ＩＩ　in Maruzen Tokyo. The last book in the series was first published in 1996, so it`s not so outdated as 日本語初歩. I haven`t studied it yet, but the level of difficulty in 中級ＩＩ　seems quite hard for me. (though, I think that my current level is higher than 中級Ｉ).