Thunk
Member
From: California
Registered: 2009-03-12
Posts: 102
I know I can get this information from tae kim somewhere、so forgive me! But it'd take less time if I asked the folks on here. I'm seeing あります All over the place, and can't quite figure out when it's used. I thought initially that it was used for inanimate objects, but then I saw it used in a sentence with a person, 私は医者ではありません.
And how different is it from ています ？
Help?
Thunk wrote:
I know I can get this information from tae kim somewhere、so forgive me! But it'd take less time if I asked the folks on here. I'm seeing あります All over the place, and can't quite figure out when it's used. I thought initially that it was used for inanimate objects, but then I saw it used in a sentence with a person, 私は医者ではありません.
And how different is it from ています ？
Help?
If you wanted to say, "I am a doctor," you would say "私は医者です," right?
But if you want to say, "I am not a doctor," what is the negative form of "desu"?
Well -- it doesn't have an exact equivalent, but you would use the ではありません. That's not quite the same thing as using "arimasu" to indicate that something exists or is located in a certain place, which IS only for inanimate objects.
そこにくるまがあります。 -- There is a car there. (Literally, a car exists there)
テーブルの上にぺんがあります。 -- On top of the table there is a pen.
(私は)お金があります。 -- I have money. (You don't need '私は' there, by the way -- you can say 'money exists,' that's enough, and the context gets across that it applies to you. In this sentence, the money comes right before ga, so it's the subject -- the money is the thing that's doing the existing -- so it has to be あります。
Last edited by Fillanzea (2009 October 10, 5:12 pm)
kazelee wrote:
I think the different between である and だ/です is that one sounds more "formal." This is going off memory though, so I could be wrong.
Well, not quite -- de aru is more appropriate for writing (you almost never see 'desu' in essays or nonfiction writing) but it's not necessarily more formal. Desu is already at the "desu/masu" level of politeness, and if you need to go up a level from that you would use "de gozaimasu" or "de irasshaimasu."
(But, to the original poster: this is higher-level stuff. You don't need to worry about it right now.)
Edit: in contemporary fiction I usually see da/datta. I think it's mostly in nonfiction writing that de aru is used.
Last edited by Fillanzea (2009 October 10, 3:05 pm)
iSoron
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 490
Thunk wrote:
I'm seeing あります All over the place, and can't quite figure out when it's used. I thought initially that it was used for inanimate objects, but then I saw it used in a sentence with a person
ある can act either as a copula or as an existential verb, as vosmiura said.
As a copula: 私は学生である。
As an existential verb: そこに本がある。
In modern Japanese, ある can only be used as an existential verb when the subject is inanimate. When referring to people and animals, you should use いる. E.g. そこに猫がいる。When ある acts as a copula, this restriction does not apply.
And that's it.
When ある is a copula, it shows up in many forms, as you may be aware.
Plain: 私は学生・だ。…だった。…じゃない。…じゃなかった。
Polite: …です。…でした。…じゃありません。…じゃありませんでした。
Formal: …である。…であった。…ではない。…ではなかった。
Formal polite: …であります。…でありました。…ではありません。…ではありませんでした。
Honorific polite: …でございます。…でございました。…でございません。…でございませんでした。
When ある is an existential verb, the list is almost the same:
Plain: そこに本が・ある。…あった。…ない。…なかった。
Polite: …あります。…ありました。…ありません。…ありませんでした。
Honorific polite: …ございます。…ございました。…ございません。…ございませんでした。
And when you're stating the existence of animate things, you get:
Plain: そこに猫が・いる。…いった。…いない。…いなかった。
Polite: …います。…いました。…いません。…いませんでした。
Honorific polite: …いらっしゃいます。…いらっしゃいましった。…いらっしゃいません。…いらっしゃいませんでした。
Last edited by iSoron (2009 October 10, 8:32 pm)
liosama
Member
From: sydney
Registered: 2008-03-02
Posts: 896
Afaik, では negation is strong, and implies a stronger knowledge on the speakers part that something is definitely not the case, in a formal nuance.
Isoron forgot to mention that you can even use
ではございません
ではございます etc etc depending ont he context of usage.
The は here is just referring to the contrast of the initial は that may have been used in the sentence. So it is being restated in the 'response' statement to affirm the fact that one is not, what the original は construction brought up,
例: たかはしさんは医者ですか？
いいえ、医者ではありません。
In conversational Japanese, では/じゃあ are also used in a "okay from here", "ok moving on" sort of context.,
「では, 本日はありがとうございました、失礼いたしました」
「じゃあ、今日、ありがとうございます、失礼します」
Aijin
Member
From: California
Registered: 2009-05-29
Posts: 648
Something that is important to keep in mind is that while ある can only be used for inanimate objects when using the existential form(在る), ある can be used for animate objects when using the possessive (有る). This is something I haven't seen many textbooks or teachers explain when introducing いる／ある; my observation is that when it's first introduced they try to make it clear-cut as animate vs. inanimate, so students understand it more easily. I suppose it's just like how あれ／それ are explained very simply when first taught.
When using ある for animate objects, it must be someone whom their is a deep empathy for. This usually is the immediate family in most constructions, and though it's not technically ungrammatical to ある for the possession of people outside your intimate circle, it's very...odd. "医者がある" to say that you have a doctor, for example, would be incorrect. There are exceptions, contexts, and situations which the rule bends a little, but they're rare and not to be worried about.
Usually when taught to express that you have family members, etc, you are taught to use いる, so you might be wondering: what is the difference in meaning between using the possessive of ある and just simply using いる? I'll try to explain.
子供がある
子供がいる
In English both of those can be rendered as "I have a child", and it's fine to think of it that way, but they have difference feels to natives. Using ある expresses literal possession, something intimate and attached to yourself (which is why が is used as the particle), where as いる expresses more of the presence, and the existence, almost more individual, whereas ある has more a sense of closeness to the speaker. That's not to say that ある expresses a deeper bond than いる, though. I can't express it well.
It reminds me of the other day when a student asked me the difference between:
母が父にプレゼントを上げる
母が父にプレゼントをくれる
Aijin
Member
From: California
Registered: 2009-05-29
Posts: 648
Yep, that's basically the idea. 上げる is more of a neutral viewpoint than くれる though; I wouldn't say it places any significant emphasis on either giver/recipient, whereas くれる takes the viewpoint of the recipient (which is why you can use くれる in that case for someone other than yourself).
Using くれる doesn't necessarily imply that you have a closer connection with the recipient, so 母が父にプレゼントをくれる wouldn't mean you favor your father over your mother as the reason for assuming his point of view. It just depends on the situation for the reasoning of why you would take one view rather than the other.
For example, if there is more emotion or expression, etc, on the receiver's end than the giver's, it'd make sense to put more emphasis on the receiver by using くれる.
母が父にランボルギーニをくれる
In that sentence, it makes sense to take the point of view of the father, because of the strong emotion he feels, etc, from getting a Lamborghini. Because emotions are something very personal and attached to yourself, it's better to use くれる rather than the more neutral 上げる.
If it's: 母が父にクリネックスをくれる
Then there's not really much reason to place emphasis on either giver/receiver, because a Kleenex is really such a mundane thing, so 上げる makes more sense.
Of course there's not really any rule to this; it's all about what makes more sense/feels better based upon the situation.
