I'm doing a beginners' Japanese course (Minna no Nihingo) and this week we've "done" arimas(u) vs imas(u) for inanimate vs animate things. Trees and plants are inanimate because they don't move.
I appreciate that the following question is far from being my biggest barrier to learning Japanese, but these are the sorts of things I wonder about:
Would an ambulatory plant such as a triffid be arimas or imas? What about a robot? A ghost (or other undead thing)? The holographic doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas" but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
-- Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk) Anvedi oh che roba!
> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas" > but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
There isnt a crystal clear border between imasu and arimasu. I always say that if it looks and acts a lot like a human or animal then it is imasu else it is arimasu. I dont think robots that are very livelike are referred to as arimasu, e.q. I would say that Atomu is imasu. Can anyone who watched that show lately tell me if this is true? Finally, to confuse everybody, with things that move a lot you can also use imasu. So if you see a car on the highway then it is okay to use imasu. Triffids are probably more of a border case, but I wouldnt worry too much about it. The day you have to explain what a triffid is to a Japanese person, whether to use arimasu or imasu will NOT be your biggest problem.
On 25-Apr-04 09:14:07, Peter Aagaard Kristensen said:
>> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas" >> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens. >There isnt a crystal clear border between imasu and arimasu. I always say >that if it looks and acts a lot like a human or animal then it is imasu else >it is arimasu.
So sentient plantlike aliens would be imasu. Also ghosts and vampires. Zombies, not being too bright, might be harder. Venus fly-traps? What about intelligent things that don't move, such as brains in cases that communicate via telepathy? I'd guess the intelligence made them human, thus imasu?
>Finally, to confuse everybody, with >things that move a lot you can also use imasu. So if you see a car on the >highway then it is okay to use imasu.
I wouldn't have guessed this one. I think we were told things had to move of their own volition, which I'd have thought would rule out cars, robots with pilots in them (as in "Mazinga" etc.), and so on.
>Triffids are probably more of a border >case
Yes, they move without external direction, but aren't really intelligent/sentient. And they're plants.
>, but I wouldnt worry too much about it. The day you have to explain >what a triffid is to a Japanese person, whether to use arimasu or imasu will >NOT be your biggest problem.
I _do_ realise this, of course.
-- Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk) We'll call him Shaun, eh? Come on, Shaun!
> On 25-Apr-04 09:14:07, Peter Aagaard Kristensen said:
> >> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas" > >> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
> >There isnt a crystal clear border between imasu and arimasu. I always say > >that if it looks and acts a lot like a human or animal then it is imasu else > >it is arimasu.
Azimo, for example, would almost certainly be "iru." But there is no clear right and wrong. It's more of a philosophical debate and you would have a very good argument as to why a robot should be "iru."
> So sentient plantlike aliens would be imasu. Also ghosts and vampires. > Zombies, not being too bright, might be harder. Venus fly-traps? > What about intelligent things that don't move, such as brains in cases > that communicate via telepathy? I'd guess the intelligence made them > human, thus imasu?
> >Finally, to confuse everybody, with > >things that move a lot you can also use imasu. So if you see a car on the > >highway then it is okay to use imasu.
> I wouldn't have guessed this one. I think we were told things had to > move of their own volition, which I'd have thought would rule out > cars, robots with pilots in them (as in "Mazinga" etc.), and so on.
I've never heard people say "iru" with cars. I'd love to hear what a native speaker has to say about this but I would stick with aru.
> things that move a lot you can also use imasu. So if you see a car on the > highway then it is okay to use imasu.
Actually, on further thought, while I still don't think a fast moving car would be imasu, I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where you would convey the existence of a fast moving car (on a highway, etc.) without using hashitte iru. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say they take the verb iru but I think that's a little bit different. Movement verbs will always take an iru (ugoite iru, hashitte iru, ochite iru, etc.) whereas static verbs for inanimate objects would take an aru (I can only think of oite aru at the moment.)
Would you consider them a 'presence'? Take a machine robot versus a sentient one. One is in the room, the other is in the room with you. A holographic doctor would definitely be a presence, a plantlike alien would depend on whether it's just scenery or something you'd maybe chat with or would at least be interesting. If you're the sort who talks to plants (a gardener for instance), perhaps you'd use imasu for a plant when talking to yourself or somesuch. I'm not sure on that point. Still, does that help any (perhaps)?
"Adam Atkinson" <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote in message
> I'm doing a beginners' Japanese course (Minna no Nihingo) and this > week we've "done" arimas(u) vs imas(u) for inanimate vs animate > things. Trees and plants are inanimate because they don't move.
> I appreciate that the following question is far from being my biggest > barrier to learning Japanese, but these are the sorts of things I > wonder about:
> Would an ambulatory plant such as a triffid be arimas or imas? > What about a robot? A ghost (or other undead thing)? The holographic > doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas" > but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
> -- > Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk) > Anvedi oh che roba!
>I've never heard people say "iru" with cars. I'd love to hear what a >native speaker has to say about this but I would stick with aru.
Aru is also okay (and probably used more). I was also surprised when I heard iru used about cars for the first time, so I asked my Japanese teacher if it was okay to use iru about cars. First she said no but after explaining that we were looking at moving cars on the highway she agreed that you could use both.
> Actually, on further thought, while I still don't think a fast moving car > would be imasu, I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where you would > convey the existence of a fast moving car (on a highway, etc.) without using > hashitte iru. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say they take the verb > iru but I think that's a little bit different.
No, this is not what I meant. The usage of iru here has nothing to do with the object being animate. Here it expresses a progressive action (like ?ing in English). The car is drivING. It is the same when it is rainING: ame ga futteiru.
>Movement verbs will always >take an iru (ugoite iru, hashitte iru, ochite iru, etc.) whereas static >verbs for inanimate objects would take an aru (I can only think of >oite aru at the moment.)
Static verbs for inanimate objects doesnt always take aru. Whether it takes iru or aru is almost always ruled by whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. E.q. aku is intransitive so if the door is open it will be “doa ga aiteiru”. Akeru is transitive so if somebody has opened the door it becomes “doa ga aketearu”
Adam Atkinson wrote: > I'm doing a beginners' Japanese course (Minna no Nihingo) and this > week we've "done" arimas(u) vs imas(u) for inanimate vs animate > things. Trees and plants are inanimate because they don't move.
> I appreciate that the following question is far from being my biggest > barrier to learning Japanese, but these are the sorts of things I > wonder about:
> Would an ambulatory plant such as a triffid be arimas or imas?
Triffids are always います unless they are dead.
> What about a robot?
Always います if they are acive and have feet or wings.
> A ghost (or other undead thing)?
Always います, dead or alive.
> The holographic > doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
Always います as long as functional.
> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas"
I don't think I totally agree with him/her.
> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
Usually unmanned cars are ある, but the following conversation is often more natural than あります whether the car is manned or not, because the question is like the car have got lost on its own.
「榛名のパンダ・トレノはどこに行った？」「あそこにいます」
に居る means something like "be staying at(a particular place at the moment)" and に在る means something like "exist at (a particular place)", so I think thing that moves on its own(I don't use the word "volitionally") always can use いる. I don't think the construction 「彼はあそこにある」is logically or grammatically wrong, but it is simply not used because you can't usually explain the intention or reason why you won't use いる and use ある instead.
> >I've never heard people say "iru" with cars. I'd love to hear what a
> >native speaker has to say about this but I would stick with aru.
> Aru is also okay (and probably used more). I was also surprised when I heard > iru used about cars for the first time, so I asked my Japanese teacher if it > was okay to use iru about cars. First she said no but after explaining that > we were looking at moving cars on the highway she agreed that you could use > both.
Some people apparently do use it but I think they're being a little loose with language. I just checked with my wife and she doesn't think it is ever correct to say kuruma ga iru. Not that she is the ultimate authority regarding Japanese but she is anecdotal authority for the fact that there are probably many people who think this usage is wrong. I even gave her what I thought was a good example of a situation where kuruma ga iru might be used. There was actually a scene from the first Lord of the Rings where the Hobbits were crossing that field when they first left the Squire and a car could actually be seen speeding along a road in the background (I think it was removed from the DVD version so don't kill yourself looking for it.) And I suggested to my wife that perhaps in that situation, upon seeing the car moving in the background, "kuruma ga iru!" might be appropriate. She still said no. She couldn't imagine a single situation where she felt it would be ok to say kuruma ga iru. In any event, I would still recommend sticking to "kuruma ga aru." Actually in my example above, "kuruma da!" or "kuruma ga hashitte iru" would probably be more natural anyway.
> > Actually, on further thought, while I still don't think a fast moving car > > would be imasu, I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where you would > > convey the existence of a fast moving car (on a highway, etc.) without > using > > hashitte iru. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say they take the > verb > > iru but I think that's a little bit different.
> No, this is not what I meant. The usage of iru here has nothing to do with > the object being animate. Here it expresses a progressive action (like ?ing > in English). The car is drivING. It is the same when it is rainING: ame ga > futteiru.
> >Movement verbs will always > >take an iru (ugoite iru, hashitte iru, ochite iru, etc.) whereas static > >verbs for inanimate objects would take an aru (I can only think of
> >oite aru at the moment.) > Static verbs for inanimate objects doesnt always take aru. Whether it takes > iru or aru is almost always ruled by whether the verb is transitive or > intransitive. E.q. aku is intransitive so if the door is open it will be > “doa ga aiteiru”. Akeru is transitive so if somebody has opened the door > it becomes “doa ga aketearu”
One thing that I'm sure is painfully obvious to readers of this ng is the fact that when I was learning Japanese, for better or for worse, I largely eschewed textbooks and hypertechnical grammatical explanations and tried to pick up my Japanese from hearing it and seeing it used. In other words, I tried as hard as I could to emulate the way I learned my native language.
Although at first I thought your explanation above might technically be correct, and perhaps that is the way textbooks explain it, the more I thought about it the more I don't like it, for two reasons. First, people simply don't think in these kinds of grammatical abstractions when they speak. In that sense, a rule pairing iru with intransitive verbs and aru with transitive verbs just doesn't seem terribly helpful unless your primary interest is dissecting the language and approaching from the point of view of a linguist. Second, there are many situations where this rule simply doesn't hold. You can say tsukutte iru for someone in the act of making something but you can also say tsukutte aru. The same is true for shite iru and shite aru (jumbi, youi, etc.) Personally I have always thought of this use of aru as signifying almost like a state of readiness. A person has done something and whatever they have done has put things in a particular state of readiness for something that is expected to come later. This to me is a helpful way of thinking of the distinction to someone speaking on the fly and it is the way I think most peoples' mind will come to understand it after hearing enough examples.
in article V6Qic.40969$2p3.19...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at s...@schrepfer.com wrote on 4/25/04 7:41 AM:
> I've never heard people say "iru" with cars. I'd love to hear what a native > speaker has to say about this but I would stick with aru.
IAMNANS, obviously, but I have certainly heard "basu ga iru" when the bus was full of people. I took the "iru" to be connected to the contents of the bus rather than the machine itself.
necoandjeff wrote: > Actually, on further thought, while I still don't think a fast moving car > would be imasu, I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where you would > convey the existence of a fast moving car (on a highway, etc.) without using > hashitte iru.
The speed or even movement doesn't matter. It's common to hear things like, "tonari no shasen ni kuruma ga iru kara ki wo tsukete."
necoandjeff wrote: > She couldn't imagine a single situation where she felt it would be > ok to say kuruma ga iru.
Ask her about watching out when making lane changes.
The car could be stopped, too, at a red light, say. Again, it has nothing to do with movement, but rather with the fact that someone's behind the wheel.
Technically it's wrong of course. This is definitely a situation where prescriptive grammarians should keep their blinders snugly on, because humans keep fucking up all their pretty rules about how language should work. (I'm not calling your wife a prescriptive grammarian, of course.)
> The same is true for shite iru > and shite aru (jumbi, youi, etc.) Personally I have always thought of this > use of aru as signifying almost like a state of readiness. A person has done > something and whatever they have done has put things in a particular state > of readiness for something that is expected to come later. This to me is a > helpful way of thinking of the distinction to someone speaking on the fly > and it is the way I think most peoples' mind will come to understand it > after hearing enough examples.
This is also the explanation presented in grammar books for -te aru.
ビールが冷やされている is just talking about the state of the beer. ビールが冷やしてある implies that someone did it.
> > Actually, on further thought, while I still don't think a fast moving car > > would be imasu, I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where you would > > convey the existence of a fast moving car (on a highway, etc.) without using > > hashitte iru.
> The speed or even movement doesn't matter. It's common to hear things > like, "tonari no shasen ni kuruma ga iru kara ki wo tsukete."
I'll buy this. In this situation you are attributing iruness to something because you are really referring to it as an extension of a person (i.e. it is moving at the will of a person.)
Sean Holland wrote: > in article V6Qic.40969$2p3.19...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at > s...@schrepfer.com wrote on 4/25/04 7:41 AM:
>>I've never heard people say "iru" with cars. I'd love to hear what a native >>speaker has to say about this but I would stick with aru.
> IAMNANS, obviously, but I have certainly heard "basu ga iru" when the bus > was full of people. I took the "iru" to be connected to the contents of the > bus rather than the machine itself.
Don't worry, Sean. I'll smash Jeff's belief into pieces.
When you think an object as a living thing, you can use iru.
「ちょっと、ちょっと！ あそこにタクシーがいるわよ。つかまえましょうよ。」
または・・・
バスがある ＝ there is a means of transportation to the destination you want to get, or the bus is still available until certain time.
> > She couldn't imagine a single situation where she felt it would be > > ok to say kuruma ga iru.
> Ask her about watching out when making lane changes.
> The car could be stopped, too, at a red light, say. Again, it has > nothing to do with movement, but rather with the fact that someone's > behind the wheel.
> Technically it's wrong of course. This is definitely a situation where > prescriptive grammarians should keep their blinders snugly on, because > humans keep fucking up all their pretty rules about how language should > work. (I'm not calling your wife a prescriptive grammarian, of course.)
I assume you say this tongue in cheek but it is exactly the reason I don't like relying too much on grammatical rules. Language is a very human and very nonlinear thing. Grammar attempts to capture real life language and pound it into prescriptive rules. Often those rules fit quite well, sometimes they don't fit well at all, but in any event, it is not how people think when they speak.
> > The same is true for shite iru > > and shite aru (jumbi, youi, etc.) Personally I have always thought of this > > use of aru as signifying almost like a state of readiness. A person has done > > something and whatever they have done has put things in a particular state > > of readiness for something that is expected to come later. This to me is a > > helpful way of thinking of the distinction to someone speaking on the fly > > and it is the way I think most peoples' mind will come to understand it > > after hearing enough examples.
> This is also the explanation presented in grammar books for -te aru.
> ビールが冷やされている is just talking about the state of the beer. > ビールが冷やしてある implies that someone did it.
Even if it's intelligent, such as Marvin from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide? Wouldn't he qualify for iru?
>> The holographic >> doctor in Star Trek: Voyager? >Iru. >These are all clear-cut.
I'm not sure I see how the holographic doctor is obviously different from a robot.
I would have guessed "iru" for ghosts, intelligent robots/androids, holographic doctors. I was less sure about triffids but would have guessed "iru". Less intelligent robots, e.g. those found in real-life factories today, I'd have guessed aru. Venus flytraps, sundews etc. would be "aru", I imagine. Are there any non-fictional plants which would be "iru"?
What about an artificial intelligence (e.g. Jane in Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead"), or a telepathic brain-in-tank kind of thing? Such things cannot move, but I'm guessing iru for this case too.
-- Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk) Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
necoandjeff wrote: > I assume you say this tongue in cheek but it is exactly the reason I don't > like relying too much on grammatical rules. Language is a very human and > very nonlinear thing. Grammar attempts to capture real life language and > pound it into prescriptive rules. Often those rules fit quite well, > sometimes they don't fit well at all, but in any event, it is not how people > think when they speak.
necoandjeff wrote: > Irutteba. Don't think of that big yellow Fanuc thing that spray paints cars, > think Azimo (sp?).
A Canadian car-spray-painting robot called Azimo?
You lost me there.
If the robot is of the sci-fi variety, with arms and legs, and a face, then it might be iru. I was thinking of the robots they use on car production lines. Those are definitely not iru.
