arimas vs imas - triffids, ghosts, robots
Adam Atkinson
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!
Peter Aagaard Kristensen
> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
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.
/ Peter
Adam Atkinson
>> 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!
necoandjeff
news:1518.611T2048...@mistral.co.uk...
> 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.
Jeff
necoandjeff
news:c6frqf$2fn$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
> 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.)
Jeff
Paul Blay
> "Peter Aagaard Kristensen" <removet...@paksoftware.dk> wrote in message
> news:c6frqf$2fn$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
>
> > 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
644 googits for 車がいます.
4060 for 車があります.
I suppose that puts it within the bounds of 'could be acceptible'.
James F. Bellinger
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
news:760.611T671T...@mistral.co.uk...
Peter Aagaard Kristensen
>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”
/ Peter
dar...@inter7ns.jp
> 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.
--
dareka dar...@inter7NS.jp
necoandjeff
> >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.
Jeff
Sean Holland
sp...@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.
--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/seanhollandmusic.htm
pantssea...@telus.pants.net Remove pants to email me.
Marc Adler
> Would an ambulatory plant such as a triffid be arimas or imas?
Iru.
> What about a robot?
Aru.
> A ghost (or other undead thing)?
Iru.
> The holographic
> doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
Iru.
These are all clear-cut.
--
「斯くてゴルゴタといふ處に、即ち髑髏(されかうべ)の地にいたり、苦味を混ぜ
たる葡萄酒を飲ませんとしたるに、嘗めて、飲まんとし給はず。」
太 二七・三三－三四
Marc Adler
> So if you see a car on the
> highway then it is okay to use imasu.
That's because there's a person driving it.
Marc Adler
> 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."
Marc Adler
> 644 googits for 車がいます.
> 4060 for 車があります.
Context is Elvis here.
If there's a person behind the wheel, people often say "iru." If you're
in a used car lot, then it's "aru."
iru/aru for the first case, Only aru for the second, unless you're a child.
necoandjeff
news:c6h4hr$bhq1v$2...@ID-204076.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > What about a robot?
>
> Aru.
Irutteba. Don't think of that big yellow Fanuc thing that spray paints cars,
think Azimo (sp?).
> > A ghost (or other undead thing)?
>
> Iru.
>
> > The holographic
> > doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
>
> Iru.
>
> These are all clear-cut.
All but one they are.
Marc Adler
> 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.
Marc Adler
> Hmm. The way I distinguish them is thus...
Hey! Quit top-posting!
necoandjeff
> 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."
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.)
Jeff
Cindy
> in article V6Qic.40969$2p3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at
> sp...@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.
バスがいる ＝ your bus is right there and ready to go.
「まだバスいる？」
「走れば間に合うよ。」
ところが一つ間違うととんでもないことに・・・
「まだバスある？」
「次のは２時間半後ね。で、夜１０時が最終」
necoandjeff
> 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.)
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
> James F. Bellinger wrote:
>
> > Hmm. The way I distinguish them is thus...
>
> Hey! Quit top-posting!
Have a super fantastic day Marc!!!
Adam Atkinson
>> What about a robot?
>Aru.
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.
Marc Adler
> 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.
意見が完璧に合っています。
Marc Adler
> 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.
Marc Adler
> Even if it's intelligent, such as Marvin from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide?
> Wouldn't he qualify for iru?
Iru.
necoandjeff
> 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?
Fanuc is a Japanese company that is famous for manufacturing bright yellow
machinery (a friend lives in the company dorms which are also painted bright
yellow), including those assembly line robots that you are referring to.
> 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.
意見が完璧に会っています。
Marc Adler
> Fanuc is a Japanese company that is famous for manufacturing bright yellow
> machinery (a friend lives in the company dorms which are also painted bright
> yellow), including those assembly line robots that you are referring to.
Huh. You live and learn. Poor guy, though.
Bart Mathias
> ... 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.)
Interesting! So it would be 山がそびえてある, for example.
How about 摩天楼がたって_____? I'd say いる. You might counter that 立
つ is a movement verb, but it seems less so to me than the "oite" of
"oite aru," and about equal to that of "tatete aru."
I'm pretty sure you're not trying to whoosh us again, unless this is
even more subtle than the "skosh" tour de force.
Bart
necoandjeff
news:oUZic.76151$L31....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
No, I think we've already established that that was a hastily written, poor
explanation. It wasn't even my intent to explain the difference between aru
and iru really. I went out on a limb and got burned...please see my later
explanation and disregard this one.
Jeff
Marc Adler
> Interesting! So it would be 山がそびえてある, for example.
Well, somebody put them there!
Marc Adler
> I went out on a limb and got burned...please see my later
> explanation and disregard this one.
No.
necoandjeff
> necoandjeff wrote:
>
> > I went out on a limb and got burned...please see my later
> > explanation and disregard this one.
>
> No.
Yeah, I thought it was too much to ask...
Marc Adler
> Have a super fantastic day Marc!!!
Pow! Right in the kisser!
Kan Yabumoto
> 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?
> doctor in Star Trek: Voyager?
>
> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
As a native Japanese speaker, I can say that the two words "aru"
and "iru" are perceived as far distinct by most Japanese than English
speakers generally think. It's one of the things that different
linguistic perspectives treat two things either similar or different.
In English, that someone is there and that some thing is there
are both denoted by the nebulous word, "be". I think the essence
of this discussion is primarily on what the English word, "be"
really is in Japanese. If you try to analyze "aru" and "iru"
from English speaker's point of view, it may even be more helpful
by substituting the vague word "be" by something more distinct
and concrete.
The word, "aru" is closer to "be placed" or "to occupy" --- quite
"inanimate" --- inorganic, lifeless, passive, just a state of the
presence.
Whereas "iru" is almost "to stay at" or even "to attend" that
the object itself has a willingness to be there which requires
the very action of being there. Therefore, it almost always
requires that the subject be live, thinking, and participating.
In this instance, the easiest way to differentiate the usage
of "aru" and "iru" is to see whether the subject is "thinking"
or not. Therefore, the robot case is at the borderline because
the man-machine distinction is blurred. But, when a robot is
designed like human (with face, body, limbs), "iru" is appropriate
whereas the industrial robots found in automobile factories which
perform welding jobs hardly deserve the treatment of human/animal,
and therefore "aru" is definitely better.
As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
word), unless the plant has legs and can move around, Japanese
would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
A few people (correctly) pointed out that a bus being still there
at the bus stop is described by "basu wa mada imasu." This sounds
like an exception. But, the real logic behind of the "iru" usage
in this situation is not because the people inside the bus being
taken into consideration (the bunch of passengers don't count).
Rather, the bus has its own "will" or has its action to be at
certain place (the bus stop) at certain time as if it has its own
will (via the driver's control). So, in this case, the physical
bus plus the driver who has his decision-making power as a whole
behaves like a living thing.
Simply put:
Five stones are there. ---> aru
Five trees are there. ---> aru
Five people are there. ---> iru
Five tigers are there. ---> iru
It's not that hard.
Kan Yabumoto
Naperville, Illinois
Paul Blay
>
> As a native Japanese speaker, I can say that the two words "aru"
> and "iru" are perceived as far
less, more ?
> distinct by most Japanese than English
> speakers generally think. It's one of the things that different
> linguistic perspectives treat two things either similar or different.
>
> As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
> word), unless the plant has legs and can move around,
That's what 'ambulatory' means doesn't it?
It can 'amble' along.
*Goes to check dictionary
ambulatory (adj)
1. Of, relating to, or adapted for walking.
2 a. Capable of walking; not bedridden: an ambulatory patient.
yup.*
> Japanese
> would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
I think you're getting triffids mixed up with those plants in 'certain' sorts
of anime.
Adam Atkinson
>> My Japanese teacher thought ghosts would be "imas" and robots "arimas"
>> but I didn't ask about triffids, holographic doctors, plantlike aliens.
>The word, "aru" is closer to "be placed" or "to occupy" --- quite
>"inanimate" --- inorganic, lifeless, passive, just a state of the
>presence.
OK
>Whereas "iru" is almost "to stay at" or even "to attend" that
>the object itself has a willingness to be there which requires
>the very action of being there. Therefore, it almost always
>requires that the subject be live, thinking, and participating.
Yes, this is my understanding. So I would have guessed that
intelligent (science-fiction) robots would be "iru".
>In this instance, the easiest way to differentiate the usage
>of "aru" and "iru" is to see whether the subject is "thinking"
>or not. Therefore, the robot case is at the borderline because
>the man-machine distinction is blurred. But, when a robot is
>designed like human (with face, body, limbs), "iru" is appropriate
>whereas the industrial robots found in automobile factories which
>perform welding jobs hardly deserve the treatment of human/animal,
>and therefore "aru" is definitely better.
This is what I exepected.
>As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
>word), unless the plant has legs and can move around, Japanese
>would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
"triffids" are plants from a science fiction book. They are able to
pull their roots out of the ground and walk, then put their roots in
the ground again. It's not clear whether they are intelligent in the
book. Would unintelligent walking plants be "aru" and intelligent ones
"iru"?
>A few people (correctly) pointed out that a bus being still there
>at the bus stop is described by "basu wa mada imasu." This sounds
>like an exception. But, the real logic behind of the "iru" usage
>in this situation is not because the people inside the bus being
>taken into consideration (the bunch of passengers don't count).
>Rather, the bus has its own "will" or has its action to be at
>certain place (the bus stop) at certain time as if it has its own
>will (via the driver's control). So, in this case, the physical
>bus plus the driver who has his decision-making power as a whole
>behaves like a living thing.
This is an interesting example. Thank you.
>Simply put:
> Five stones are there. ---> aru
> Five trees are there. ---> aru
> Five people are there. ---> iru
> Five tigers are there. ---> iru
>It's not that hard.
Oh, these cases are clear. I was just trying to invent borderline
examples.
An intelligent being that could not move would be "iru", then, since
it would count as a presence? (Non-real-world) Examples would be
artificially intelligent computers with no ability to move, telepathic
trees, and similar.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
"Our royal family died out because the last queen was impregnable."
"No, she was unbearable." "No, she was inconceivable."
necoandjeff
No, intelligence can't be the deciding factor. If it were, George W. Bush が
ある、Pat Robertson がある、Jessica Simpson がある、浜崎あゆみがある...It
would be too tough to keep track of everyone...
Jeff
Louise Bremner
> >As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
> >word), unless the plant has legs and can move around, Japanese
> >would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
>
> "triffids" are plants from a science fiction book.
The Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham--I read it first when I was
maybe a little too young <http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/wyndham.html>.
There was also a film that has mixed reviews....
> They are able to pull their roots out of the ground and walk, then put
> their roots in the ground again. It's not clear whether they are
> intelligent in the book. Would unintelligent walking plants be "aru" and
> intelligent ones "iru"?
They had enough instinct to head towards humans to kill them--clustering
in a thick border around the compound the humans lived in. It might not
have been actual intelligence, but it certainly seemed like it.
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Louise Bremner
> The word, "aru" is closer to "be placed" or "to occupy" --- quite
> "inanimate" --- inorganic, lifeless, passive, just a state of the
> presence.
>
> Whereas "iru" is almost "to stay at" or even "to attend" that
> the object itself has a willingness to be there which requires
> the very action of being there. Therefore, it almost always
> requires that the subject be live, thinking, and participating.
Useful distinction--thanks!
necoandjeff
news:1gcw3gl.wea6ro1bg8wN%dame_...@yahoo.com...
> Adam Atkinson <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
> > >word), unless the plant has legs and can move around, Japanese
> > >would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
> >
> > "triffids" are plants from a science fiction book.
>
> The Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham--I read it first when I was
> maybe a little too young <http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/wyndham.html>.
> There was also a film that has mixed reviews....
>
> > They are able to pull their roots out of the ground and walk, then put
> > their roots in the ground again. It's not clear whether they are
> > intelligent in the book. Would unintelligent walking plants be "aru" and
> > intelligent ones "iru"?
>
So my comparison with George W. Bush is even more appropriate than I
initially thought.
Jeff
Louise Bremner
Don Kirkman
<LNUic.20678$cF6.846804@attbi_s04>:
>Sean Holland wrote:
>> in article V6Qic.40969$2p3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at
>> sp...@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。」
So the correct answer would be は、いる？
--
Don
Old age is when you start saying "I wish I knew now what I knew then."
Cindy
すぐ目の前にいて、うっかりしているとどこかへ行ってしまうような状態の時ね。
でも、「タクシーがある」っていうと、タクシーという交通手段が選択出来るっ
てことで、来るまで待たなくちゃいけない。
necoandjeff
> necoandjeff <sp...@schrepfer.com> wrote:
>
> > "Louise Bremner" <dame_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1gcw3gl.wea6ro1bg8wN%dame_...@yahoo.com...
> > > Adam Atkinson <gh...@mistral.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
> > > > >word), unless the plant has legs and can move around, Japanese
> > > > >would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?)
wildly.
> > > >
> > > > "triffids" are plants from a science fiction book.
> > >
> > > The Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham--I read it first when I was
> > > maybe a little too young
<http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/wyndham.html>.
> > > There was also a film that has mixed reviews....
> > >
> > > > They are able to pull their roots out of the ground and walk, then
put
> > > > their roots in the ground again. It's not clear whether they are
> > > > intelligent in the book. Would unintelligent walking plants be "aru"
and
> > > > intelligent ones "iru"?
> > >
> > > They had enough instinct to head towards humans to kill them <snip>
> >
> > So my comparison with George W. Bush is even more appropriate than I
> > initially thought.
>
> Visions of bargepoles dance before my eyes....
British bargepole = the American ten foot pole. Something new every day...
Jeff
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
>
>>Interesting! So it would be 山がそびえてある, for example.
>
>
> Well, somebody put them there!
Archimedes? I doubt it. But then it would have to be 山がそびやかしてある.
(I've heard interesting discussions about when it's ...がしてある and
when it's ...をしてある and forgotten all of them.)
Sean Holland
sp...@schrepfer.com wrote on 4/26/04 1:49 PM:
> No, intelligence can't be the deciding factor. If it were, George W. Bush が
> ある、Pat Robertson がある、Jessica Simpson がある、浜崎あゆみがある...It
> would be too tough to keep track of everyone...
>
> Jeff
>
And we'd have to switch back and forth between Jeffがある and Jeffがいる,
depending on the time of day and the degree to which the background feline
is hassling him.
For that matter, same here.
--
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/seanhollandmusic.htm
pantssea...@telus.pants.net Remove pants to email me.
necoandjeff
news:BCB2FA3D.C9E6%seanh...@pants.telus.net...
> in article cBejc.1835$XN2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com, necoandjeff at
> sp...@schrepfer.com wrote on 4/26/04 1:49 PM:
>
> > No, intelligence can't be the deciding factor. If it were, George W.
Bush が
> > ある、Pat Robertson がある、Jessica Simpson がある、浜崎あゆみがある
...It
> > would be too tough to keep track of everyone...
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
> And we'd have to switch back and forth between Jeffがある and Jeffがいる,
> depending on the time of day and the degree to which the background feline
> is hassling him.
> For that matter, same here.
Fair enough. She doesn't have to hassle me though, she has me trained well
enough to always tread with fear...
Marc Adler
> (I've heard interesting discussions about when it's ...がしてある and
> when it's ...をしてある and forgotten all of them.)
ビールが冷やしてある
ビールを冷やしてある
Hmmm... quite an interesting littel puzzel. I'll have to think about
that when I'm done with my accounting homework.
necoandjeff
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>
> > (I've heard interesting discussions about when it's ...がしてある and
> > when it's ...をしてある and forgotten all of them.)
>
> ビールが冷やしてある
> ビールを冷やしてある
>
> Hmmm... quite an interesting littel puzzel. I'll have to think about
> that when I'm done with my accounting homework.
I'm back in the tree and ready to head out onto another weak looking limb...
を sounds 変. Plus, given my earlier assertion that this construction is
primarily for the purpose of announcing a "state" of beer readiness (i.e.
the emphasis being on the beer's あるness), and that it just happens to
include a verb whose purpose is really to express the particular kind of
readiness the beer is in, I think が is the better choice here.
On the other hand，the closely related phrase ビールを冷やしておく focuses
much more on announcing the action taken with respect to the beer, with the
expected future state of beer readiness being implied only, so this example
would clearly take an を and not a が.
Jeff
Hirofumi Nagamura
>
> think Azimo (sp?).
"Asimo", I think it was. (You mean the Honda robot, right?)
Cheers,
--
Hirofumi Nagamura
Kobe, Japan
Hirofumi Nagamura
>
>>Bart Mathias wrote:
>>
>>>(I've heard interesting discussions about when it's ...がしてある and
>>>when it's ...をしてある and forgotten all of them.)
>>
>>ビールが冷やしてある
>>ビールを冷やしてある
>
>
> を sounds 変.
Not necessarily. In response to 何か冷たいものない？ one could answer
with either. (I'm not sure what differences there would be, if any,
between the two.)
necoandjeff
news:408DC275...@kh.rim.or.jp...
> necoandjeff wrote:
> >
> >>Bart Mathias wrote:
> >>
> >>>(I've heard interesting discussions about when it's ...がしてある and
> >>>when it's ...をしてある and forgotten all of them.)
> >>
> >>ビールが冷やしてある
> >>ビールを冷やしてある
> >
> > I'm back in the tree and ready to head out onto another weak looking
limb...
*thump!*
Marc Adler
> Not necessarily. In response to 何か冷たいものない？ one could answer
> with either. (I'm not sure what differences there would be, if any,
> between the two.)
Hey, everybody! Look who's back!
Adam Atkinson
> > They are able to pull their roots out of the ground and walk, then put
> > their roots in the ground again. It's not clear whether they are
> > intelligent in the book. Would unintelligent walking plants be "aru" and
> > intelligent ones "iru"?
>
> They had enough instinct to head towards humans to kill them--clustering
> in a thick border around the compound the humans lived in. It might not
> have been actual intelligence, but it certainly seemed like it.
Might it be possible that in a Japanese translation of such a book,
one might use "aru" to describe triffids (or in "Speaker for the Dead",
fathertrees) when they are believed to be simple plants, and "iru"
when more is learned about them?
And perhaps the reverse if something which is initially thought
to be an intelligent entity is discovered not to be? e.g.
non-Queen buggers in "Ender's Game" (after the Queen is killed,
the non-Queen ones don't seem to be able to do anything
at all)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kan Yabumoto
> "Kan Yabumoto" wrote ...
> >
> > As a native Japanese speaker, I can say that the two words "aru"
> > and "iru" are perceived as far
>
> less, more ?
The ambiguity eluded my self proof-reading...
My original line should read as:
I can say that the two words "aru" and "iru" are perceived as far *MORE*
distinct by most Japanese than English speakers generally think.
> > distinct by most Japanese than English
> > speakers generally think. It's one of the things that different
> > linguistic perspectives treat two things either similar or different.
> >
> > As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this
> > word), unless the plant has legs and can move around,
>
> That's what 'ambulatory' means doesn't it?
>
> It can 'amble' along.
>
> *Goes to check dictionary
>
> ambulatory (adj)
> 1. Of, relating to, or adapted for walking.
> 2 a. Capable of walking; not bedridden: an ambulatory patient.
>
> yup.*
> > Japanese
> > would use "aru" even if the plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
>
> I think you're getting triffids mixed up with those plants in 'certain' sorts
> of anime.
Thanks for the clarification. When I looked up the word (the two words
as a compound word), I ended up in a few web pages that talked about
moving plants and carnivorous plants. So, I guessed that
"ambulatory plant" meant a type of carnivorous plants with possibly
moving "arms" :-(
(I'm totally out of touch with recent anime things and that's a
different world for me.)
Kan Yabumoto
Naperville, Illinois
Marc Adler
> (I'm totally out of touch with recent anime things and that's a
> different world for me.)
The book (not anime) is a sci-fi classic, written in 1951.
It was the first "book for adults" I ever read. I was 12, I think.
necoandjeff
> On 4/27/2004 6:40 PM, Kan Yabumoto wrote:
>
> > (I'm totally out of touch with recent anime things and that's a
> > different world for me.)
>
> The book (not anime) is a sci-fi classic, written in 1951.
>
> It was the first "book for adults" I ever read. I was 12, I think.
Yeah, I was about 12 when I started reading "books for adults" too...
Marc Adler
> Yeah, I was about 12 when I started reading "books for adults" too...
You perv.
Paul Blay
Sure you aren't getting "books for adults" mixed up with "adult books" ?
"|V| /| |2 ( /| l) l_ l= |2"
> Sure you aren't getting "books for adults" mixed up with "adult books" ?
Of course he was.
Drew Hamilton
wrote:
>As to the ambulatory plant (this is my first encounter to this word), unless
>plant can move its parts (arms?) wildly.
What about an Audrey II? It can move its arms wildly, but it can
also speak and think and plot murder and world dominance! However,
it can't actually walk.
- awh
Paul Blay
It could probably drag its plant pot at the right stage of development ...