ni aru vs. ga aru vs. de aru
Lance
> I would like to ask the following question.
>
> Can someone explain the difference in nuance of meaning between ni
> aru, ga aru, and de aru when used to specify existence, in particular
> when they are used with abstract nouns?
>
> Thanks very much for your answers.
>
> --
> Ben Bullock @ KEK (national lab. for high energy physics, Tsukuba, Japan)
> e-mail: b...@theory.kek.jp www: http://theory.kek.jp:80/~ben/
> 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. tel: 0298 64 5403, fax: 0298 64 7831
I'm no expert, but here we go...
"ni aru" means "is located at." The word(s) right before the "ni" is
the location. The object in question is identified with a "ga."
ex. SHINJUKU ga TOKYO ni aru. "Shinjuku is located in Tokyo."
SUSHI ga TEEBURU NO UE ni aru. "The sushi is on the table."
"ga aru" simply denotes the existence or possession of an inanimate
object. Like before, the object in question comes before "ga." The
possessor usually comes before "wa."
ex. HAKO ga aru. "There is a box."
TANAKA-SAN wa HAKO ga aru. "Mr. Tanaka has a box."
"de aru," to the best of my knowledge, is a more formal form of "desu,"
which means "is." It is a copula that ends many sentences. "de aru" is
found in writing, esp. academic writings.
ex. TOKYO wa DAITOSHI de aru. "Tokyo is a big city."
OE KENZABURO wa SAKKA de aru. "Kenzaburo Oe is a writer."
Yoko
> I would like to ask the following question.
>
> Can someone explain the difference in nuance of meaning between ni
> aru, ga aru, and de aru when used to specify existence, in particular
> when they are used with abstract nouns?
I think it is difficult to say what "ni aru", "ga aru" and "de aru" mean
by
just taking out these parts from a whole sentence or a context.
"Ni" can be used for either time or place.
1. Kaigi wa tooka ni aru. We have a meeting on 10th.
2. Kaigi sitsu wa sangai ni aru. The meeting room is loaceted on the
third floor.
"ga aru"
3. Ginza ni Wako ga aru. Wako (a store) is located at Ginza.
4. Ginza de kaigi ga aru. We have a meeting at Ginza.
"de aru" is either a copula (a classical usage of desu/da) or
particle "de" + "aru".
5. Koko wa Ginza dearu. Here is Ginza.
6. Kaigi ga Ginza de aru. We have a meeting at Ginza. (4 to onaji)
There might be other examles...
Yoko Okita
Koji Kawakami
> I would like to ask the following question.
>
> Can someone explain the difference in nuance of meaning between ni
> aru, ga aru, and de aru when used to specify existence, in particular
> when they are used with abstract nouns?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ni aru:
riyuwa sokoni aru It is WHERE the reason resides.
riyuwa soreni aru
sono iikatawa bunponi aru I see such a saying IN a grammer (book).
sono iikatawa jishoni aru You can find it IN a dictionary how to say..
"ni aru" simply indicates where something is located.
de aru:
sorega riyude aru It is a reason why ...
sorega shokode aru It is an evidence how/why ...
shohaiwa tokino unde aru It is a luck whether we win or lose.
(kachimakewa)
"de aru" explains a reason of something more than an existence of it.
ga aru:
soreniwa shokoga aru There is an EVIDENCE for it.
anataniwa aiga aru You've got a LOVE.
... uukiga aru ... GUT.
"ga aru" emphasizes (sp ?) an existence of something.
.../koji
Gerald B Mathias
: I would like to ask the following question.
: Can someone explain the difference in nuance of meaning between ni
: aru, ga aru, and de aru when used to specify existence, in particular
: when they are used with abstract nouns?
: Thanks very much for your answers.
: --
: Ben Bullock @ KEK (national lab. for high energy physics, Tsukuba, Japan)
: e-mail: b...@theory.kek.jp www: http://theory.kek.jp:80/~ben/
: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. tel: 0298 64 5403, fax: 0298 64 7831
The structure "X-ni Y-ga ar-" means either that Y is subordinate in class
membership to X or that X is superordinate to Y (I think these are two ways
of saying the same thing, but in particular cases one or the other seems
to make better sense).
For example, physically located objects are subordinate to physical locations,
temporally located things (events) are subordinate to temporal locations,
merchandise is subordinate to merchants, etc. You may find this a clue
to the abstract cases you were interested in.
In the case of -de ar-, ar- is an auxiliarly, serving only as a way to
attach verb endings such as tense to nouns and adjectives which do not
come by them naturally. There is no "...-ni" relating to the ar- in these
sentences (aside from the one that blended with -te to give the -de).
The temporal location in an event sentence won't be marked with a -ni if
one of the relative time words (kyoo, kesa, raigetsu, etc.) is used.
Possession is another case that doesn't normally have a -ni-marked element,
but the relationship with the topic noun is essentially the same. If I
say "Bokuwa kodomoga hutari aru" it is valid because children are subordinate
to parents (or parents are superordinate to children).
Another case with no -ni is the universal case, e.g. kamiga aruto omou?
Bart Mathias
Ming
>3. Ginza ni Wako ga aru. Wako (a store) is located at Ginza.
>4. Ginza de kaigi ga aru. We have a meeting at Ginza.
Wouldn't "Ginza ni kaigi ga aru." mean the same as 4?
And without context and pronouns, how can you tell "who" has a meeting
or "There is...".
KAGESAWA Masataka
b...@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
> Can someone explain the difference in nuance of meaning between ni
> aru, ga aru, and de aru when used to specify existence, in particular
> when they are used with abstract nouns?
I'm afraid that my understanding to your question might be
different with what you like to ask. It would be easier to answer
if you would have given some examples, but anyway I'll try.
Consider the following example:
1. A ha B ni aru.
2. A niha B ga aru (or B niha A ga aru)
(Both case could be possible, which is pointed out by Gerald B
Mathias in <DIxr0...@news.hawaii.edu>, but I assume the
former expression in the followings)
3. A ha B de aru.
Remark that "aru" in the case 3 is an auxilliary verb while
other "aru"s are verbs.
If you like, you can replace 'A' as "hontou no ai"(true love) and
'B' as "nikushimi (hate)". Sorry for trite example :-)
You'd like to see the difference among the three, wouldn't you?
They are considered as an answer of the question "A toha nani? (What
is A?)".
In the case 1, the speaker thinks like this:
"What do you think 'A' is? 'C' or 'D' or 'E'? NO! I insist that 'A'
is 'B' "
In the case 2:
"Do you ask what 'A' is? OK, let me see...humm, I think there seem
to be some answers, but anyway I find one.... I think that 'A' can
be considered as 'B' "
In the case 3, there seems to be two possibilities:
(A) "Do you ask what 'A' is? No doubt that 'A' is 'B'. I can not
find any other answer"
(B) [hyperbole] "What do you think 'A' is? You might answer 'C' or
'D' or 'E', but I ignore them! 'A' is nothing but 'B'!"
In short, all expressions say that 'B' is an answer except for the
case 3-(A) (in this case 'B' is the answer). But the strength of
speaker's intension is different: 2<1<3. In 2, the speaker just
points out that 'B' is one possibility. In 1, the speaker knows that
there are many possible answers but thinks that 'B' is the most
important thing (I image from the sentence that spot light hits 'B'
among various posibilities imaged from 'A'). In 3-(B), the speaker
thinks the same as in case 2 and likes to emphasize it or to give
great impact to the listeners (I feel that all possiblities but 'B'
go out of the stage)
FYI, " 'A' ha 'B' da" has more impact than the case 3.
--
KAGESAWA, Masataka
Ben Bullock
example of the thing I am thinking about. What is the difference
between "keikou ni aru" = there is a tendency, and "keikou ga aru" =
there is a tendency? Does this make things any clearer?
KAGESAWA Masataka
b...@theory4.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
> example of the thing I am thinking about. What is the difference
> between "keikou ni aru" = there is a tendency, and "keikou ga aru" =
> there is a tendency? Does this make things any clearer?
I'm sorry but your example seems to make situation much
harder because "X ha Y suru keikou {ni aru|ga aru|de aru}" is
considered as weak version of "X ha Y suru" just like that
"X tends to do Y" is weaker than "X does Y". Moreover, in
some cases we don't say "keikou de aru" while in other cases
we do say "keikou de aru", which fact is independent of our
problem of "ni aru", by the following reason:
particle "da" ("de" is ren'you-kei of "da") shows
strong affirmation and Japanese word "keikou" never mean
100% so usually "da" doesn't match with "keikou".
The logic is the same in what I wrote in
<KAGESAWA.9...@wing2.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>.
Let T be the tendency of 'X' for 'Y'.
It can be considered as a value between 0 (never, none, 0%)
and 1 (always, all, 100%).
Then,
1. "ga aru" means that T>0.
2. "ni aru" means that T>>0 (T is large).
3. "de aru" means that T=1 (max).
That is to say,
1. There are a member in a whose tendency for Y is positive.
2. hard to explain. Most members of a have a little tendency or
some members have huge tendency or most members have huge
tendency. I think that in most cases, the speaker means that
there are many members in 'X' whose tendency for 'Y' is not
so small.
3. The 'X' always do 'Y' or the 'X' are in 'Y'.
Ex.
1-1 Nihonjin (ni)ha dantai koudou suru keikou ga aru.
Some Japanese people tend to act collectively. Or,
The Japanese sometimes act collectively.
1-2 Nihonjin ha dantai koudou suru keikou ni aru.
The Japanese tend to act collectively. Or,
The Japanese often act collectively.
1-3 [NG] Nihonjin ha dantai koudou suru keikou de aru.
[OK] Nihonjin ha dantai koudou suru.
The Japanese act collectively.
2-1 Keiki (ni)ha kaifuku keikou ga aru.
There is sign of looking up in the market.
2-2 Keiki ha kaifuku keikou ni aru.
The market seems to be looking up.
2-3 Keiki ha kaifuku keikou de aru.
Keiki ha kaifuku shi te iru.
The market is looking up.
(In this case, it doesn't mean "Keiki ha kaifuku shita",
but "Keiki ha kaifuku shite iru". In other words,
"kaifuku keikou" means "be looking up".
So you can say "de aru")
--
KAGESAWA, Masataka