I need some one to check my theories...

[kohlrak]

I was looking at examples of hoshii and they posed a few questions...

ふうせんがほしい (I want a balloon)

Simple enough, i assume that it is putting emphasis on the balloon being the want. I would assume (and am probably wrong in doing so) that you could say the same thing as, "ふうせんはほしい。" And I'm sure I'm wrong...

わたしのほしいいろがない (They don't have the color i want)

This makes me think of ほしい as more of a noun that's conjugated than an adjective. Making me think of "わたしのほしい" as "my want." Even then, i would want to put a じゃ between ほしい and ない and move いろが to the front.

あかいふうせんのほしいこどもがおおい (There are many kids who want a red balloon)

Personally, i would interpret this as "The want of the red balloon is many kids."
Are these just bad examples, or am i right in my assumptions?

水がありますか。

It's supposed to (i think) be interpreted as "Do you have some water?" Yet, が implies that 水 is the subject. Therefor, i would interpret this as "The water has...?" Is ある and いる mean "To be had by" or is this an example of an exception to が?

 

[JimmySeal]

ふうせんがほしい
I'm pretty sure you could replace が with は but the sentence would have a very different feel and the uses of such a sentence would be limited.

わたしのほしいいろがない
ほしい (want) modifies いろ (color) to create a noun phrase (wanted color, color [somebody] wants) then わたし possesses this noun phrase to create "My wanted color" or "The color I want"

あかいふうせんのほしいこどもがおおい
あかいふうせんのほしい is a subordinate clause that modifies こども. In such subordinate clauses, の can replace が, and it's easier to see what's going on if we use が instead. So あかいふうせんがほしい is "want balloons" and this modifies こども, resulting in "children (who) want balloons"

水がありますか
ある and いる literally mean "exist" so if you want to look at this sentence literally, it would be "does water exist [in your possession]?" Which would be "Do you have water?" in more natural English. Of course, this depends on the situation, and the sentence could also mean "Does he have water?" "Is there water?" and so on.

 

[undrentide]

Example 1
ふうせんがほしい (I want a balloon)
Simple enough, i assume that it is putting emphasis on the balloon being the want. I would assume (and am probably wrong in doing so) that you could say the same thing as, "ふうせんはほしい。" And I'm sure I'm wrong...

ほしい means want but it works (conjugate) like i-adjective.
When using ほしい as complement, it normally requires subject, and subject marker is が.

It is possible to say ふうせんはほしい but in this case it implies that there are some other options besides a balloon, the speaker want a balloon but may not want, say, origami.
（While being a topic marker, は has connotation that there are more than one options and the speaker is picking just one of them.)
e.g.
「ふうせんと折り紙のセットをあげましょう」
「ふうせんはほしいけど、折り紙はほしくない。 」

Example 2
わたしのほしいいろがない (They don't have the color i want).

わたしのほしい色がない can be translated into English as they don't have the colour I want, but ない actually means "does not exist".
If literally translated, "there isn't the colour I want".
Same as ある.
I think it is a particular way of expression in English to use "have" (meaning possession) instead of using word meaning existence.

This makes me think of ほしい as more of a noun that's conjugated than an adjective. Making me think of "わたしのほしい" as "my want." Even then, i would want to put a じゃ between ほしい and ない and move いろが to the front.

No, it is not a noun, and it does conjugate.
To modify a noun, verb/adjective are used in its basic form.
But it does not mean verb/adjective do not conjugate.

e.g.
私はこの本がほしい → 私がほしい本
この車はゆっくり走る → ゆっくり走る車
あのネコは眠っています → 眠っているネコ

I don't really understand what you mean by the last sentence.
私のいろがほしいじゃない？
It does not make sense at all.

Example 3
あかいふうせんのほしいこどもがおおい (There are many kids who want a red balloon)
Personally, i would interpret this as "The want of the red balloon is many kids."
Are these just bad examples, or am i right in my assumptions?

あかいふうせんのほしいこども means children who want a red balloon.l
If literally translated, it should be "children who want a red balloon are many."
ほしい is not a noun. It is children, not "want", which are many.

あります example
水がありますか。
It's supposed to (i think) be interpreted as "Do you have some water?" Yet, が implies that 水 is the subject. Therefor, i would interpret this as "The water has...?" Is ある and いる mean "To be had by" or is this an example of an exception to が?

As mentioned under "example 2", ある and ない means to exist, not to exist.
Trying to analyse Japanese with English grammar/structure can be misleading.
(I think this is actually your theory, if I remember correctly what you've posted some time ago.)
You should forget about "to have" when thinking about ある and ない.

 

[kohlrak]

わたしのほしいいろがない
ほしい (want) modifies いろ (color) to create a noun phrase (wanted color, color [somebody] wants) then わたし possesses this noun phrase to create "My wanted color" or "The color I want"

Never thought of it that way... Thanks for clearing that up.

あかいふうせんのほしいこどもがおおい
あかいふうせんのほしい is a subordinate clause that modifies こども. In such subordinate clauses, の can replace が, and it's easier to see what's going on if we use が instead. So あかいふうせんがほしい is "want balloons" and this modifies こども, resulting in "children (who) want balloons"

Intresting... It appears the placement of the words is a little more important in japanese.

水がありますか
ある and いる literally mean "exist" so if you want to look at this sentence literally, it would be "does water exist [in your possession]?" Which would be "Do you have water?" in more natural English. Of course, this depends on the situation, and the sentence could also mean "Does he have water?" "Is there water?" and so on.

Which makes alot more sence... It makes me question why it's marked as "to have" in english-japanese dictionaries... I doubt i'll get an answer to that, though.

It is possible to say ふうせんはほしい but in this case it implies that there are some other options besides a baloon, the speaker want a baloon but may not want, say, origami.

That makes me wonder if it would set a specific type of items (which would only be defined by context and location of the listener). For instance, if i said, "水はほしい," i would expect to get some kind of beverage (water, soda, or juice) and i wouldn't expect to get a pencil. Though, i know such a statement would be awkward, but it does make me curious. lol

You should forget about "to have" when thinking about ある and ない.

That's a good idea. Then the question comes, "how do i ask John if Charlie has water?" My assumption would be, "Charlieが水をふくみますか。" Though that would be a little awkward... Would it be, "水がCharlieのてありますか" or would it be "Charlieは水がありますか"?

Lessons Learned:

の can replace が in a subordinate clause.

ある/いる should be defined as "to be had by" if they have to use "have" in the deffinition, since "to have" implies that the gramatical subject is the posesser.

Trying to analyse Japanese with English grammar/structure can be misleading.

I see japanese as a more "UNDIFINED(subject or object, whatever's not there), Subject Object Verb" than English, if that's what you mean. It appears that a miss deffinition of ある and いる is what threw me off, along with the の instead of が in subordinate clauses.

(I think this is actually your theory, if I remember correctly what you've posted some time ago.)

If you mean the "to be had by" thing, then yes. lol My reson for asking was actually to find out how i was supposed to tell the difference between when it means "to have" and "to be had by", which is a problem with dictionaries...

I doubt i'll see much more of the dictionary deffinition issue (though, いやしい appears to be another dictionary misprint, cause i don't beleive it's deffition of being "mean" and "humble" is a bit of a paradox), but i'm sure i'll see much more problems of particles. Would "わたしはCharlieよりです" mean "Charlie's meaner than me," or would i have to use のほう?

And i thank you both for your assistance.

 

[JimmySeal]

The reason why dictionaries will list ある as meaning "to have" is that it's by far the most common way of expressing the idea of "have." So you can think of it as a verb that means "have" but has special usage requirements, that is mainly to say that in that particular case, が does not mark the subject, but instead, the object, when you go to interpret such sentences in English.

Charlieは水がありますか is the correct way to express "Does Charlie have water?" I think that technically, the person possessing the water is the indirect object of the Japanese sentence. In other words, "Water exists to Charlie." You will surely see things like "Charlieには水がありますか" which has the same semantic meaning, but different uses.

Unrelated to ある, note that these two sentences:
わたしのほしいいろがない
あかいふうせんのほしいこどもがおおい

Both have のほしい in the middle, but the person(people) who want something is at the beginning of the first sentence, and towards the end of the second sentence, so the only thing stopping you from reading these sentences as:
"There is no color that wants me."
and
"There are a lot of children that the red balloon wants."
is that they don't make much sense. Japanese seems to rely more heavily on implicit understanding than most other major languages.

There are a lot of words like ある, ほしい and すき which if you try to pin too tightly to their English equivalents (have, want, like), will confuse you grammatically. The important thing is to just watch how they work, and roll with the punches.

 

[undrentide]

That makes me wonder if it would set a specific type of items (which would only be defined by context and location of the listener). For instance, if i said, "水はほしい," i would expect to get some kind of beverage (water, soda, or juice) and i wouldn't expect to get a pencil. Though, i know such a statement would be awkward, but it does make me curious. lol

You can use 水はほしい only when you are offered something else besides water. Otherwise, this sentence does not make sense.
Yet when you have several options, normally you use 水がほしい not 水はほしい.

That's a good idea. Then the question comes, "how do i ask John if Charlie has water?" My assumption would be, "Charlieが水をふくみますか。" Though that would be a little awkward... Would it be, "水がCharlieのてありますか" or would it be "Charlieは水がありますか"?

To have/to be haved by is valid only when some kind of possession is involved. ある、ない are usually about the place and existence.
水がありますか。 (does water exist?/is there water?)
チャーリーの冷蔵庫には水がありますか。 (Does water exist in Charlie's fridge?/is there water in Charlie's fridge?)
この家には車がありますか。(Does a car exist in this household?/Is there a car in this household?)

Just an example; when we are in a restaurant, and we want some beer, we wonder この店にビールはあるのかなあ and eventually ask a waiter ビールはありますか。
In English we wonder "do they have beer?" and might ask "do you have beer?"
From a Japanese speaker's point of view, it is strange to say "they" or "you" and "have" because things simply exist ある.

If you want to ask whether Charlie has (a bottle of) water in his hand, or in his backpack, then one might ask
チャーリーは水を持っていますか Instead of ありますか.

I doubt i'll see much more of the dictionary definition issue (though, いやしい appears to be another dictionary misprint, cause i don't believe it's definition of being "mean" and "humble" is a bit of a paradox), but i'm sure i'll see much more problems of particles. Would "わたしはCharlieよりです" mean "Charlie's meaner than me," or would i have to use のほう?

About the "problem" you find in dictionaries - Words are like pieces of a huge jigsaw puzzle called "the world". Each language cuts out the world differently, in different sizes and shapes. So a word (and its meaning) in a language does not match a similar one in another language. Very often you need more than one word to define a word in another language.

わたしはチャーリーよりいやしいです。
わたしのほうがチャーリーより（もっと）いやしいです。
Both mean I'm meaner than Charlie.
In the latter sentence, you can omit チャーリーより if it is obvious/understood in the context.
i.e. わたしのほうがいやしいです。 (I'm meaner.)