Dewa arimasen

[Glenn]

No, that's a contraction of sore de wa. I think that one goes along the lines of kore de ii, etc. The wa in de wa nai is inserted as a contrasting particle (although it's so common now that it probably isn't seen that way anymore, but I could be wrong) placed between de and nai. It's similar to iki wa shinai.

Okay, Glenn. I get it even less now, but that's alright.

Just don't worry about it. And one thing to remember, de by itself only means "to be" when it's the copula in te form. E.g. Koko wa gakkou de, koko de wa jugyou ga okonawarete iru. "This is a school, and classes are held here."

 

[TZed9]

jt, I didn't mean Japanese as a whole was illogical or complex, from what I've learned so far, it seems quite logical and rather simple (of course I haven't learned much yet, I'm sure it won't be so simple later). Just this one thing about dewa arimasen is yet to make any sense to me.

I do not think any lanuage, if learning from scratch, would seem simple. Certainly not にほんご, or any other east Asian lanuage to a Westener (read: someone who's first language is Latin based).

It has taken me a fair old while to read and digest this thread. I would certain not claim to have particles down, but it is certainly starting to make some sense.

Example, the difference between:

ANATA GA NIHON GO WA HONYAKU DESU.
あなたがにほんごはほにゃくです。
You Japanese language translate.
And YOU translate into Japanese.
And:

ANATA WA NIHON GO GA HONYAKU DESU.
あなたはにほんごがほにゃくです。
You Japanese language translate.
And you TRANSLATE into Japanese.

(But now it seems I'm just practicing what I recently learnt as much for my own benefit as NanakiXIII. heh heh)

This is a great link from the site that best relayed this concept to me, and the referring site below - invaluable for my studies.

http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Japanese/particles.html

http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/m.rowley/resources.html

おねがいします。

 

[CorDarei]

Example, the difference between:

ANATA GA NIHON GO WA HONYAKU DESU.
あなたがにほんごはほにゃくです。
You Japanese language translate.
And YOU translate into Japanese.

This sentence doesn't make any sense grammatically. I think you meant something like:

日本語（の文）はあなたが翻訳します。
nihongo (no bun) wa anata ga hon'yaku shimasu.

As for the Japanese (sentences), YOU translate them.
(Or perhaps more naturally, "YOU translate the Japanese (sentences).")

And:

ANATA WA NIHON GO GA HONYAKU DESU.
あなたはにほんごがほにゃくです。
You Japanese language translate.
And you TRANSLATE into Japanese.

あなたは日本語（の分）を翻訳します。
anata wa nihongo (no bun) wo hon'yaku shimasu.

You translate Japanese (sentences).


翻訳する（はんやくする） is a verb. 翻訳 by itself is a noun, meaning "translation". Your second sentence meant "As for you, the Japanese is translation." You should probably try to study more about the function of "desu" as the copula, and how to use other verbs. Are you learning from a book, a class, or just websites?

Also, おねがいします means "please". I think you meant よろしくおねがいします which means, well, a lot of things, but is generally used when introducing yourself or asking a favor.

 

[TZed9]

. Are you learning from a book, a class, or just websites?

Also, おねがいします means "please". I think you meant よろしくおねがいします which means, well, a lot of things, but is generally used when introducing yourself or asking a favor.

Thanks for the
I am six weeks into my course, and trying to get ahead of it by supplimenting plenty of web research.

As for the thank you, I was just bowing in language... if my use is inappropriate, I must apologise. I have however heard it used in this way by natives. I continue to gain awareness daily, but it's clearly very scrappy still.

I did manage hiragana in less than a month though, so I hope to impress you with my progress in another month.

As for よるしく, here are the two uses I am familier with:

どぞよるしく for a formal introduction, something along the lines of English 'at your service'. And

よるしくね for an informal thanks for when someone is doing something for you.
This is a facinating subject, thanks for your feedback btw.

わたしはがんとてもべってましょう :sorry:

 

[NanakiXIII]

Thanks for those links, TZed9. I've a new explenation thought up now, which is probably no better, but I'll try it anyway.

I'll be using my useless sentence again:
"Watashi wa neko de wa arimasen"

De is a particle with a truckload of possible uses (maybe it's not, I don't know if it's short for desu or a particle anymore, but I'm going to guess a particle). I'm not sure what it might mean here, it's more difficult because arimasen is the verb, I'm guessing.

Wa makes "neko de" the topic (one thing not working here - watashi already has the particle wa. There can be multiple topics, I think, but does watashi really need to be a topic? Wouldn't ga be sufficient?), the subject complement (I'm not sure that's what it's called, I got that out of a dictionary) in this case.

Arimasen is plainly the verb, a copula.


This contrasts some of the explanations given. But then again, the explanations given contrast eachother. Please let me know if I'm on the right track here.

 

[CorDarei]

Thanks for those links, TZed9. I've a new explenation thought up now, which is probably no better, but I'll try it anyway.

I'll be using my useless sentence again:
"Watashi wa neko de wa arimasen"

I don't think it's as bad as 「我輩は猫である」 (waga hai wa neko de aru).

De is a particle with a truckload of possible uses (maybe it's not, I don't know if it's short for desu or a particle anymore, but I'm going to guess a particle). I'm not sure what it might mean here, it's more difficult because arimasen is the verb, I'm guessing.

Wa makes "neko de" the topic (one thing not working here - watashi already has the particle wa. There can be multiple topics, I think, but does watashi really need to be a topic? Wouldn't ga be sufficient?), the subject complement (I'm not sure that's what it's called, I got that out of a dictionary) in this case.

Arimasen is plainly the verb, a copula.


This contrasts some of the explanations given. But then again, the explanations given contrast eachother. Please let me know if I'm on the right track here.

My advice is to simply think of "de wa arimasen/ja arimasen" as the negative of "desu". For one thing, "arimasen" is not the copula. "arimasen" is the verb "to exist". As for just "de", it is certainly a particle with a truckload of uses, like many particles. Also, it happens to be the "te" form of the copula "da/desu". Anyway, there's my 3 cents, you don't have to take it if it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Elizabeth]

Thanks for those links, TZed9. I've a new explenation thought up now, which is probably no better, but I'll try it anyway.

I'll be using my useless sentence again:
"Watashi wa neko de wa arimasen"

De is a particle with a truckload of possible uses (maybe it's not, I don't know if it's short for desu or a particle anymore, but I'm going to guess a particle). I'm not sure what it might mean here, it's more difficult because arimasen is the verb, I'm guessing.

Has it not been clarified again and again and again in this thread that "de" as part of the negative "de wa arimasen," is the copula "desu" :? Whatever you call "arimasen," this logically grammatical, one-to-one mapping approach doesn't seem to be particularly fruitful, maybe it worked better for English than Japanese ?

 

[NanakiXIII]

It's been said that de was desu. It's been said that de was a particle. I don't know who's right and who's not.

 

[TZed9]

It's been said that de was desu. It's been said that de was a particle. I don't know who's right and who's not.

'Some people say cucember tastes better than pumpkin pie, I wouldn't know I'd never eat the m*** ****er....'

Have some fresh wasabi and tuna sashimi to keep your mind active

This is half the problem I have found. People have different experiences so a lot of translation seems to be subject to some opinion. Text books can only cover theory, it takes a real mind to put it all together, and to do so, the mind forms concepts. And as we all have different minds our concepts are slightly different.

To get round this, my plan is too learn very basic nihongo, then go and live there for at least a year.

Listen to natives has to be the most certain way of getting the concepts right! Wouldn't you agree?

:sorry:

 

[Elizabeth]

It's been said that de was desu. It's been said that de was a particle. I don't know who's right and who's not.

It does take a pinch of common sense and reasoning power, I'll agree with that. Although certainly no one has suggested that the modern "de" in combination with "wa arimsen" is a particle.

 

[bentenmusume]

It's been said that de was desu. It's been said that de was a particle. I don't know who's right and who's not.

Nanaki, no offense, but I'm afraid you just seem to be confusing yourself further and further the more you try to think about this. Go up and read CorDarei's most recent post again. "De wa arimasen/ja arimasen" is the negative of the copula "desu" -- know what it is, and learn how to use it. This is all you should concern yourself with at this point.

These other questions you're trying to answer -- what exactly is this "de" that's part of the copula, where does the "wa" come from, and how does it all interact with "arimasu"? -- are interesting topics for those in Japanese linguistics to consider, but not something that someone at your level needs to be spending all this time agonizing over.

No teacher or textbook would ever try to explain this to a first-year student, because it would just create unnecessary confusion and mental stress, and waste time that could be better spent on learning things like how to actually _use_ the basic grammar that's being studied.

The way I see it, there are two types of questions you can ask: those for which the answers will actually help you understand and use the language better, and those which may make you curious, but in the end aren't really worth the time spent worrying about them. You have to learn to tell the difference, and to ask (of your teacher and of yourself) the questions of the first type as much as possible, while leaving those of the second type alone except as an occasional diversion. If you don't, you're going to be tearing your hair out long before you ever achieve real proficiency in Japanese.

I doubt this is the kind of answer you were hoping for, but I think it's good advice for the beginning student. What you're doing to yourself would be like someone obsessing over how the engine of a car works before taking their first driving lesson. It's natural to be curious, but there are some things that you don't need to understand to be able to drive a car.

To get round this, my plan is too learn very basic nihongo, then go and live there for at least a year.
Listen to natives has to be the most certain way of getting the concepts right! Wouldn't you agree?

This is a common misconception of the beginning student. That somehow you can go to Japan starting from zero (or near-zero), and come back respectably fluent in a year or so's time. It might possible if you were _very_ gifted in languages and a _very_ hard-working student, but in almost any situation, you will progress _much_ more quickly if you develop a strong foundation in the language (say, the kind that could be achieved by two or three years of formal study) _before_ you go to live in Japan.

There will come a point in your studies at which listening and talking to natives (or reading materials written by/for natives) will become by far the best thing that you can do for your Japanese, but at the early stages, the right kind of structured learning is _far_ more valuable. Otherwise, you're just going to find yourself spending the better part of your time reinventing the wheel (and reinventing it wrongly all too often).

 

[NanakiXIII]

Yes, I know, jt. I did actually abandon the subject but then some more replies appeared and I got sucked back in. I'll try to drop it again now, as it's indeed not getting me anywhere.

Thanks, everyone, for trying to explain it to me, though.

 

[lyzazel]

I signed up just to comment on this 20 year old thread (despite none of the original participants probably still participating in this forum). While I regrettably do not have the answer (I found this thread trying to look for one), I just wanted to express how upset and irritated I am by people like @bentenmusume who (despite possibly good intentions) were trying to kill curiosity and were posting the following:

It's natural to be curious, but there are some things that you don't need to understand to be able to drive a car.

No.

You don't do this. Curiosity is a good thing.

You explain what is being asked or do not post at all.

It is true that this forum thread is making the subject matter hard to understand but it is arguably not because of somebody being a beginner but rather due to the contradictory and unclear opinions posted.

Please keep your curiosity-killing opinions to yourself next time.

Peace.

 

[bentenmusume]

-edit-

I made the mistake of responding to this, but I'm going to retract my post.
I hope that it was satisfying for you to get that off your chest, but please forgive me if I don't engage with you further.
It simply isn't the best use of my time, effort, or emotional energy at this point.

In any event, I'm seriously curtailing -- perhaps indefinitely -- my involvement on this and all internet forums, so I doubt our paths will cross again.
Hope you enjoy your time here, and have a nice life.

 

[nice gaijin]

I signed up just to comment on this 20 year old thread (despite none of the original participants probably still participating in this forum). While I regrettably do not have the answer (I found this thread trying to look for one), I just wanted to express how upset and irritated I am by people like @bentenmusume who (despite possibly good intentions) were trying to kill curiosity and were posting the following:



No.

You don't do this. Curiosity is a good thing.

You explain what is being asked or do not post at all.

It is true that this forum thread is making the subject matter hard to understand but it is arguably not because of somebody being a beginner but rather due to the contradictory and unclear opinions posted.

Please keep your curiosity-killing opinions to yourself next time.

Peace.

A seemingly simple question can have a long and complex answer because in order to fully explain there has to be a base level of understanding. Complete explanations of Japanese grammar like this have to cover different levels of conjugation, the grammatical structure and function of the copula, and its evolution and use over time. Breaking down the etymology of the elements within copula wasn't doing the OP any good when he couldn't distinguish the particle で from the ~て form of だ. He repeatedly misunderstood what was being explained and mislabeled elements in his sentences as he tried to map them to a language he understood... He had to ask if aru and arimasu were the same verb... at that point it's literally better to say "don't worry about the how and why, just get used to using it correctly and it will come into focus over time."

走る前に這うべきだよ。

I went back and read the entire thread because it predates even my own membership on this site and I'd never seen it before; @bentenmusume was 100% right and extremely polite about it.

You admittedly signed up for a forum just to revive an ANCIENT thread from the days of denshi jisho and feature phones, vaguely alluding to a question of your own that remains unanswered, but instead of simply asking it, you tag and attempt to tone-police one of the few remaining active members from the thread?

Dude, what is wrong with you?

Not only was this poor form, but your criticism is unnecessary and speaks more to your own insecurities. You are the one who is out of line here. You've put in none of the time or effort on this site to be in any position to lecture anyone. Ask your questions in your own thread, or begone with you, wastrel.