Dewa arimasen

[Glenn]

De aru is the ancient Japanese copula. In modern speech it is contracted to da. The formal versions are de arimasu and desu, respectively.

To get the past tense, you inflect the verb aru: de atta, *datta, **de arimashita, *deshita.

To negate, the old style copula is necessary, and you replace the existential verb for inanimates with the nonexistential adjective for inanimates, nai in informal speech, and inflect the verb arimasu in formal speech. This gives you de nai and de arimasen. Now, there is an extra step here that involves the contrastive marker wa. It is used to show that what follows is in contrast with some previous statement or assumption. So from here you get de wa nai and de wa arimasen.

De comes from the ancient ni te, and the reason that aru was added was to show tense and negation.

De iru is possible and it usually implies some state of animate existence, but it's pretty rare. You wouldn't say watashi wa ningen de imasu, because that sounds like you're saying that you're getting along as a human. Watashi wa wakaranai mama de imasu is OK, and means that you have been in a state of not understanding. For now, though, don't worry about using de iru, as you won't need it too often.

*Irregular formation
**Only used in highly formal speech situations (like giving an address to your boss)

On a final note:

でわありません

This is incorrect. The hiragana ha is used for the topic and contrastive markers, although it is pronounced "wa."

 

[NanakiXIII]

Okay, now I'm confused. De was the same as desu. But from your post, Glenn, I gather that de is a part of the copula (de aru).

This may be a stupid question, but are aru and arimasu of the same verb?

 

[Pandoraknight]

An example? "Hon dewa arimasen." Is supposed to mean "It's not a book." if I'm not mistaken. "Dewa arimasen" means "is not" (or "it is not", if you will). But I want to know what those words mean literally.

I've since learned that arimasu means to exist, so obviously arimasen means "it doesn't exist" here. Which comes down to as much as "it isn't", freely translated, and the way I assume it's meant. So what use does dewa serve?

I'm sorry, but there are certain words that just don't translate literally into English. An example is 'san'. Even though it is soemtimes translated as "mr" or "ms" in English, that isn't it's literal meaning.

And yes, desu (arimasu as you say?? :? ) means to exist. It's similar to "is,am,are". But thats not what is means, really. Dewa arimasen simply takes its positive and present tense form and makes it a negative.

So, I guess if your really dying for some literal translation of dewa arimasen, I'd say "is not" is the best answer.

 

[okaeri_man]

this is the biggest load of fuss over nothing. hon dewa arimasen who speaks like that? (you don't need to answer that...) just say hon janai
dewa arimasen = janai

JA-NAI!

go janai.

 

[Elizabeth]

It is an unusual case of course because "wa" doesn't follow its object directly (book or whatever) and the 'verb' (de arimasen) is broken up, which is fairly unique in the language. But I've never bothered to throughly research the history of the phrase to understand why modern Japanese has shifted from "arazu" (classical form) and inserted "wa" where it is today.

Which would naturally lead into why does "(Sore) de wa" as an interjection act to express "Well then....; so....; then...." and "Sore de" or just "de" mean "therefore"? :? Although there are times a break from actually having to learn something useful would be a definate relief.

 

[Glenn]

Okay, now I'm confused. De was the same as desu. But from your post, Glenn, I gather that de is a part of the copula (de aru).

This may be a stupid question, but are aru and arimasu of the same verb?

De is a particle, and is not the same as desu. If you say kouen de asonda you are not saying "it is the park I played." It just so happens that for whatever reason, the Japanese started using it at the end of sentences, and added aru to show tense, and it came to function as the copula.

Yes, aru and arimasu are the same verb, except the former is informal, and the latter is formal. They both mean the same thing. However, they really don't have the meaning of existence when combined with de to form the copula. They serve to show tense.

And yes, desu (arimasu as you say?? :? ) means to exist.

Desu does not mean to exist; aru (inanimate) and iru (animate) do. However, it can be used as a replacement, as in:

A: Hon wa doko desu ka.
B: Tsukue desu

This is similar to the unagi sentence:

A: Nani ni shimasu ka.
B: Tako ni shimasu.
C: Unagi desu.

C isn't saying "I'm unagi," but "I'll have unagi."

It is an unusual case of course because "wa" doesn't follow its object directly (book or whatever) and the 'verb' (de arimasen) is broken up, which is fairly unique in the language.

I don't think it's all that unique. For example, you can say shukudai wa yatte wa inai to mean "I haven't done my homework." Also, you can say kouen de wa asonda to mean "I played in the park." There are also the koukai wa shinai, and restoran ni wa iki wa shimasu types.

 

[Pandoraknight]

Thoughts...

Are you sure? I haven't read one book where it doesnt mention "desu" as meaing in a way to exist. Of course, I'm new to Japanese , but this is what we were taught and I haven't heard sensei mention any other way (other than the janai and ja).

 

[Glenn]

Desu is the copula. Here is the definition given by Merriam-Webster's for "copula" by way of "linking verb."

: a word or expression (as a form of be, become, feel, or seem) that links a subject with its predicate

Also, think about "I am cold" versus "a book is here." "I am cold" is like "I = cold," whereas "a book is here" is like "a book exists here." The function is different, and English doesn't distinguish this difference by way of lexicon. Japanese does. It even goes a step further, in that "there is a book" is different than "there is a dog," because there are different existential verbs for animates and inanimates.

[Edit] I've been thinking about this a bit, and it seems that perhaps desu has taken on a sense of meaning existence, as it can be used alternatively with iru and aru. So I guess in a way it can mean existence. It does however seem as it would be a "dummy" verb there, acting as a substitute for the other verb. It could be that when it's used that way the existential verbs are the first to be understood as being replaced. I'm not so sure about either, though.

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't think it's all that unique. For example, you can say shukudai wa yatte wa inai to mean "I haven't done my homework." Also, you can say kouen de wa asonda to mean "I played in the park." There are also the koukai wa shinai, and restoran ni wa iki wa shimasu types.

Yeah, that wasn't very well phrased, certainly wa is used in combination with other particles (ni wa, to wa, de wa). I guess I just don't use it that often personally as an emphasis on the verb to be aware of how common that is. Although I didn't come across 逃げられはしないから over a year ago in a song, now that you mention it....

 

[Glenn]

You didn't come across it? I'm afraid the "type the opposite of what I mean" bug has become rampant of late.

What exactly is 'de' then? I don't think I understand that.

Glenn, I tried reading through that, but it's a bit hard because I can't read any Japanese alphabet.

At first when I saw this post, I thought, "you don't have to; there is the romanization right under it," then I realized that the Japanese text was in the paragraphs. But I just looked over it again, and the romanization immediately follows the Japanese text every time Japanese text occurs, so you don't have to read Japanese.

Anyway, if my posts didn't help enough, check out these pages:
The Japanese Copula
Negative Forms (this is for all negation, i.e. verbs, adjectives, copula, topics)

I believe this should clear up any questions you have about it. Of course, the "existential desu" is still an unresolved question for me.

 

[NanakiXIII]

Okay, I think I get it. De is the main verb. Arimasen is just there to show what form it is (negative in this case). And wa is there to "show that what follows is in contrast with some previous statement or assumption". In other words, it just strengthens the negation?

 

[Elizabeth]

You didn't come across it? I'm afraid the "type the opposite of what I mean" bug has become rampant of late.

疲れていただけなんだけど。。。。一人でこういうミスについて思いつめると精神的にも良くないと思います。

 

[bentenmusume]

Okay, I think I get it. De is the main verb. Arimasen is just there to show what form it is (negative in this case). And wa is there to "show that what follows is in contrast with some previous statement or assumption". In other words, it just strengthens the negation?

Sorry, but it sounds like you're still confused. "de" is not a verb at all, let alone the 'main' one -- the only thing you can call a verb here is "arimasen." And though your analysis of "wa" isn't completely wrong, saying that it "strengthens" the negation isn't really accurate. This construction (in its many possible forms, depending on politeness level and whether you're speaking or writing) is simply the common way of negating noun (and adjectival-noun) predicates. The alternate without "wa" does occur (for example, you'll often see "de nai" in clauses and modifiers) but it's not a simple matter of "strong" vs. "weak" negation.

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but it seems you're like getting ahead of yourself here. If your knowledge of Japanese grammar is still limited to the degree that you're thinking that "de" is a verb and "arimasen" isn't, you're probably not ready to understand how this construction breaks down. It's already been explained pretty well in this thread, so I won't repeat what others have already said, but once you get to the point where: (1) you understand that da/desu comes from de aru/de arimasu, and (2) you have a better understanding of the particle "wa" -- then, I think you won't have so much trouble understanding how we get "de wa arimasen."

Until then, I'd worry more about learning how it's actually used than trying to analyze it. At this point, overanalysis isn't going to help you speak or understand Japanese any better -- it's just going to give you a headache.

 

[Elizabeth]

Sorry, but it sounds like you're still confused. "de" is not a verb at all, let alone the 'main' one -- the only thing you can call a verb here is "arimasen."

I think this particular part of the misunderstanding may have come from a misreading of the explanation under Glenn's "Negative forms" citation.

"The original form of the copula helps us to understand its irregular inflection. The modern copula "da" comes from the old style copula "de aru", which is a combination of the word "de" and the existential verb "aru". The word "de" came from the ancient postposition "nite", but now it is considered a form of the copula which uses the existential verb as an auxiliary verb just to give tense to a sentence."

 

[NanakiXIII]

I gathered that de was a verb from the links Glenn provided. It says this:

de aru

copula auxiliary verb
(be) (nonpast)


Also, I'm quite aware that arimasen is a verb, the negative counterpart of arimasu, the present/future tense of the verb describing inanimate existance.

I guess I might be getting ahead of myself, but this question popped into my head while trying to learn a bit of Japanese, so I asked it.

EDIT: the columns didn't come out quite right there. There are supposed to be two columns, one holding:

de

copula
(be)

and the second holding:

aru

auxiliary verb
(nonpast)

 

[Glenn]

I don't know where you got that.

Being a combination of the postposition "de" and the existential verb "aru", the old copula has a negative form of a combination of the word and the nonexistential adjective , i.e. "de nai". Consequently it has two polite negative forms, the colloquial "de naidesu" and the formal "de arimasen".

This clearly states that de is a particle, and not the copula. The copula is the combination of the particle de and the existential verb aru, as is stated above.

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't know where you got that.



This clearly states that de is a particle, and not the copula. The copula is the combination of the particle de and the existential verb aru, as is stated above.

Where who got what ? Sorry for any confusion, the quote above about using "aru" as an auxiliary verb was actually from "The Japanese Copula" link, I simply pulled it directly off the Internet rather than the posted one.

 

[NanakiXIII]

I got that from one of the pages you linked too.

 

[Glenn]

Where who got what ? Sorry for any confusion, the quote above about using "aru" as an auxiliary verb was actually from "The Japanese Copula" link, I simply pulled it directly off the Internet rather than the posted one.

Sorry, I was talking to NanakiXIII.

I got that from one of the pages you linked too.

Where? I looked through them and nowhere did I see "de = copula; aru = auxiliary verb (nonpast)." What I did see was what I quoted above, and what I said about it -- i.e. de is a particle, aru is the existential verb, and together they are the copula.

 

[bentenmusume]

I think what Glenn meant is that he didn't understand where you got the idea that "de" was a verb from the article given. (For what it's worth, I thought the explanation on that site was pretty clear.)

By the way, Nanaki, I hope my previous post didn't come off sounding like I was getting on your case for asking this question. Of course, it's a perfectly legitimate question and something that many beginning learners are probably curious about. Still, at some point (and this holds true for any complex grammar question) you have to ask yourself whether or not the effort you're expending in trying to figure it out actually worth it in terms of how much it will help you use/understand Japanese.

In your case (for this particular question at this particular point in time in your studies) I'd say the ratio of headaches to usefulness is too high to make it worth your time. It's much more important to know how to use it than it is to know where it comes from.

 

[NanakiXIII]

Glenn, the page you linked to, The Japanese Copula, has several sentences taken apart in the form of

Kana:
Romanization:
Structure:


Scroll down to the fifth sentence treated like that, I cited the 'de' and 'aru' parts exactly, excluding the Kana. I know, it also says what you stated, but I'm a lazy person and looking at pictures (well, a nice table in this case) is a lot easier. That's why I spent more time with that then the text around it and adopted the idea presented in the table.


And no, jt, you're likely right, I was just defending my case.
I didn't know it was this complex. I'm used to languages like French and Latin, which have a lot of differences with my own language (or English, I guess) which seem strange, but the reasoning behind it are usually not illogical and easy to understand. I like those and thought that this would be similar. But it's obviously a lot more complex.

 

[Glenn]

Alright, I see it now. Hmm, I wonder why it's like that in the sample sentence part, though... :? Sorry about that. :sorry:

[Edit]I just found this, which explains why it's like that in the sample sentence part:

The word "de" came from the ancient postposition "nite", but now it is considered a form of the copula which uses the existential verb as an auxiliary verb just to give tense to a sentence.

So it looks like I was wrong about it not being considered the copula.

 

[bentenmusume]

And no, jt, you're likely right, I was just defending my case.
I didn't know it was this complex. I'm used to languages like French and Latin, which have a lot of differences with my own language (or English, I guess) which seem strange, but the reasoning behind it are usually not illogical and easy to understand. I like those and thought that this would be similar. But it's obviously a lot more complex.

Japanese isn't really any more "illogical" or "complex" than any other language (like any of the languages you mention), it just seems that way because it's very different from the languages you're familiar with, which are more closely related to each other than any of them are to Japanese. If you were a native speaker of, say, Korean on the other hand, I would imagine that Japanese would probably seem a lot more "logical" (really, in this case, meaning it's easier to learn) than English, for example.

If you've pretty much only been exposed to English or other European languages, then sure, many aspects of Japanese sentence structure are going to seem confusing at first. But if you work with a good teacher/textbook and stick with your studies until you can fairly comfortably understand authentic Japanese, gradually you'll reach a point where you'll feel that Japanese makes sense to you as it is, without being so preoccupied with the ways in which it differs from your native language(s).

It's a long and arduous process, and certainly not for everyone, but it's not impossible, and for me (at least) it has been very much worth it.

 

[NanakiXIII]

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

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.

 

[fixelbrumpf]

I always thought the "de wa" in "de wa arimasen/de wa nai" was the same as the "de wa" used as a "filler" in spoken Japanese meaning "so" or "so then".