Does this sentence make sense?

[Kirakira1232]

Japanese linguists have devoted enormous amount of effort to elucidating how particles function, but use of wa and ga has not been entirely understood yet. To make matters worse, the omission of particles in natural conversation, for instance when to drop the particle o, is an unexplored research area.

Yeah so i've heard! One particular mystery my teacher told us about is something like this.

Okaasan wa ashi ga nagai desu

Mum has long legs.

Its never "Okaasan no ashi ga nagai desu". Sometimes before the potential verb, ga is used and sometimes wa is used. Why? I wouldnt have the foggiest lol.

 

[undrentide]

Okaasan wa ashi ga nagai desu

Mum has long legs.

Its never "Okaasan no ashi ga nagai desu". Sometimes before the potential verb, ga is used and sometimes wa is used. Why? I wouldnt have the foggiest lol.

Never? No, not never.
You can also "okaasan no ashi ga nagai".

Okaasan wa ashi ga nagai.
(As for mother, her legs are long.)
Okaasan no ashi ga nagai.
(My mother's legs are long. It is my her legs which are long)
Okaasan no ashi wa nagai.
(My mother's legs are long.)

In both cases ga emphasize its preceeding word(s).
First sentence could be an answer to the following questions:
- What is special about your mother?
- (The speaker has heard that the counter part's family and that each family member has something long) So when it comes to your mother, what is long?

The second sentence could be an answer to
- (The speaker has heard that the counter part is talking about something long) What is long?

The third sentence is a simple statement.

 

[skj91]

Ah well, my sensei did in fact scold me for acquiring help from Japanese (or fluently Japanese speaking) people but oh well. Well by 'scold' I mean I got little sad face on my paper by that paragraph. See, this essay (though a take-home assignment) was actually 1/2 of our mid-term exam so I guess she wanted us to do it completely on our own. She could tell what I wrote was more advanced than my level but oh well. I still appreciate all the wonderful input. I think this forum is a great resource for people seeking to know more about different cultures and languages.
My thanks to everyone here. I'm sure I'll be visiting often.

 

[skj91]

Oh, one thing about ga that my sensei explained (now we're in the chapter which discusses it) is that it's used for:

1. 1) SUBJECT'S EXISTANCE STATED AFTER PLACE OF EXISTANCE - When the place of someone/something's existance is indicated before the subject, but not after. So when the verb 'to be' and its location are given, the sentance structure follows a pattern of -
   
   place ni item ga
   

   OR​

   item wa place ni​
2. 2) POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS - Exactly what it says... so used when you "have love for someone/thing" but not when you "have a pencil"
3. 3) EVENTS/SCHEDULE - Any type of appointment or basically any plans you have that you would mark on your calander or day-planner.

So would that seem a pretty relible and accurate array of conditions as to when to use to ga to you guys? I mean it was sort of implied in an earlier post that when/where ga should be used is something of a mystery and source of debate to linguists, even today, but the formulas/guidelines indicated in the above 3 cases seem pretty clear-cut and straight-forward to me. Are there times when any of the above situations would not hold true?

p.s. Maybe this should be addressed in a new thread (or probably one that already exists), to the moderators, please feel free close this thread and move/quote this post under a more appropriate discussion or whatever you see fit to do.

 

[grapefruit]

Ah well, my sensei did in fact scold me for acquiring help from Japanese (or fluently Japanese speaking) people but oh well. Well by 'scold' I mean I got little sad face on my paper by that paragraph. See, this essay (though a take-home assignment) was actually 1/2 of our mid-term exam so I guess she wanted us to do it completely on our own. She could tell what I wrote was more advanced than my level but oh well. I still appreciate all the wonderful input. I think this forum is a great resource for people seeking to know more about different cultures and languages.
My thanks to everyone here. I'm sure I'll be visiting often.

I think your teacher was simply concerned for those who try to use things that they learned from their friends without understanding. It is good to get help from native speakers but it is another thing to include new items in essays.

 

[grapefruit]

Oh, one thing about ga that my sensei explained (now we're in the chapter which discusses it) is that it's used for:

1. 1) SUBJECT'S EXISTANCE STATED AFTER PLACE OF EXISTANCE - When the place of someone/something's existance is indicated before the subject, but not after. So when the verb 'to be' and its location are given, the sentance structure follows a pattern of -
   
   place ni item ga
   

   OR​

   item wa place ni​
2. 2) POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS - Exactly what it says... so used when you "have love for someone/thing" but not when you "have a pencil"
3. 3) EVENTS/SCHEDULE - Any type of appointment or basically any plans you have that you would mark on your calander or day-planner.

So would that seem a pretty relible and accurate array of conditions as to when to use to ga to you guys? I mean it was sort of implied in an earlier post that when/where ga should be used is something of a mystery and source of debate to linguists, even today, but the formulas/guidelines indicated in the above 3 cases seem pretty clear-cut and straight-forward to me. Are there times when any of the above situations would not hold true?
p.s. Maybe this should be addressed in a new thread (or probably one that already exists), to the moderators, please feel free close this thread and move/quote this post under a more appropriate discussion or whatever you see fit to do.

Probably it is better to tie the types of verbs/adjectives with the rules you have described. For instance, "POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS" is a vague term. People can come up with millions of ways to express that. What is more important is the type of verb. Probably your teacher mentioned adjectives like "suki", "tanoshii", etc. These adjectives take the particle ga as default.

 

[skj91]

I think that is definately part of her reasoning. But I think she also may have been concerned about where to draw the line between students seeking guidance and students, flat-out having someone else do their work for them. I think just to avoid any possibility of conflict in that area, she said just plain said "No help from Japanese people". Because she did actually say that, after the fact.

 

[skj91]

Probably it is better to tie the types of verbs/adjectives with the rules you have described. For instance, "POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS" is a vague term. People can come up with millions of ways to express that. What is more important is the type of verb. Probably your teacher mentioned adjectives like "suki", "tanoshii", etc. These adjectives take the particle ga as default.

Yeah I think that vagueness is probably the part where the misunderstanding or mystery of ga comes into it. To me, it seems there's an easily recognizable differnce between nouns that express conteptual/emotional possessions (and thus use ga) and nouns that define something tangible (and thus does not use ga). But this is something that I could see might be difficult to completely recognize in a foreign language, especially one so very different from one's native tongue. The other 2 cases, I don't see how anyone could really confuse either of those situations, once memorized.

 

[skj91]

I refer to the nouns because ga follows the Subject of the sentence, and the Subject is always a noun. I understand that it is dependent on the verb, technically, but I think of it in terms of what the subject possesses, which is the direct object, and whether that is a substance of mass or not. Whatever verb or verb+adjective pairs that are used to describe this possession are then pretty irrelevant since things you can physically touch/see/hear/taste/smell... things of physical substance, never use verbs or adjectives that express an idea, only beliefs or feelings do.
Does that make sense?

 

[grapefruit]

I refer to the nouns because ga follows the Subject of the sentence, and the Subject is always a noun. I understand that it is dependent on the verb, technically, but I think of it in terms of what the subject possesses, which is the direct object, and whether that is a substance of mass or not. Whatever verb or verb+adjective pairs that are used to describe this possession are then pretty irrelevant since things you can physically touch/see/hear/taste/smell... things of physical substance, never use verbs or adjectives that express an idea, only beliefs or feelings do.
Does that make sense?

I'm ... kind of lost Can we use some concrete examples? You mentioned, "so used when you "have love for someone/thing" but not when you "have a pencil." If I read you correctly, you meant if we want to express the concept of, say "love", we can use the particle ga, whereas if we want to express the concept of "pencil", we cannot use the particle ga, didn't you? So did you mean sentences あいがある and あいがすくない are admissible but sentences like えんぴつがある and えんぴつがすくない are not admissible?

 

[skj91]

Not quite.. I meant if what we 'possess' is 'love' we can use ga however if what we 'possess' is some physical object like a pencil, we do not use ga. This in terms applying ga only in the case off possession. The other other cases may still call for the use of ga in relation to physical objects but it would not be from the ownership of those objects.

so for example.

I wear white socks. - What do I possess here? White socks, of course. It's not possible to 'own' wear of the socks (or wear of anything else). Wear is used strictly as the verb leaving 'white socks' left as the only possible object of the sentance and the object of possesson. So this sentance would use wa not ga. Is that correct?

I like white socks. - Actually this is saying "I have a liking for white socks" - What do I posses here? A liking (for... ). Like is used as if it were a physical object, being the direct object of the sentance, but it's not. It is a feeling, concept, thought, belief... it can not be picked up and put on a scale and weighed. But it is in fact the thing I am possessing. The sentance certainly does not indicate that what I possess is white socks as obviously I can like something regardless of whether I have ownership of that thing. This sentance would use ga, then. Since the thing I own is nothing of tangible existance.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[skj91]

My apologies for not replying with a response that uses the example sentances you gave but, at the moment, my browser doesn't have the ability to show fonts for hiragana or katana. I did have these installed up until a week ago when my entire PC decided to quit booting all of a sudden (Vista... need I say more?) and I had to let the recovery CD completely format the hard drive and reset my OS back to the 'default factory installation'. I am still in the process of getting my everything back to how I had and internet browser stuff is far down on my list.

 

[skj91]

It might be better to use

"I have white socks"
or
"My white socks"​

instead of "I wear white socks." as the first exampe. All 3 somehow express ownership of the white socks (I couldn't wear anything without first having it in my possession but this is only indirectly implied, for clarification, maybe replace 'wear' with 'have'). White socks physically exist in this world and therefore ownership of them does not warrant the use of ga.

Maybe I am completely missing the entire concept of ga still, I don't know.

 

[grapefruit]

It might be better to use

"I have white socks"
or
"My white socks"​

instead of "I wear white socks." as the first exampe. All 3 somehow express ownership of the white socks (I couldn't wear anything without first having it in my possession but this is only indirectly implied, for clarification, maybe replace 'wear' with 'have'). White socks physically exist in this world and therefore ownership of them does not warrant the use of ga.
Maybe I am completely missing the entire concept of ga still, I don't know.

Okay. I think I got your two categories. However, these two sets of concepts have no bearing on the distinction between the use of ga and that of wa.

 

[skj91]

Let me explain what I mean another way. Everything that one can "have" is either a physical subtance of mass in the universe OR it is an idea and/or emotion from within oneself and not something of physical mass.
If the thing being had is the latter, ga is used, if the thing being had is the former, wa is used. There is no case in which one would be expressing the concept 'pencil' because 'pencil' is an actual thing that has mass. You might express the concept of a pencil but this concept is not the pencil itself. No matter what the concept is regarding, it is the concept which is possessed and not an actual physical embodiment of that which is being conceived. In such cases - where ownership of an "idea" or a "feeling" is present - use ga.

Is my meaning more clear?

 

[skj91]

This is only in regard to the second of the 3 cases, the case of 2) POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS. Ga may still be called for under either of the other two conditions, even where phyical objects are concerned.

That's how I understood it from what she went over in class the other day, so... you're saying all this is still incorrect?

 

[grapefruit]

This is only in regard to the second of the 3 cases, the case of 2) POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS. Ga may still be called for under either of the other two conditions, even where phyical objects are concerned.
That's how I understood it from what she went over in class the other day, so... you're saying all this is still incorrect?

For example, an answer to "dono enpitsu ga suki desuka?" (which pencil do you like?), "kono enpitsu ga suki desu" (I like this pencil) would be a misfit to your explanation. Since the replay refers to a concrete physical object, it should be marked with wa according to the rule you provided. However, in this case, the particle ga is used.

 

[Toritoribe]

Oh, one thing about ga that my sensei explained (now we're in the chapter which discusses it) is that it's used for:

1. 1) SUBJECT'S EXISTANCE STATED AFTER PLACE OF EXISTANCE - When the place of someone/something's existance is indicated before the subject, but not after. So when the verb 'to be' and its location are given, the sentance structure follows a pattern of -
   
   place ni item ga
   

   OR​

   item wa place ni​
2. 2) POSSESSION OF THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS - Exactly what it says... so used when you "have love for someone/thing" but not when you "have a pencil"
3. 3) EVENTS/SCHEDULE - Any type of appointment or basically any plans you have that you would mark on your calander or day-planner.

So would that seem a pretty relible and accurate array of conditions as to when to use to ga to you guys? I mean it was sort of implied in an earlier post that when/where ga should be used is something of a mystery and source of debate to linguists, even today, but the formulas/guidelines indicated in the above 3 cases seem pretty clear-cut and straight-forward to me. Are there times when any of the above situations would not hold true?

Probably your teacher explained only about the case "ga + iru/aru."

1)
机の上に鉛筆があります。
Tuskue no ue ni enpitsu ga arimasu.

2)
祖国への愛があります。
Sokoku e no ai ga arimasu.

3)
明日会議があります。
Ashita kaigi ga arimasu.

Indeed, "ga" can be used in these expressions. However, "wa" also can be used.

1)
机の上に鉛筆はあります。
Tuskue no ue ni enpitsu wa arimasu.

鉛筆が机の上にあります。
Enpitsu ga tuskue no ue ni arimasu.
鉛筆は机の上にあります。
Enpitsu wa tuskue no ue ni arimasu.

2)
祖国への愛はあります。
Sokoku e no ai wa arimasu.

3)
明日会議はあります。
Ashita kaigi wa arimasu.

All sentences above are correct. The connotations of each particles are defferent, as already explained, though.

Probably it is better to tie the types of verbs/adjectives with the rules you have described.

I agree.

○鉛筆があります。; Enpitsu ga arimasu.
×鉛筆が持っています。; Enpitsu ga motteimasu.
○靴下が好きです。; Kutsushita ga sukidesu.
×靴下が愛してます。; kutsushita ga aishitemasu.

It depends on the types of verbs/adjectives whether "a physical object" or not.


Here's another example that the particle wa/ga can't be used.

その服かわいいね。; Sono fuku kawaii ne.
The cloth (you wear) is cute.

Actually, you can say "sono fuku wa/ga kawaii ne," but the person you are talking to might get angry. The particle wa/ga unnecessarily emphasizes "cloth," so it could mean "the other clothes/you are not cute" or something like that.

 

[skj91]

For example, an answer to "dono enpitsu ga suki desuka?" (which pencil do you like?), "kono enpitsu ga suki desu" (I like this pencil) would be a misfit to your explanation. Since the replay refers to a concrete physical object, it should be marked with wa according to the rule you provided. However, in this case, the particle ga is used.

But it's a liking for the pencil that I posses, not the pencil itself. It might be your pencil and I happen to like it. As "to have a liking for" falls under the category of an emotion (or an idea... not important to worry about which it is, emotion or concept, they are the same in the grammatical sense) that example does comply to the rule.

 

[grapefruit]

But it's a liking for the pencil that I posses, not the pencil itself. It might be your pencil and I happen to like it. As "to have a liking for" falls under the category of an emotion (or an idea... not important to worry about which it is, emotion or concept, they are the same in the grammatical sense) that example does comply to the rule.

It seems I misread your explanations then. You are right in saying that "to have a liking for ~", which will be "~ga suki". It is just the label "possession of thoughts and emotions" was a bit confusing. To me "~ ga suki" does not seem to convey "possession". It seems more like expression of emotion. But, it's just the matter of labeling conventions. No big deal.
The misunderstanding might have started from here.

there's an easily recognizable differnce between nouns that express conteptual/emotional possessions (and thus use ga) and nouns that define something tangible (and thus does not use ga).

Did you mean "liking" is the noun by this? If that is the case, it makes sense now. I thought you meant by this the noun marked with the particle would express conceptual/emotional possession. But, it seems you were referring the "liking" in the English sentence "I have a liking for~". Am I correct?

 

[skj91]

It seems I misread your explanations then. You are right in saying that "to have a liking for ~", which will be "~ga suki". It is just the label "possession of thoughts and emotions" was a bit confusing. To me "~ ga suki" does not seem to convey "possession". It seems more like expression of emotion. But, it's just the matter of labeling conventions. No big deal.
The misunderstanding might have started from here.

Did you mean "liking" is the noun by this? If that is the case, it makes sense now. I thought you meant by this the noun marked with the particle would express conceptual/emotional possession. But, it seems you were referring the "liking" in the English sentence "I have a liking for~". Am I correct?

YES! basically, the phrase of "a liking for" becomes the noun and the direct object of the sentance.

You can ignore the rest of this entire post now, since you understand my meaning.

===========================================================
======== The rest of the post, before I saw your last reply is below =======
===========================================================

Probably your teacher explained only about the case "ga + iru/aru."
1)
机の上に鉛筆があります。
Tuskue no ue ni enpitsu ga arimasu.
2)
祖国への愛があります。
Sokoku e no ai ga arimasu.
3)
明日会議があります。
Ashita kaigi ga arimasu.
Indeed, "ga" can be used in these expressions. However, "wa" also can be used.

As I already mentioned, the noun rule I posted earlier is concerned ONLY with cases where there is POSSESSION of something. All of the above examples qualify for the use of "ga" under the EXISTENCE condition. No one/no thing has ownership of any other person/thing in any of those sentances so there's nothing to consider regarding the possession of the nouns.

1)
机の上に鉛筆はあります。
Tuskue no ue ni enpitsu wa arimasu.

Actually, according to my sensei this is incorrect grammar. She has a couple "formulas" she gave us which she is very adamant about stressing that word order, not part of speech, is what defines the difference when someone/thing exists somewhere. Again that sentance falls under EXISTENCE and not POSSESSION nor EVENT condition and these formulas are also strictly for sentances where the condition of EXISTANCE is concerned. The formulas are:

place ni item ga​

OR you can swap the positions of the item and the place it exists in in which case formula changes to:

item wa place ni​

You could probably add more information to the sentance in which you might still use ga for the pencil, even if it is stated before the place is but that would probably be for the purpose emphasis which... let's just not get into that. Keep in mind that I'm in the Introductory Japanese I class and things like clauses, multisubject, multiverb, multi-anything-other-than-what-you-can-fix-with-a-mo sentances are far more advanced than this course covers. We're learning the basics. It's the same way for learning English, you first have to learn standard rules and get those down and then later on you find out there's certain exceeptions to those rules where that so-called rule proves false.
Example:

1. "When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking"
   So the word 'goat' is pronounced go-ote not gat and not ga-ate. Only the 'o' speaks.

BUT later on we learn there's an exception to that rule when the two vowels that are walking are the vowels 'e' and 'i'. For in that case alone, we have a subset rule which actually falsifies the first rule:

• "'i' before 'e'" so the word 'pieces' is pronounced with the 'ee' sound and not 'i' nor 'ii' simply because this new rule states that regardless of pronunciation, when the vowels 'i' and 'e' are consecutive, the word is spelled with 'ie'.

BUT later still we then learn yet another subset condition of the this last rule (which is, itself a subset condition of the main rule) exists. This new subset rule is a follow-up of the last rule mentioned which goes on to say:

• "EXCEPT when sounding like 'a' as in 'neighbor' and 'weigh'.
  Again the new rule negates the rule before it.

The point I'm trying to make is that, yes, there may be exception, after exception, after exception, to the conditions of the use of ga, just as there's specific cases in English where a 'rule' does not hold true but those are, to me, at the moment, entirely irrellevant as I must first learn the initial rules. I can't talk about special cases to the rules if I don't know the rules to begin with. So please, just ignore the existance of exceptions to the standard. I'm needing verification of the initial set of rules only. Throwing in examples with more advanced levels of grammar where the standard set of rules may be rendered false, at this point, is only going to confuse me.

The basics, I want just the basics! As for tying the relation to of ga to the adjectives/verbs of the sentence. Well put it this way, we have yet to even hear/say/see a single sentence which contains any adjective in it (we will begin that next week). So I don't have an adjective to tie it to.

And before anyone gets into any of the following matters, we have not discussed anything regarding degrees of expression (levels of 'like' 'love' 'hate' etc., we'll get to in about 3 weeks) and we won't get into counters until the end of this semester (about 7 weeks away). Te-forms? don't exist 'til Introductory Japanese II, that's next semester. Two activities/action verbs in one sentence? doesn't exist 'til Introductory Japanese II. Half the words you used in those examples... I don't even know the vocab. for.

 

[skj91]

It seems I misread your explanations then. You are right in saying that "to have a liking for ~", which will be "~ga suki". It is just the label "possession of thoughts and emotions" was a bit confusing. To me "~ ga suki" does not seem to convey "possession". It seems more like expression of emotion. But, it's just the matter of labeling conventions. No big deal.

Well basically, in my head, I reword the expression of an emotion so that it does become possessive. So "I like..." becomes "I have a liking for...". Any time you can reword the sentance in this manner, possession is present so ga comes into use under the conditions of Rule #2. If the sentance cannot be reworded into a sentace using have then no possession is present, the possession rule, then, is not applicable and check for whether the existance or schedule rules come into play instead.

let me restate that... in my head, I test the sentance to see whther it can be reworded to use the word 'have' as the verb instead of its current verb, without changing the meaning of the sentance. If so, the original verb becomes a noun as the direct object as well as the object of possession (which is now indicated as being present by the verb 'have'). If the sentance can not be reconstructed in this manner then no possession is present, no need to go further in that rule.

 

[grapefruit]

Cool nihongo no benkyoo ganbatte kudasai.

 

[skj91]

Cool nihongo no benkyoo ganbatte kudasai.

ummmm, ganbatte - I don't know this word. Can you translate meaning please?

The rest I understand, Japanese studies and 'kudasai' is equivlent to saying 'please give me' or 'can i have' or 'would you please this', correct? Are you asking for examples?

 

[Glenn]

It means to stick with your Japanese studies. Ganbare, ganbatte, etc. sometimes get translated to "good luck," although there's a difference in that ganbaru means to stick something out, persevere, and work through it, where "good luck" leaves everything up to chance.