Translation:There is a restroom.
They should accept all varieties of English.
U.S. - home (bathroom), public (restroom)
Canada - washroom
UK - loo, toilet, etc.
If any of these are not accepted, report them. They may not have thought of all the possible correct answers initially, but will update the answers accepted if you report them.
Strictly speaking, in the UK, the receptacle is the toilet, and the room is the WC (water closet). Now we just call both the loo (or toilet if you're working class; lavatory for upper class). Loo is a corruption of the French l'eau. In the days before plumbing, when people chucked water (or other liquids) out the window into the street, they would shout "guardez l'eau".
I've always lived in southern England and virtually never hear WC, it strikes me as a rather antiquated synonym to the toilet. While it is written on signage occasionally, but I very rarely hear people say WC. Asking where the toilet/loo/bathroom/lavatory/lav. are, or announcements of needing the loo, or simply announcing a need "to go" said in a mixed embarrassed/urgent tone of voice, are all far more common in my experience. While cauldron of poo is plenty amusing, what we actually refer to the porcelain bowl and the room it lives in England (UK) is "the toilet".
When I was growing up, we said "washroom," regardless of the reason for visiting the facilities. All "public facilities" had either a gender, the word "Washroom," or a visual representation of a gender on the door.
"Bathroom" was considered vulgar (TMI implied) and one never uttered the word "toilet" (considered well beyond vulgar). 'Twas quite the experience moving to the UK and learning to not squirm uncomfortably when someone said toilet!!
Moderators, please add, "There's a washroom." Arigatou gozaimasu. :-)
To be fair -- "lavatory" is mostly (correct me if I'm wrong) a chiefly British term, and most lavatories in the US are usually if not always referred to simply as either the "bathroom" or "restroom". The toilet being the amenity most primarily associated with it.
Which brings up the question -- should Duolingo consider tweaking their courses to cater to different dialects of English?
Using は means that the word toilet is topic, that is the thing we are talking about. トイルはあります would mean "The toilet exists", which is a bit weird but might work for example in a context of "Ha! Didn't I tell you, there is a toilet here, but you just wouldn't believe me!". More common would be トイルは[place]にです "The toilet is in/at [place]."
Using が instead, as in the current sentence, shows that the word toilet is new information ("At each end of the corridor, there is a toilet.") Note how English tends to use a in sentences with が and the in sentences with は (in general, that is, there are exceptions).
Know I'm two years late, but just out of curiosity, how would that work with 今がチャンス(think that's how it should be spelled)? I've heard that line in games before, but if I'm translating right that would be "now's a chance!", so shouldn't 今, based off your description, be followed by は, not が?
は and が can often be used interchangeably, but slightly changes the emphasis on different parts of a sentence.
は introduces a topic and can usually be dropped if the topic is already understood from context. The words that come after it are the important information.
が introduces new information and puts emphasis on the word before it.
Both of these translate to "this is a pen" but with a slight difference in meaning
これはペンです - (On the topic of this thing) it is a pen (it is not a pencil or a crayon, it is a pen.)
これがペンです - THIS (is the thing that is) a pen (not that thing, or that other thing. This one is the pen.)
今はチャンスです - (On the topic of now) IT'S A CHANCE
今がチャンスです - NOW (is a chance!)
です is used when you want to make your sentence polite, and can also be translated as "it is". So トイレです｡ is like saying "It's a toilet." あります on the other hand, is used when you are talking about the existence of a non-living thing (so inanimate objects, plants, etc. Not my decision to say plants are non-living btw.) So when used in a sentence like トイレがあります｡ it will translate to "There is a toilet." It this case they're kind of similar, but there's a difference. ^^
It seems that is mostly the case. Both indicate the existence of something, but I don't think the korean version is exclusive to "non-living things"... Other than that, I think you're right.
It would be great to confirm with someone who has more knowledge/experience in both languages.
これ - this one (near the speaker)
それ - that one (near the listener)
あれ - that one over there (away from speaker and listener)
None of these words are present in this sentence though.
トイレがあります "There is a toilet/bathroom/restroom"
トイレ - toilet/bathroom/restroom
が - marks the do-er or be-er of the verb, the subject
あります - polite form of verb ある "exist" (inanimate)
Aru/arimasu means "exists" (iru /imasu for animate beings). The "have" is implied.
Hon ga arimasu -- the book exists, there is a book
(Watashi wa) hon ga arimasu -- (as for me) the book exists. Ie i have the book
You'd have to rely on context as "hon ga arimasu" could mean either of those two transitions, as well as many other variations (a book, books, the books, i have, you have, etc etc).
We may be listening to different versions of the recording or have different speakers/headphones, but the audio sounds like a typical Japanese "ga" to me. The Japanese "g" is usually a lot softer/more nasal than the English "g", so maybe it sounds like "wa" (or more like "nga") to your ears, but this is the correct Japanese pronunciation.
Yes, and no. Yes because they aren't present in the Japanese sentence, but no because Japanese simply doesn't have articles, which means there's nothing being implied. When we translate into English, we have to guess which articles would be appropriate based on the context and to a certain extent, the sentence structure.
Duo is saying that because one correct answer is "He has a restroom," which, technically, can be contracted to "He's a restroom" in some English dialects.
Your answer of "It is the restroom" is wrong because that would be トイレです, not トイレがあります. The word あります is either stating existence or possession, but is not a substitute for is/am/are/etc. To say "X is Y", you'd say "X は Y です".
What do you mean by "a normal sentence"?
This exercise is a normal sentence. Here, あり is the verb stem for the verb あります which means "to exist (for inanimate objects)". In another "normal" sentence, if used as a noun, あり can mean "ant", though it's also written as 蟻 for this meaning. In yet other "normal" sentences, especially casual ones, あり (commonly also written as 有り) means that the speaker considers something is possible/doable or they consent to doing/trying something.
あります is a verb of existence. Literally the sentence would read "The/a toilet exists" or more naturally in English "there is a toilet" or even "I have a toilet"
If you wanted "It is a toilet" you would have to use the copula です which declares a state of being in X=Y sentences. トイレです "(implied 'it') = toilet"
Can someone please tell me, I studied for months before for to Japan last November and when i went, this was the most important phrase i think i used but it was a huge struggle getting people to understand me. Is there a reason why? I know i cant give an example of how i spoke, but is there a reason a foreigner speaking this sentence wouldnt sound right?
The former ("there is a toilet in this house") is an accurate example of what the Japanese means. In "There is a toilet where(?) I am pointing at", it doesn't really feel like normal English, but it has some notion of location. あります just means "to exist" - it doesn't have any information about location.
I know I've mentioned this before, but I've yet to receive a reply on the subject. The character "が" is supposed to be, and -usually is- a "ga" sound. However, I've noticed that at times, it's instead pronounced like "/Nä/" (IPA transliteration) -- which is not a voiced velar plosive (g). I'm sure that, to most people, it likely sounds more like a voiced velar nasal ("ŋ" -- as in English words that end with "-ing"); however, it sounds to me to be more like the elusive uvular nasal consonant.
And in the books my sister was so gracious to lend me, they all mention that the voiced uvular nasal sound (N) is commonly used in Standard [Tokyo dialect] Japanese. You can hear it occasionally when they use the "ga" particle on here.
So, my question is this:
Are there any specific rules on when to nasalize the "g" sound, or is it always interchangeable? Or is it dialectal, or even generational? Because they don't really say much about it in any of the sources that I've read =/ And I'm a bit obsessive when it comes to proper pronunciation xD
が introduces new important information. It is used with existence verbs such as in this sentence to announce the existence of something previously unknown.
は marks contextual information. You would use this if something was already understood in the conversation and you wanted to make a comment about it.
It is the "Exist" verbs that are different depending on whether the thing being talked about is animate or inanimate.
いる・います is for animate things (people, animals)
ある・あります is for inanimate things (objects, plants)
I've been noticing in these pronunciations that "toire ga arimasu" has been sound more like" toirenga arimasu". Japanese has always had pretty defined syllables but alot of sentences lately I play over and over again and the ga is very hard to hear clearly, along with an N sound preceding it, which is really just a vocalization very close to beginning of the g sound. I want to get the accent right and so if I should be a little looser with this pronunciation then I will. For example, in America, I hardly pronounce the T in truck. I say it more like chruck, less use of teeth.