"No, I do not live in Tokyo."
The "は" particle indicates the topic (what the conversation is about), so in the examole above, it would mean that "住んでいません" is an information about 東京, making it be something like "Tokyo does not live".
The "に" particle indicates a place, so "住んでいません" in this case is the information a hidden subject that "Does not live" in the place indicated by "に" which is "東京".
The "wa" is only used to emphasize that you are saying the negative. No emphasise is used for the positive version so "wa" is not needed. This is similar to using the negative version of sentences with "wo". Ex: [Positive version] ocha wo nomimasu. [Negative version] ocha wa nominasen. The "wa" emphasizes that it's tea that you dont drink...i hope that makes sense.
For what it's worth, something similar happens in some European languages, like French and Russian off the top of my head. In French, the indefinite articles, un/une/des are all replaced with "de" in the negative: J'ai une pomme = I have an apple, but Je n'ai pas de pomme = I don't have an apple, or literally, I don't have of apple. You don't just deny having an apple, you deny having even one bit of appleness in your miserable apple-less existence. Saying "I don't have an apple" in French would sound like you are saying you don't have an apple, you have multiple apples! Same thing in Russian: Я знаю город = I know the city, Я не знаю города = I don't know the city, or literally, I don't know of the city. So it isn't that "exotic" a concept, you know.
Sorry to correct you about french. "De" does not emphasize the negative. Saying "Je n'ai pas une pomme" sounds actually more negative than "Je n'ai pas de pommes.", probably because it is not a phrase you would use naturally. "De" translates to "of", as in "lots of" or " an average amount of" -- "j'ai beaucoup de pommes" "j'ai une quantité moyenne de pommes"
My theory is that without wa, you say you don't live in"tokyo", and that's it. With wa, you say that you don't live "in" tokyo, suggesting you do live somewhere else, just not there.
That's why we don't get "ni wa" in examples like going/not going to the office at (in) specific time, because maybe you don't go at a different time neither.
I think the wa emphasized the ni because it is assumed you do live somewhere, just not "at" (ni) tokyo.
Just a theory though. I'm a nub too.
From what it looks like, the extra particle (wa/ha) adds the context that although you don't live in Tokyo, you DO live somewhere else. Basically, it wouldn't be entirely necessary to add it, but it's not incorrect to add it either.
Could someone with a bit more experience confirm or correct this?
Not sure if I qualify as having much experience, but this question came up in my Japanese class and my teacher worked it out as いいえ、とうきょうはにすんでません Note the placement of [は] and [に] respectively - the two particles can be interchanged without a direct deviation of the meaning (both usages indicate that you do not live in Tokyo). The indirect meaning, however, does deviate you said correctly that the [は] positioned after the [に] does give an indication that you live somewhere BUT Tokyo, whereas the particle order in my teachers' sentence above merely states that you don‘t live in Tokyo. This is comparable to the two particles [で] and [は] and their negative connotations: here's a website URL that can explain the [で] and [は] transformation way better than I can (also applicable to the [は] and [に] in part): http://selftaughtjapanese.com/2015/02/26/japanese-particle-combination-%E3%81%A7%E3%81%AF-de-wa-and-%E3%81%98%E3%82%83-ja/
But overall, I would say that the [は] at the end is merely used in common speech to put emphsis on the fact that you do indeed live somewhere, just not Tokyo.
はに(putting the に after the は) is grammatically incorrect - maybe ask your teacher to talk to me :-)
But yes, the は is the contrast marker where it implies that one thing compared to the other in an aspect that has a difference. In this case I don't live in Tokyo, but implies I live in somewhere else.
Went to a couple of translation site and typed in the above phrase. Duolingo stands alone in as 'all' of them just used 'ni' instead of 'niwa'. Duolingo accepted the exact same phrase in one instance, did not accept it in another. In one other case, Duolingo took the Kanji form of 'Tokyo' but would not accept the Hiragana form of 'Tokyo'. Believe Duolingo is broken in this regard.
I think copying and pasting your specific answer and explaining what kind of question it was ("type what you hear", "write this in Japanese") would get you better feedback. I don't know what your answer was, but I made a comment above saying that いいえ、東京に住んでいません was accepted for me without the は. Did you write it differently? Maybe no one has submitted an error report for the exact combination of kana and kanji that you wrote, or maybe you made another mistake in your answer? If there's something actually broken in this question you can always submit an error report or a bug report.
About には, you can plug in 東京には住んでいません into google and get over 20,000 hits, so it's certainly used in Japanese.
The verb すみます (sumimasu, live) is written as 住みます in kanji. The contributors have been adding more kanji to the course, and some of the new kanji don't have a voice for them yet, or sometimes the voice is using the wrong reading of the kanji and is disabled. If you open the discussion thread, it's written only in hiragana and the voice reads the entire sentence.
It gave me the option to add 都 which was a little confusing because you do write addresses in tokyo beginning with 東京都 as in Tokyo metropolitan area. (Most of the prefectures are 県) by definition if you live in Tokyo you can write it both ways 東京 / 東京都 but I don't know if the app will accept both.
The correct particle in this sentence is に, not は by itself. The は can be added to に for contrastive effect, which is very common in negative statements, but は by itself would not be correct.
いいえ、東京に住んでいません (iie, toukyou ni sunde imasen) is also an accepted answer: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/22979849?comment_id=27488234
In speaking, yes, sometimes it is possible to drop particles, but Duolingo does not accept colloquial particle dropping. The particle に is required for this sentence, and は adds a feeling of contrast, as discussed above: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/22979849?comment_id=22979850
Multiple users in this thread have stated that they had their answer accepted without は, so you probably had a typo or mistake in your answer.
The difference in nuance is discussed here: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/22979849?comment_id=22979850
I've read every single comment and I am more convinced that it's a duolingo error. Same sentence with Kyoto is marked as correct without the wa, and for Tokyo, it's marked incorrect. My last theory is the answer "No" at the beginning of the sentence which makes the use of 'wa' essential in this case, but it is not clear with two contradictory examples in the very same lesson.
I was confused about the verb "to live", it didn't feel like it behaves like any other verb we've encountered in Duo so far. I've now come to understand why. Here's my understanding:
The base form is 住む, so what's the logic turning it into 住んでいません? Well, apparently, this verb behaves just like the others we've encountered so far, but it uses another inflection that Duo havn't bothered to explain.
It is called the て-form and is used when describing something ongoing (progressive form). Or as i understand it, describe a more "permanent" action.
Btw, If we were to use ます-form, like we've done so far for other verbs, the negative inflection would be 住みません. (yes it says sumimasen. no it has nothing to do with the phrase "excuse me"... I think)
Anyhow, the て-form also differs in that it is only in present tense (while regular ます-form can be both present and future). To then make it polite you add the ます-form of いる = います.
So 住む 【base form, "to live"】 • 住んで 【て-form, "living"】・住んでいる 【progressive form, "to be living"】・住んでいます 【polite progessive, "I am living"】 And finally: 住んでいません【polite progressive negative, "I am not living"】
If you've read this far... Sorry for the ramble, I felt i needed to write it down for it to sink in. Hopefully you find it useful...
And if i got anything wrong, please do tell! And while you're at it, maybe you can explain how the meaning changes if i instead say 東京に住みません。
Masu-form with this verb talks about your future intention. いいえ、東京には住みません means "no, I will not live in Tokyo (in the future)". If you currently live somewhere, you are in a state of living there, which in Japanese means you use the present continuous, 住んでいます. See HiNative: https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/4263024
There are two types of ています. One represents a progressive action, and another represents a state.
In this case 住んでいます is a state representing living (in a place). It does not representing an progressive/continuous action.
(I think both "live in Tokyo" and "am living in Tokyo" mean the same thing, but definitely more natural using "live in Tokyo.")
Yes, and if you look above you can check the previous comments for more explanation: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/22979849?comment_id=22979850