1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Japanese
  4. >
  5. "No, I do not live in Tokyo."

"No, I do not live in Tokyo."


June 7, 2017



I'm wondering why in this sentence it is used 'には' instead of just 'に'


は is used to stress the negativeness. に itself is needed to specify the place of existance and this cannot be replaced, so は follows に and becomes the compound particle には.


i had just remembered after getting it technically wrong, just like [de+wa] arimasen, because it is 'stressing' the negative! ^,.,^ at least i think so...


The example with Kyoto omits the は. Too many nuances which we need to find ourselves. Thank you for helping, Keith.


This would imply that "Tokyo wa sundei masen" (without the ni) is not a grammatical sentence? Is this right, or does "Tokyo wa sundei masen" have some slightly different meaning?


Yes. 東京は住んでいません means Tokyo does not live. You need show the place. To show the place you need use に



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".



strange, in both positive examples it accepted my answer, which both times lacked the 'ha'.


Yeah how come they don't use 'は' in the positive version?


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.


That is so helpful. Thanks for sharing


It makes sense, but I thought that making something the topic with は took the emphasis away from it.


Actually, marking the topic with は is specifying you are talking exactly about what is coming before it. It might be easier if you think about it this way:

私は I'm talking about me now

あなたは I'm talking about you now

東京には I'm talking exactly about the location Tokyo now


But how is






Thank you so much, helped a lot


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.


Thanks. It is really helpfull because I speak French and now I understand


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"


But "niwa" could also be used in a positive sentence, it just happens less frequently. If you wanted to say "It was in Tokyo that I lived (as opposed to, say, Kyoto)." you'd say 東京には住んでいました。


What would "東京にが住でいました。" imply then? I mean, what would the nuance be, compared to the version with は ?

(or is this even grammatically correct?)


That wouldn't be grammatically correct (は is one of the very few particles that can be combined with another, が cannot). Here が would also make Tokyo the subject of the sentence, which it shouldn't be.


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.


I don't put that "ha" in my sentence and it is accepted tho


So if I am confirming, I use に、 but if I am denying, I say には?



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.


I chose the answer you stated (maybe に and は were reversed, don't remember.. But anyway I was marked wrong. z it gave an answer of mostly kanji that I font know. Seems like the answer I choose should have been accepted after all?!


Certain particles can be used to specify things such as location and so forth the thing is it wasnt introduce earlier to explain. But the sentence is grammatically correct when used with only に.


This inclusion intrigues me as well. I think duolingo should let answers without it still be considered correct.


いいえ、東京に住んでいません (iie, toukyou ni sunde imasen) was accepted for me.


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.


I left out い after すんで、and it marked me as right, but what does this difference translate as?


It's the oral form. 住んでない/住んでません


I didn't use niwa but rather ni by itself. I was marked correct. How wrong was I? Is it normal nowadays to drop the wa from niwa? In Colloquial speech? In formal speech?


It is not wrong. It is a natural sentence. You dropped the stress to the negative clause that comes after. That's all.


I used only ni and my answer was marked as a mistake...


When to use で and when に


で when talking about the location where an action takes place, に when describing the location of the subject after a stateful verb finishes transitioning into a state.


Is it also correct to answer with: いいえ、とうきょうにすんではいません?


Yes it is possible.


I used: いいえ、とうきょうにすんではありません。Why is that wrong?


It cannot be ありません. It must be いません (います used to represent continuous state of a verb - すんでいます)


I completely forgot to come back and check on this. Thank you for clarifying! Is that because of the difference between animate and inanimate as well, or if I said for instance: "My house lives in tokyo" - would that also use います due to the verb?


It is completely unrelated to animate and inanimate. ています is 1. continuous action, or 2. continuous state. てあります is action done in preparation of something. 住む is a state verb. It can never be correct to attach てあります.


Can anyone explain why after "wa", すん is written as 住ん and why it is not heard in the exercises?


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.


I think you don't really have to stress not living in Tokyo in this sentence. There is no context of using "には" instead of "は" alone. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.


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


Isnt this a double negative tho? Its like saying No i dont not live in tokya


Not a double negative, a disagreement "No," and then an elaboration "I do not live in Tokyo"
It would be an answer to "Do you live in Tokyo?" "No, I do not (live in Tokyo)"
いいえ、 - No, 東京には - In Tokyo 住んでいません - I do not live


Practicing this subject: why is "No, I do not live in Tokyo." には and "No, I do not live in Kyoto." or "No, I do not live in Osaka." only に? Tokyo example only accepted には and Kyoto/Osaka only had に available...


in the "another correct answer" tip , it shows the exact same sentence i answered with no difference between them ....


Without copying and pasting your answer or taking a screenshot of it and sharing it here, no one can offer you any advice about what happened.


i put the same but without the は and it was correct anyway, while speaking I can ignore particles in some situations?


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


When I use the word bank to spell this answer out, it doesn't accept the single [imasen] block at the end. But if I use [i] and [masen] it accepts the answer. I've used the report option.


I got the same sentenced but with Kyoto and there was no option to use "ha" but it's wrong if i don't use it here. So random.


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 doubt it. いいえ、東京に住んでいません。is marked correct for me.


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。


How does this sentence change if i were to instead use regular ます-form of 住む? いいえ、東京には住みません。 I suspect the english translation would be the same. But does it change the meaning? Or is it perhaps not sensible to use the ます-form like this?


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


Of course. That makes perfect sense. ありがとうございます。


No 'n' was shown in my possibilities, so my sentence could not be completed


may be there is an option: すんでいない which is the simple form of すんでいません


I've learned that 'te-form' of the verb + います is akin to (or equals) '-ing' form (progressive present, I think) in English, as in "よんでいます" - I am reading. I suppose that is what is happening too with this exercise?


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.")


'sen' was missing from the kana


とうきょうには すんでいない is also correct, so there is no need to include せん in the answer.


This one leaves me confused, even after reading both discussions. The same kind of statement insisted upon niwa before, and in the same lesson, complains when it was used again in the above case. Not following this one at all.


You mean you used に instead of には and marked incorrect? In which case it should not be incorrect and you can report it.


based on my understanding, "は" is used to emphasize the meaning in this case. But it's hard to see the intonation which makes both answers could be correct. It will make more sense if the question becomes No, I DO NOT live in Tokyo.


Wait... I accidentally put でません instead of でいません and it still counted it correct, didnt even say i had a typo


I’m surprised that’s in the database because it’s not proper grammar , but it is acceptable in spoken Japanese to drop the い when using the -te imasu form.


So, basing on your comments, is it ok to say the negative without the は I guess? Like ときょにすんでいません or おちゃをのみまあえん?


yes, your understanding is correct. Whether or not to use は depends on the need of stressing the negative.


is it wrong to use: いいえ、私は東京に住んでいません ?


Would leaving out the "は" partical still be acceptable?


Yes, and if you look above you can check the previous comments for more explanation: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/22979849?comment_id=22979850


My answer was correct and the other correct solution is exactly what I wrote. so A) maybe DL is expecting people no not include the は, maybe? and B) do I get two points for having the answer and the alternate answer at the same time?


Without copying and pasting your answer or taking a screenshot of it and sharing it here, no one can offer you any advice about what happened.


住ん doesnt have any audio for most of the excercises recently, including this one

Learn Japanese in just 5 minutes a day. For free.