Translation:There is a table in front of me.
Since the subject is not defined, why wouldn't this also be "It's in front of the table"? Does the particle に change the meaning?
Actually there's nothing wrong with this sentence. Japanese infer most of their meaning. Unlike in English they don't like to spell out every noun or subject. "There is a table in front of." Doesn't make sense in English. But in Japanese, they see the subject as obvious from the context of a conversation so there's no need to spell it out. In this case there is no conversation, so the most likely noun is "me". You will see unfinished sentences all the time, especially if you are actually talking to Japanese people versus studying it. You'll want to get good at infering meaning. Japanese don't like long winded explanations like this one. Hope this helps.
In fact, there is nothing wrong with each of sentences. But I can not know that these sentences have same meaning. Certainly if the table is in front me, I just say 'There is a table in front.' Because everybody knows the situation. I do not need to explain.
But how do I know the place where the table? Just by the sentence '前にテーブルがあります。'? What in front of?
I do not have supernatural power.
I ask all you. Somewhere in the U.K. or U.S.A. or so. There are a wife and a husband. She drinks coffee everyday. Does He say, 'Do you drink a cup of coffee?' every morning ? I assume that he maybe say 'coffee?'. She can understand he says meaning. She can understand He said to whom. Different?
Yes. If the husband and wife and kids are eating breakfast and the husband asks the wife, coffee, she will understand that he is asking her, if she would like some coffee, or any variation of the question. She knows he is asking her because the kids don't drink coffee.
And 'わたしの' is different from 'わたしは'. So it is not need to omit, I think.
It is different because what she drinks the coffee out of doesn't matter, it can be out of a cup or even a shoe, the question isn't about the container, it's about drinking coffee.
In this case, what the table is in front of does matter, it's the whole point of the sentence.
Yes, it is point of the sentence. So I think it should be written concretely 'わたしの前'.
They're not saying that the meaning is wrong, just that it's ambiguous as to whether there is something in front of the table or if you are in front of it because there is no context
'There is a table in front of me.'
If I transrate 'わたしの 前に テーブルが あります。'
Why 'of me' is omitted I do not know.
"It's in front of the table" I studied as 'それは テーブルの 前に あります'(perhaps)
Excuse me. I can not fully understand the sentences you wrote. My English skill is low. Especially, 'threw a loop'? Does that mean that you raise a problem?
I am studying English at Duolingo. Sometimes I see the following conversation.
"I can not understand the situation when this English sentence was used." "It depends on the context, this English sentence is grammatically correct. But the meaning will change depending on the sentences before and after." Is your opinion related to this?
"Threw me for a loop" is an idiomatic expression meaning "(something) confused me," usually in a startlingly unexpected way. I hope that helps! I cannot speak for Hibaさん's comment otherwise.
... thats not lesrning Japanese though ... If Im just learning how to deal with the system
Thank the maker!! I was thinking that I sucked Hiba. The structuere of this sentence needs an update.
I'm not sure how the Japanese context would apply, but "there is a table in front" would be an appropriate response to someone searching for a table, and being told where they could find one. It makes me think that the table is in front of something pretty obvious, like a house or a room. This is just one way I can think of that being used, I'm sure there are others. Perhaps that helps?
Did they skip the introduction to new kanjis? Because Im just guessing the meaning
This kanji has been introduced previously as part of "namae" (name) and as part of "gozen" (a.m., more literally "before noon"), which is why the introduction here is missing. We are just learning a new function of it.
I keep on seeing this as "I am in front of a table." How would that be stated?
That would depend on the conjugation of the verb: "arimasu" is present or future tense, while "arimashita" is past. This interpretation is incorrect because "mae" acts as a noun here, and with the "ni" it becomes "in front of". A more complete sentence would be "Watashi no mae ni teeburu ga arimasu", but the "watashi" is implied and thus omitted. To say "There was a table", you would say "Teeburu ga arimashita". I have no Japanese keyboard so I hope you understand the romaji.
How do i know whether I am i front of the table, or the the table is in front of me?
Is saying 'I am behind the table' also ok? Or would that mean I don't understand what the subject in this sentence is?
Why would "There is a table in front" be incorrect? Can anyone explain this?
It is not just a matter of が or は (although the general rule of thumb is that the former corresponds more often to "a" and the latter to "the") but also many other things, especially the verb. あります ("there is/are") is often used to introduce new things that haven't been mentioned before, and in such situations English tends to use "a", and Japanese が. In other situations, が can be used about things that are well-known and/or unique, and therefore merit an English "the", simply because they are not the immediate topic of discussion (maybe they were topic a few sentences ago).