Translation:It is over here.
80 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
It's not quite that simple. You don't always use に after a location.
に can be used to show location of an object or target destination of a verb; so it can be thought of as "at/in" or "to". In this case, あります doesn't indicate movement, so the "to" translation doesn't work.
Literally, this sentence is "here (=ここ) at (=に) exists (=あります)" with the subject "it" being implied, which becomes "it exists at this place", or "it is here" in normal English.
There are possibly two schools of thought on this.
Simply, で is wrong. で is used to indicate the location at which an action occurs. Since あります is a "stative" verb, as in "existing" is not an action that you do (to something) but rather it describes whether something is in the state of "existing" or not, you can't use で with あります. (For a better example/discussion of the difference between action and stative (referred to as "change verbs" in the link) verbs: https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/23317/activity-verbs-vs-change-verbs)
であります is unnatural in modern Japanese for unknown historical reasons, but it's not "wrong" because it's functionally identical to です. You can see the connection to です through its negative form ではありません and its more formal/humble form でございます (since ございます is the humble form of あります).
@Deivisony yes, です was historically an abbreviation of ではあります, but it's no longer thought of in those terms. You can kind of reason it out this way though:
で can indicate the means by which something is done (e.g. バスで行く = "I go by bus"). あります means "to exist", so Xではあります can be thought of as "to exist by being X" or "to exist in the state of X". A "state" of X is always inanimate (it is or it isn't), regardless of what X is.
I don't if this makes any sense, and I have no idea whether the logic of the language actually was conceived this way, but it makes sense to me.
So ここです and ここにあります practically mean the same thing? At least in this case. I understand that they have a different range of meanings when translated to English. Like the example above, ここです can mean "I am here" but ここにあります could never do this since ある only works for inanimate objects. They could both mean "It is here" or "It exists here".
@Wobb-Holmes because です and あります are fundamentally different verbs and they interact with the implied subject differently, though I'll admit it's a pretty subtle difference.
(～は)ここにあります: as previously stated, あります means "to be" and thus can be equated to "is" in this translation. However, the actual usage of あります translates more closely to "to exist". With that in mind, the role of the subject is that of the actor, or the thing doing the existing. ここに is then required to indicate that the thing is doing its existing at/in this location.
(～は)ここです: in this case, です equates more directly to "to be", also being a copula. Rather than saying that the subject is doing something here, ここです directly says the subject is here, the concept of the subject and this location are the same thing.
No, I don't think "it is near here" would work. While it's true that ここ implies the general vicinity around the speaker, it points to a specific location near the speaker. "Near here" describes a range of possible locations and Japanese has a specific way to make that distinction, i.e. この近く or この辺.
Yes and no. As has been mentioned above, ここです has a wider range of possible meanings, since ここにあります needs an inanimate (non-living) subject. So whenever you want to say ここにあります you could instead say ここです, but you can't always go the other way; sometimes when you want to say ここです you can instead say ここにあります, but sometimes you must rather change it into ここにいます.
Arguably yes, although I feel that there's something subtly different added to the sentence by "right". That said, Duo's official answer is "It is over here" which is subtly different again. I may be overthinking it a little, but there are definitely ways to differentiate those two alternatives in Japanese (none of which are being done in the given Japanese sentence).
The difference in English? "There" refers to a location that is not near the speaker, whereas "here" refers to a location that is. On the other hand, "that" refers to an object that is not near the speaker, and "this" refers to an object that is.
In Japanese, it's a little more complicated. For a location near the speaker, we say ここ, and for an object near the speaker, we say これ. So far, so normal. However, for locations and object that are not near the speaker, Japanese has two words depending on if it is also near the listener or not:
- near to the listener = そこ (location), それ (object)
- far from the listener = あそこ (location), あれ (object)
I would tentatively say no, it's not acceptable because of に indicating "at/in this place" rather than "is this place", and a subtle difference in topic (which is very difficult to explain). I'm more than happy for someone to convince me otherwise though, because I went back and forth a few times before finishing this comment.
I think you mean ここまでだ (which sounds pretty typical of a fighting game), because までら doesn't make sense.
It doesn't "imply" anything, so much as outright change the meaning of the sentence. まで is an particle/word meaning "until" and だ is the plain (read: rough) form of です. So the sentence ここまでだ literally means "here until is", or in slightly more normal English "It's until here".
But what's "it"? The implication in the Japanese sentence is "the listener's progress", leading to the proper translation: "This is as far as you go (because I'm gonna beat ya!)"
As a translation, it's not necessarily but without any more context to go off of, you can't say that it's "right" either.
From a learning perspective, I would say that it's wrong because you're adding too much of your own context to it. In this sentence, there's nothing to indicate what exactly is over here, so the generic "it" is preferable to the specific "the place".
Good question. Yes, both could be ここにあります and there's no real difference in meaning. However, whether it sounds natural or not really depends on the context, what you want to emphasize, and to an extent, perspective.
Let's start with "it's here (in this room)". Generally, rooms are things that can comfortably fit a person inside, as well as other things.
- As a person who is inside a room, most of the time when indicating where an object is, you don't really need to emphasize the "insideness" of the object; usually, you might think of things as being beside you or near the wall or something. So, in these situations, ここにあります is perfectly adequate.
- Alternatively, you might want to emphasize the "insideness" of the object, for example of you've hidden it somewhere. In this case, you would want to modify ここ (here) to include "inside", ここの中【なか】 ("here's inside") or この部屋の中 ("this room's inside").
- But what if you're not inside the room? (Whaaa? Then you can't use ここ, right?) What if you were significantly bigger than the room? Maybe you're talking about a doll's house or you're looking at a floor plan of the room. It's a small shift in perspective, but now, rather than emphasizing the object being "inside" the room, it's easier to think of the room "containing" or "encompassing" the object. To that end, you would change the verb from あります (simply "exists") to 入っています【はいっています】which is the present progressive form of 入る, meaning "to enter" or "to contain/accommodate".
You can go through the same process with the box. In most cases though, you will be significantly bigger than the box and you'll want to emphasize that the object is contained within it. You could combine both changes to get この箱【はこ="box"】の中に入っています.
All of that being said, ここにあります will work and be understood in both cases, but why learn a language if you don't learn to express yourself, right? :)
I think it could be a possible translation in the right context, but I agree with Duo's rejection of it. The emphasis doesn't feel like it matches well because the に implies that something other than the place itself is in/at "this place".
A more natural way to say "This is the place" is simply ここです, which implies something is "this place".
No, あります is specifically for inanimate objects. Things like people, such as yourself, and animals are animate objects. Generally speaking, things that are able to move of their own volition are considered animate, so for example plants, while living, are not considered animate and vampires, while undead, are.
They are opposite directions,
"There" points away from the speaker
"Here" points toward the speaker
"Over" in English usually just indicates a greater distance/a bit more general direction, "over there" if the location is far away from you and "over here" if your location is far from the listener.
While English only has directions for toward and away from the speaker, Japanese has three
ここ - Here - near the speaker
そこ - There - near the listener/away from the speaker
あそこ - There - away from both the speaker and the listener (more often has 'over' added to the translation to indicate greater distance)
ここ is "here" indicating a location near the speaker,
Used in this sentence to say "It is over here" with no specific subject mentioned, just the implied "it"
"That is over there" would be それはそこです or あれはあそこです
それ and あれ being pronouns "that" (near listener) and "that" (away from both)
and そこ being "there" (near listener) あそこ "over there" (away from both)