Translation:It is over here.
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.
If に is used as a destination target for a verb, what's the difference to へ in this regard?
に is location (at), へ is direction (towards). In casual speech, に is often also used as direction in some contexts.
Just to check, i answered "i am here" which wasnt accepted, and i can see why. But as a topic isnt stated, could it be interpreted as i did, or would the entence be different if talking about my own location?
Arimasu is the "to be" verb for inanimate objects. Imasu is the verb for animate objects.
As arimasu is used in this sentence it cannot refer to you as you are animate! Therefore the unspecified object must be an "it" rather than a who.
You could, depending on context. For example, "Where are you?" "ここです (I'm here)"
I don't know why you've been downvoted so hard... your example is 100% correct.
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".
But wasn't「です」the abreviation of「ではあります」? By so it would be incorrect and btw is there something like「ではいます」or with other endings?
@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.
Well, before he moves and speaks, go for arimasu. After he becomes alive, imasu :p
Yes, but be careful with your spelling. います (imasu) means "to be" for animate objects, but いいます (iimasu) means "to say"
I just said, "here," and it corrected me to "Here it's." Which is incorrect grammar if I ever saw it.
This is by the way, but "Here it's" (or "There he's" - "Here she's" etc.) is perfectly correct in the west of Scotland. (In the north-east they say "Here's it".)
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.
Would "it is near here" work? I understand that near is different to over here, but I want to make sure.
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.
Im confused. Someone can explain in spanish? Because to be.. Is 'ser o estar' in spanish...
Ktakn, Todavía estoy aprendíendo español, pero lo intentare. "Imasu" es para objectos animados: personas, animales, etc. ( No confuda "imasu" con "iimasu", lo que significa "decir" ). "Arimasu" se utiliza para objectos inanimados: libros, muebles, jardin, etc.
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).
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 read this as "Here is the place", is that literally what it means?
Ponyosquid: (l am wondering how you came up with your username. lol) But to possibly answer your question, I also get a little frustrated with this sometimes, so now I guess, or I look it up online, which is very easy to do, and then I don't get marked wrong : ) For me, it forces me to make a little extra effort, which makes it more likely that I will remember it. Usually dl then uses it again in the next sentance. So even if I get it wrong the first time, this will impress it better upon my memory. It seems to be a planned part of their teaching approach. Like when, as a child or teen, I would ask my mother what a word meant, and instead of telling me the meaning, she would say, "Look it up in the dictionary". A wise choice, although sometimes annoying. : )
Can anyone explain the difference between ここ and ここまでら? What does the までら imply about the 'here'. I heard this from a character in a Japanese fighting game long ago :D (a million lingots to anyone who can name it).
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!)"
Chidz5, shouldn't you pay up and give Joshua at least one lingot out of your million? : ))
Can someone please explain to me the difference between "there" and "here" and between "that" and "this" ??
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 think a more direct, if more cumbersome, translation would be something like "that thing, it exists right here"
Why do the listening texts have to be the same sentences you already did.
After a while i believe it just trains short term memory and not actual Japanese listening comprehension
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".