1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Japanese
  4. >
  5. "ここにあります。"


Translation:It is over here.

June 10, 2017



Why do you use the "に" particle here and not in other sentences?


The "に" particle is generally used for location, and "here" is a location.


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.


Descartes would be proud.


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.


adding to the confusion on the subject, would で be also accepted? as in ”ここであります” or does that have different implications?


There are possibly two schools of thought on this.

  1. 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)

  2. 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).


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.


Then what about です?


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.


@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".


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?


Why is the に not necessary here ? Shouldn't it be ここにです ?


@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 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.


Silly question then. How is Pinocchio referred to?


Well, before he moves and speaks, go for arimasu. After he becomes alive, imasu :p


So if it was "koko ni iimasu" it would be accepted?


Yes, but be careful with your spelling. います (imasu) means "to be" for animate objects, but 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".)




So... ここです and ここにあります are the same?


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.


Why can't it also be "it is right here"?


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.


It accepted "here it is" for me


It did not for me :(


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.


could it be " it's right here " too?


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 put "It is right here" and was marked wrong.


Two questions: A) How would you say: "where do there exist books?" B) Could you respond to (A) with: "ここにある" meaning "they exist here."?


what's the difference between arimasu, imasu, and desu?


Why not 'koko desu'? It is here?


I believe ここです should also work for "It's here." Try reporting it.



why "it is over here" and not "it is here" ? ( im not english)


wouldn't "this is the place" be acceptable?


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?


Why does this app ask me to translate stuff it hasn't taught me yet?!


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 (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"


"Ni" is a particle indicating time and direction


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


is "The place is over here" wrong?


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".


I got this one right, but it decided i got it wrong....


"It's in here." Not accepted. Where did "over" come from? If "in" specifically means contained by (i.e. in the room, in the refrigerator)... wouldn't "over" be equally inappropriate?


Is ここあります correct? Do I have to use に on this case?


No, you are generally expected to use に. You might be understood without it, but it isn't a particle most native speakers drop.


Would there be a difference if I was to say "it is here (in this room)" or "it is here (in this box)"? Would both be 「ここにあります」?


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? :)


Is "This is the place" a legitimate alternative interpretation? I tried it just to see and Duo did not approve.


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".


Thanks. Duo's dictionary gave これは場所です for "this is the place", but that seems more like the literal no-context translation.


You're welcome.

Yeah, I would say that that ここは場所です is more like "this is a place", because 場所 means "place or location". And yes, it is a pretty redundant sentence.


Is there a problem if i translate this with a shortening of "It's" vs "it is"?


would ここに be a casual way to say this?


That could be more conversational, but generally, more casual would be ここにある because you're using the plain form.


I'm confused about the meaning/use of arimasu in this context. Can someone explain?


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.


Could this also be translated as "Here I am"


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.


Can it be translated by "right over here"?


why not "it is in here" ?


is "there is one here" wrong?


I understand the sentence : ここにあります. As: "Can it be understood this way?


I think you're misunderstanding 'あります.' From what I've read, it should mean 'it exists.' so ’ここにあります’ would roughly translate to 'it exists here.'


Is it incorrect to say "it is in here"


Where the ❤❤❤❤ comes this from


How do you say 'it is not over here?'


How to say ' it is not over here? '


I hate when duoling doesn't recognize a visual reversing between is and it


Why did it marked it as a mistake when I wrote 'it's' instead of 'it is'.

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