1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Japanese
  4. >
  5. "いいえ、ペットはいません。"


Translation:No, there are no pets.

June 16, 2017



Why cannot we say "It is not a pet." in this case?

I do not see any there phrase.


"It is not a pet" (i.e. it is something else than a pet) would be ペットはじゃないです.

います and いません mean "there is / there is not" (for living things), while です and じゃないです or じゃありません mean "it is / it is not".

The last word above is not to be confused with あります ("there is" for non-living things) and it's negative form ありません. Well, it certainly confused me. ;)


...is there a better way to phrase "there's not a pet" because it felt really weird/awkward


I put "No, I don't have pets" and it accepted that.


Thank you, I was about to ask it that sentence would be told like this too (because I thought so) :) #yay


You could say "there is no pet" or use the plural "there are no pets".


Yeah, i almost pluralized my answer, but started to question myself. Sometimes i like to be a jerk and say things like "there are 5 ninja in the tree." or "i have watched 200 anime." just to make my fellow Americans squirm from the lack of an "S." Usually, no one cares or notices...


Well, I hate it when people say PokémonS, I think there's something to them being like sheep and fish, they're loanwords.


Shouldn't "it is not" be ではありません? I'm sorry if I could be mistaken


You're right, it could be ではありません (dewa arimasen) or じゃないです (ja nai desu), but "wa ja nai" is not correct.


Is it correct to say (ペットでわない)?


If you want to say "it's not a pet", you can say ペットでない (the "wa" is actually a particle, so it's は instead of わ).


The exact translation is "no, pet does not exist." which translates more "to there is no pet" in general instead of pointing something out as specifically "it is not a pet". I hope this helps.


Thanks, it does :)


I used 'I do not have a pet,' because from what I've seen, usually when no one is specified, its considered to be talking about one's self. I believe that's closer to what they most likely mean.


If I understood it correctly いません meas "there is not"


That would be ペットでわない。


Closer, but unfortunately still a miss: ペットではない or ペットじゃない. :) は is pronounced as わ when used as a particle, but not written as such. And じゃ is simply a contraction of では.


The main exception I've seen is こんにちわ, which is basically a "cute" way to misspell it.


I thought we were supposed to use が with ある/いる verbs.


Yes, generally you do. That's because が indicates the subject, or the thing which does the verb.

However, as Tanja rightly points out, は is often used with their negative forms to add emphasis.

This is possible because は is not simply the topic particle, but it can also be the topic particle plus the role of whatever particle it replaces, in this case が. In earlier exercises, we saw 「お茶は飲みません」 where は took over the role of を for added emphasis.


I read in another comment section that はis used with their negative forms. It's news for me too!


"No, There is not a pet" is an unnatural sentence. "No, I do not have a pet" is a better (If less exact) translation


But in this case, without a proper context, you cannot say if this sentence is "There are no pets" or "I dont have pets". If we translate as literal as possible, it should be "there are no pets" , while for "I dont have pets" would be "ペットは持っていません". Another story would be if we have a context.


ペットはいません is common Japanese for "I don't have pets", just like かぞくがいます means "I have a family". ペットは持っていません sounds much too literal, like "I'm not holding a pet".


Anyway i wrote "no, I don't have pets" and duolingo marked it right, so it accepts both translations


Yay!! Peacemaker!!!!(´・ω・`)


Actually for actually having and owning pets its 飼っている


飼っている is one way to talk about having/owning pets. As @Alcedo-Atthis said, using just いる/います is common in Japanese.

In fact, just using いる is probably the more natural of the two. The connotation of it is that you consider your pet as part of your family (because that's how you would describe your family members), so it seems more endearing than 飼っている which seems to emphasize your responsibility (as the owner) for the pet. I might be reading a little too much into it since I'm not a native speaker, but both verbs are equally correct.


Sure people will understand you but using いる/ている isnt more natural. Every japanese person around me uses 飼っている for owning a pet and not just saying there is a pet.


I have to say in my case people usually use いる with me, but those people are usually elementary school aged children, and I don't know if age makes a difference in their word choice.


you don't even know japanese and complain about the sentences


Why is it "pets" and not "pet"? I wrote "No I have no pet" and it marked it wrong because i should have written "No I have no pets"? How do I know that it is the plural form?


Because in english, living things are stated in plural by default.

I have no children We have no pets There are no animals in this park There are no bees in that hive There are no ants in the nest


I thought that you could only use が with います and あります.


You can only use が for います and あります, and not を. However, は is a bit of an exception, because it can indicate the topic and fulfill the grammatical role of a particle it replaces, which you can do for emphasis. We've seen this before in other exercises, like おちゃはのみません.

So in this case, は is kind of は and が at the same time.


thank you, you've earned my lingot


How i can say "I don't have pets" in japanese?


With the verb 持つ (もつ): ペットは持っていません。


Although it's not incorrect, that has the implication of "I'm not carrying a pet with me right now". It's similar to this example:

A: "Can I borrow a pen?" ペンを貸してくれませんか?

B: "No, I don't have a pen on me" いいえ、今、ペンは持っていません。

To say "I don't have a pet" and mean "I don't own a pet", you could simply say the exercise sentence (ペットはいません), or to be more specific, you could say ペットは飼(か)っていません, where 飼っていません means "to not currently keep/feed (an animal)"


My first thought was: "No, I do not have pets." - as there is no watashi 私 or anything specifing the pronoun (e.g. I, you, we ...). Plus in almost all other sample sentences "I" was used in the translation.


So, 'that is not a pet' would be 'peto wa dewa arimasen'? Apologies for the romanji.


Minus the first 'wa', you are correct.


I thought it would be "imasen" because at pet is a living creature?


Aye, いません is used for living creatures, but with ペットではありません we're talking about something that is clearly not a pet. (says so in the statement after all!) :)

Jokes aside, ペット is a regular noun with no 'living or dead' distinction required in this case. ではありません is the formal negation of です, which is the auxiliary verb "to be" (i.e. "to be something", not the existential "to be or not to be" kind). So the positive version of this sentence, "that is a pet", would be ペットです, not ペットはいます (since that means "there is/are (a) pet(s)").


No, I do not own a pet should have been correct.


they should allow "there are no pets" on its own...


I put that also, without the "No" at the beginning and got it wrong.


The Japanese is a person presumably answering a yes/no question. "No, there aren't any pets." When you don't translate the いいえ, you're changing the meaning of the sentence.

いいえ、ペットはいません。 (iie, petto wa imasen)

No, there aren't any pets.

ペットはいません。 (petto wa imasen)

There aren't any pets. / There are no pets.


I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly after reading what others said, but from what I was taught growing up and in school, you can only use います if the subject is a living thing (animal or human) and あります if it is inanimate. Therefore saying ペットはありません kind of sounds like you are saying your pet is dead or imaginary


Yup, you're mostly right. As a general rule of thumb the living/non-living divide is pretty close to animate/inanimate, but it's not quite the same.

います/あります follows the animate/inanimate line of thinking, so things like plants (which are living but inanimate) use あります, and zombies (which are animate but non-living) use います.

However, rather than sounding like your pet is dead or imaginary, ペットはありません just sounds ungrammatical because anything you would have as a pet is generally animate (or would be described in an animate way, e.g. a pet rock).


"no, there's no pets" is wrong. Did my english fail or Duolingo did?


Pets is plural, so the verb is "are" instead of the singular "is". "No, there are no pets."


Why is the translation "There are no petS" (Not exactly like that tho) but not "why is there no pet(Without S)", how do we differentiate when there are multiple or single something in Japanese?


Both should be correct. Japanese in general doesn’t differentiate between singular and plural.


Where would you use this sentence? Is it usable in terms of "no pets allowed (in this hotel)"?


No, the notion being allowed/disallowed isn't part of this verb, only whether pets exist or not.

The most basic situation you would use this sentence is in response to the question "do you have any pets?"


I remember that "は" means that the Pet is the objective, then why wasn't "no pet is there" accepted?


No, は indicates that "pet" is the topic of the sentence. Arguably though, "no pet is there" is a pretty close translation for ペットはいません, which I would probably accept.

However, the sentence in this exercise is 「いいえ、ペットはいません」so you would have to say "no, no pet is there", which makes it sound considerably less natural in English.


when to use imasen and arimasen?


いません is for animate things (people, animals).

ありません is for nonanimate things (food, furniture, plants).


Why won't it allow "there's no pets"? It's actually far more common for natural English speakers (like myself) to say that rather than "there are no pets" smh


For me as a native speaker, if the sentence was something like "there's no pets allowed", I hear what you're saying, but to say "there's no pets in the house" sounds wrong to my ear, which would be more the context that this sentence is using. Maybe we speak different dialects.


i put " i do not have a pet " but he doesn't accept it


You need to translate the word いいえ (iie, no) at the beginning of your sentence.


"No there is no pets" should be accepted. It is the same in meaning as "no there are no pets"


Mfw you pick three instead of there smh.


We have to make some guesses for translating short sentences like this without context. Is it safe to assume that "I" should be the subject for translation exercises, unless specified otherwise?


Yes, usually "I" is the default for a statement and "you" is the default for a question. Other pronouns are also correct, but are only accepted if someone submitted an error report to get the other pronouns added, so "I" is the safe option.


I don't undersand, why to use the particle は and not が?


It's not something you need to worry about too much as a beginner. Suffice it to say that が (usually) indicates the "subject" or the "doer" of the verb in the sentence, and は can also do this to add emphasis (by elevating the "subject" to the "topic" of the sentence). This often happens for negatives and questions.

If you really want to find out more, check out Tae Kim's Guides among other useful resources on le Google.


There is no pets is wrong?


MelSuwako asked a similar question if you check the previous comments: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23114473?comment_id=32087252


What a sad way to live.


Do you guys know how to say "dogs are better than people"?


You could say something like 人間より犬のほうがいいです (ningen yori inu no hou ga ii).


I wrote, "No there's no pets". While the English grammar is not technically correct, why wasn't this accepted?


the English grammar is not technically correct

No, there are no pets.

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