"It is not a bathtub."
Just on a cursory search, I find many uses of furo without the Keigo "o" in casual and polite contexts. It has always been my understanding that use of Keigo honorifics is more for the listener or to show the speaker's graceful way of speaking, but not usually to honor the object. I would be glad to see better explanations, however.
For people really want to understand what で is underneath, it is one of the particle usage - "in/as a state of." So これはトイレです expands to これはトイレであります meaning "This exists as a concept/state of a toilet." In a more reader-friendly version, "This is a toilet."
Similarly, トイレではありません means "(This) does not exists as a concept of a toilet." The は in ではありません is a contrast marker particle stressing the negative fact.
トイレがあります means "A toilet exists." Note that the subject is different from トイレであります (implicitly これ is the subject - これは is omitted from the sentence). Using the same logic, トイレはありません is "A toilet does not exist." In other words, "There is no toilet."
I'm not sure I understand.
- これはトイレです = これはトイレであります (more polite?)
literally "This exists as a concept/state of a toilet." or "This is a toilet."
で means "in/as a state of" (what is す then?)
トイレであります - same as above but with implicit subject これ
- トイレではありません - implicit subject is これ
literally "(This) does not exist as a concept of a toilet." or "This is not a toilet."
は stresses the negation
- トイレはありません (what is the subject?)
literally "A toilet does not exist." or "There is no toilet."
- トイレがあります (what's the subject?)
"A toilet exists."
So with で it's about what something is (the first two cases), without about whether it exists or not (the last two cases).
What do you mean by "expands to"?
です is one word. Cannot decompose to で and す. This is a transformation from であります or でございます in the past times of the Japanese history. So です is actually a "short form" (i.e. expands to であります/でございます).
であります is not used often nowadays (except for keroro-gunso perhaps) but it is used to fill in the puzzle piece of ではありません vs はありません.
トイレはありません, トイレがあります (what is the subject?) - トイレ is the subject, same as English - A toilet does not exist.
あります means "exists," で(ありま)す means "is/am/are." "It is" is equivalent to saying "it exists as a state of." "There is an X" is equivalent to saying "X exists."
Therefore ありません means "does not exist/there is not" and ではありません means "does not exist as a state/it is not."
So like, the "ではありません" Could be used to convey humour... For example, a character is showed to a restroom and as it turns out, whomever's "restroom" is also somewhat of a sex dungeon. The character could reply with "トイレではありません。"
Whereas in another scenario, lets say the character is asking where the restroom is: "トイレはどこですか？" The waitress or whatever could reply with: "トイレがありません。" To say that there is no restroom.
So in short, が makes the assumption that the restroom is an existing thing (and therefore a noun), while で puts its existence into question.
(で here, being a shortened version of です. Not the particle で often used in denoting transportation.)
Was discussed in the following thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23146395$comment_id%3D31503821
The way I understand it, with で it's about what something is, without about whether it exists or not.
My confusion is that so far in the lesson, none of the Japanese sentences Duolingo has provided have had the "o" honorific, so how come it is required when we put the sentence together in Japanese? (In other words, how come Duolingo constructs sentences without the "o"/honorific, but requires the students/users to include it to be considered correct?) Seems like a weird inconsistency that needs fixing.
The O is honorific and is used with the object. For example, O-hashi (honorific chopsticks) O-tousan(honorific father), O-kaasan(honorific mother), O-baasan(honorific grandma) O-kane(お金 honorific money) O-shiri(お尻 honorific hip) I'm not sure why some words are honorific and others aren't but bathtub happens to be one of them.
There are two types of usage with the honorifics お（御）/ご（御）/み（御）/おん（御）/ぎょ（御）.
One is customary usage, where the described noun may or may not need to be honored. e.g. お箸（はし）"chopsticks"、お寺（てら）"temple"、ご飯（はん）"rice"、御曹司（おんぞうし）"son of a rich family"、御霊（みたま）"holy spirit"、御苑（ぎょえん）"emperor's garden"
Another usage is to honor the subject of the sentence. Note that it can be different from the listener, but with lack of context, we simply assume the listener is the subject of the sentence. e.g. お名前（なまえ） "your name"、お子（こ）さま "your child"、ご機嫌（きげん）"your mood"、御社（おんしゃ） "your company"、御意（ぎょい）"your will"
The noun お風呂 (おふろ) does not need a particle when used with the です verb. Think of it in English. When we say "x is y," y isn't the direct object or anything, because "is" (a form of "to be") is a linking verb. It doesn't have a direct object. In Japanese just remember that です doesn't use a particle for the noun that you are connecting it to.
It's all in the "de". "Arimasu/Arimasen" are to exist and to not exist. "Desu" is to exist, but.. Where everything has an "en" precedent for negation, it's hard to imagine what it would be, considering "desen" just sounds downright wrong. That's were "de wa arimasen" comes in. Someone else I the comments explained it as more literally being "it does not exist as a bathtub."
See the following thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23146395$from_email%3Dcomment&comment_id%3D31503821
The romanization of the sound ろ as "ro" is only an approximation of what the "r" sound is in Japanese, and it doesn't equate easily with the "r" sound in English. I can understand why you think it sounds like a "jy" sound - some people think it sounds like "fudo," some like "fujyo," and some like "fuyo." But really, it sounds like ろ, which isn't quite the same as "ro" in English, and it takes quite some time to train one's ear to understand.
Do you mean, pronunciation-wise? In Japanese, the sound that is indicated with a romaji "r" isn't actually an "r" sound - the sound is actually something between an "r" and an "l" (a sound that, for instance, as a native English-speaker, I can not actually replicate and I'm pretty sure I don't even hear it correctly when I'm in Japan, listening to Japanese people make that sound.) So, when you hear "fuyo," (I hear something slightly different from "fuyo," but I understand what you mean) the program is probably actually pronouncing the hiragana with the correct Japanese sound, but since other languages don't necessarily have that sound, when Japanese gets transliterated into romaji characters, they use an "r" as a stand-in for a sound that's not-quite-r, if that makes sense? So "ro" sounds like "yo" in this context to you, and sort of like "fulyo" to me.
I think so, but it's super informal. Better to nail down the polite ones if you plan on interacting with native speakers, because I imagine that should be pretty rude. I told understand, though, in coining back to Duolingo after awhile and "janai" is directly what my terrible weeb past conjured up faster than anything is learned here. Oh, high school.
Because 「おふろでありません」doesn't mean "it isn't a bathtub". It kind of sounds like "it's not in the bathtub", but で would still be the wrong particle for that, since it points to the location of an activity, not a passive state of being.
ではありません on the other hand, is the polite/formal negative for "it is not". This can also be contracted into じゃありません, or written slightly less formal as ではないです or じゃない（です）.
The romanization of the sound ろ as "ro" is only an approximation of what the "r" sound is in Japanese, and it doesn't equate easily with the "r" sound in English. Some people think it sounds like "fudo," some like "fujyo," and some like "fuyo." But really, it sounds like ろ, which isn't quite the same as "ro" in English, and it takes quite some time to train one's ear to understand.
I think much of the confusion would be cleared up for people if the learner here just added the understood noun that was left out, i.e., Are, sore, kore, that/this (thing) is not a bathtub. Sore wa ofuro de wa arimasen. So, when you read this sentence, add in your mind the rightly left out, but necessary for understanding word for the thing (Are, sore, or kore) referred to by the phrase. Or to use the toilet example. Sono toire wa ofuro dewa arimasen.
It might be easier, but it wouldn't recognize the reality that Japanese is fundamentally different and finds it perfectly acceptable to drop what English might consider the subject of a sentence. If you look at the top comment thread here, you see a literal translation, something like "bathtub isn't present". Of course, this makes no sense in English, so you need to fill in the necessary structure of English. If you tried to make a literal translation in the opposite direction you would get something equally awkward. I understand wanting to make this process easier for language learners, but you can't force the rules of English onto Japanese as you'd only be teaching some strange construction instead of a more natural sentence.
You misunderstand me. I mean if people doing the lessons added in their heads the missing noun then the sentence makes perfect sense without the horrible convoluted explanations used above. We leave out things in English all the time too which are understood by the experienced speaker. I will edit my sentence for clarity. And thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my explanation.
Can you give an example of the horrible convoluted explanation? Anyways, you're saying that people take ofuro for the subject, and have a hard time understanding the sentence? Well, I never had this misconception. Or so I think. So actually, it's best to have someone who had confirm whether your explanation helps.
The "missing" noun and therefore subject to which I refer can't be "ofuro" as you suggest since that is already in the sentence Duolingo provides; rather, it is the thing not mentioned that is understood by the imagined two people having a vocabulary lesson in a bathroom. The teacher asks the learner which thing is an "ofuro" and the learner points the toilet and turns to the teacher with a hopeful look. The teacher shakes his head and says, "ofuro dewa arimasen" leaving out "sore wa" at the beginning of his sentence because we do that all the time when the "subject" is understood.
I think most beginners just look at ありません and translate straightly to "There is." おふろ is not even a subject in English for both cases (おふろではない vs おふろはない) so people expect では and は does mot make much difference. Therefore all the repeated question why "it is" not "there is" and vice versa.
For beginners the best way is to memorize ではありません="is not" as a whole, not breaking it apart. Also make ありません="There is (not I have)" a complete different concept as ではありません.
And I agree that it is of utmost importance to understand in Japanese subjects are omitted half of the times but in English it is necessary to have a subject most of the times. We can explicitly add a subject when we begin learning a new sentence structure, but ultimately we have to gradually remove it to make sentence more natural. I think the course contents are already designed like this and there is also a good community support in this course to help people understand (just that people tend not to read the discussions).
If you are trying to translate "It is not a bathtub", no, your answer is not correct.
The translation should be like "これは浴槽ではありません (casually 浴槽じゃない) Witch is sentence is talking about what the thing is not (not bathtub).
お風呂"が"ありません is pointing out what is not there. "There is no bathtub".
I have heard yubune and furooke, but お風呂 seems to work just fine as well. Every source I can find translates it as "bath" or "bathtub", but not washing your body or taking a bath. In fact, many translators/dictionaries will specifically point out that お風呂 often refers to a place you do not wash, just the place to soak. Further, "taking a bath" seems to be better translated as お風呂に入る.
The らりるれろ characters (ra ri ru re ro) are a unique pronunciation, not replicated in English. We use an 'r' to represent it in Romanji, but its normally kind of a combination between an 'r', 'd' and 'l' sound, all blended together. When you have a native speak it, it gets slurred further from this unique sound and starts getting a little wacky sometimes (sounding like a 'j'). Any time you see these, listen extra carefully and just "monkey see, monkey do", and eventually you'll figure out how its shifted here or there and have pretty good pronunciation without having to hear it said first. Just don't give it a hard 'R' pronunciation and you should be good.
In linguistics, the consonant sounds referred to are Liquids. English separates them into /r/ at the back of the mouth and /l/ near the front of the mouth. Some languages like Greek also have /ʎ/ which is a little forward of the middle. Japanese treats it all as one sound unit and while it tends to be spoken further back in the mouth there's a lot of dialect and individual fluctuation because Japanese in general considers it one sound unit instead of splitting it.
English speakers have the same issue with the aspirated and unaspirated consonants because we tend to treat it as one sound unit, but in Korean they are separate phonemes.