"It is not a bathtub."
Bathing is very culturally important to Japan. In Buddhism the act of bathing wasn't just to clean the body but to clean the soul. Many Buddhist temples had baths for purification, and many people would travel to temples just for bathing. Traditional Japanese furo that are like steamrooms were considered a luxury. It wasn't until the Edo period that bathhouses were created that gave commoners more access to this type of bathing, though having a bath in your own home was still something only the rich elite could afford until around the 1900s.
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.
I think that's right. It fits with the lessons I've learned so far.
Going to be using this as a rule of thumb until my mind naturally groks the nuance:
ではありません - Usually「 not 」... It is "not" a bathtub.
・はありません - If there's「 no で 」then there's "no" bathtub.
Haven't tested this against many examples yet. If it does more harm than good, downvote this to oblivion.
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.)
Ok, then why would the (wa) be placed between the (de) and (su). Like de.wa.a.ri.ma.se.n rather than wa.de.a.ri.ma.se.n?
So, (de) is a state of being and (wa) indicates topic/comparison/stress of the negetive. And if japanese doesn't have an exact way of constructing sentences, such as, watashi.no.ofuro.dewa.arimasen.yo. And ofuro.dewa.watshi.no.arimasen.yo Are they both correct? Why wouldnt you want to have the bathtub first to show that the real subject of the statment is the bathtub and not you?
Is it because the way something exisits is more important that what the comparison is? Such as, What state of being/existence>the way it is compared to the rest of the world?
But i suppose at the end of the day it's language and that is just the way japanese works. Who can say all the reasons why english is the way it is to the layman. Like all the ways we are communicating through data transfence on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Coming to particles, it is a long topic. I would rather not explain in full here because it is an advanced topic.
Think of it like English, there are different types of prepositions. For example, "I go to school at eight" - you can say "At eight, I go to school," but probably a bit strange for "To school, I go at eight."
It is similar in Japanese, it is not correct to say "Japanese doesn't have an exact way of constructing sentences." There are rules to follow and exceptions, just like English and any other languages.
Back to で and は. You need to say では not はで because で is a "case marker particle" and は is a "binding particle." A case marker particle normally attaches to a noun/noun equivalent, but binding particle attaches to a phrase. So で is marking the preceding noun as a state to be considered by the sentence's verb. は is actually saying the phrase "[noun]+で" is something to contrast/emphasize.
This seems like a good explanation. However, it seems to conflict with this one:
Was discussed in the following thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23146395$comment_id%3D31503821
The way I understand it, with で it's about what something is, without about whether it exists or not.
My confusion is that so far in the lesson, none of the Japanese sentences Duolingo has provided have had the "o" honorific, so how come it is required when we put the sentence together in Japanese? (In other words, how come Duolingo constructs sentences without the "o"/honorific, but requires the students/users to include it to be considered correct?) Seems like a weird inconsistency that needs fixing.
The O is honorific and is used with the object. For example, O-hashi (honorific chopsticks) O-tousan(honorific father), O-kaasan(honorific mother), O-baasan(honorific grandma) O-kane(お金 honorific money) O-shiri(お尻 honorific hip) I'm not sure why some words are honorific and others aren't but bathtub happens to be one of them.
There are two types of usage with the honorifics お（御）/ご（御）/み（御）/おん（御）/ぎょ（御）.
One is customary usage, where the described noun may or may not need to be honored. e.g. お箸（はし）"chopsticks"、お寺（てら）"temple"、ご飯（はん）"rice"、御曹司（おんぞうし）"son of a rich family"、御霊（みたま）"holy spirit"、御苑（ぎょえん）"emperor's garden"
Another usage is to honor the subject of the sentence. Note that it can be different from the listener, but with lack of context, we simply assume the listener is the subject of the sentence. e.g. お名前（なまえ） "your name"、お子（こ）さま "your child"、ご機嫌（きげん）"your mood"、御社（おんしゃ） "your company"、御意（ぎょい）"your will"
It's all in the "de". "Arimasu/Arimasen" are to exist and to not exist. "Desu" is to exist, but.. Where everything has an "en" precedent for negation, it's hard to imagine what it would be, considering "desen" just sounds downright wrong. That's were "de wa arimasen" comes in. Someone else I the comments explained it as more literally being "it does not exist as a bathtub."
See the following thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/23146395$from_email%3Dcomment&comment_id%3D31503821
The 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.
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.
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.
I wrote "furo wa arimasen" = wrong. correct: "o furo wa dewa arimasen". Now, I don't speak japanese (obviously), But, following what dl teaches us: "o" is used in positive sentences. So why here? And just two sentences before this one, "[noun] wa arimasen" was used in just zhis way, so why is this wrong, duolingo?
お is used as an honorific and for word beautification, it doesn't relate to whether the sentence is positive or negative. There are just some words more commonly written with the honorific than without and in some cases can change the meaning (such as when talking about someone else vs yourself).
What you're describing is actually two different sentences "
"(o)furo wa arimasen" お風呂はありません is wrong because that says "There is no bathtub", which uses the negative of the verb ある "exist"
The corrected answer is お風呂ではありません "(o)furo de wa arimasen" which means "It is not a bathtub" and uses the negative of です "is"