Translation:I'm in trouble. My wallet is missing.
こまりました = trouble had started (but used to describe the present in relation to an event)
こまっています = I am in trouble (い indicating present)
こまっていました = I was in trouble (current form of being, but in the past... if that makes sense? You were in trouble at that moment in the past)
It seems that all of the comments thus far are in regards to the first sentence. I am actually confused by the second sentence though. I fail to understand how "さいふがありません" translates to "My wallet is missing". Shouldn't it rather be: "My wallet isn't (does not exist" or more naturally sounding "I don't have my wallet"?
"My wallet does not exist" sounds different to me as "I don't have my wallet." Look at the following example -
- There is a table. (or equivalently A table exists.) （テーブルがあります）
- I have a table. （テーブルを持っています）
So similarly 財布がありません (My wallet does not exist, or my wallet is missing.) is different from 財布を持っていません (I do not have my wallet.)
Would you use 持つ if you aren't actually carrying the table? I was under the impression that 持つ only means have if you are carrying something, either physically (like a wallet) or metaphorically (e.g. to have insurance). Wouldn't you use ある if you aren't actually carrying the table?
Wow, I can't believe this translation has been live on the net for a year now. Worst translation I've seen so far anywhere.
First of all 困る doesn't mean to be in trouble. This is a basic Japanese word that you will hear very frequently. It's on every drama. It means to be upset. Simple, folks!
When something goes missing, you don't say xxがありません. You say ｘはなくなった。財布がない simply means, the wallet is not there. So the correct translation is: I'm upset. The wallet isn't there. I get the feeling that this question was ripped from a movie subtitle. Not cool.
Nope, there's not much difference between a wallet and a purse other than one is owned by a man and one by a woman. I think maybe in the past they were designed differently but nowadays you can find plenty of purses that look identical to wallets, they just have a different name.
It's a pretty stupid distinction but I'd be surprised to hear a woman say she had a wallet or a man say he had a purse.
First, translating こまりました as in trouble in this context is ridiculous in English. It could be troubled or worried. Second, lost or missing may be the intended meaning but using ありません is more like not having or not being. Languages don't correlate literally but the distinction would help understand how words or phrases are used.
こまりました does not mean worried in any case. It can only mean "troubled." "Worried" is 心配（しんぱい）.
ありません does not necessarily mean "not have." It means "not exist" in the original meaning, and only from context one can derive this meaning to "not have." Definitely not appropriate to say "I do not have my wallet" in this case because it is more "I own the wallet but right now it is missing."
I am not sure why you would say "ridiculous" for "I am troubled." If you want a better word in this situation, consider "Dang/Fudge" (trying to be a bit more polite).
財布がありません (saifu ga arimasen) is more literally "there is no wallet".
あります (arimasu) means "there is" or "there are" in the sense that something exists (the expletive or existential there). In your sentence, "there" is a location (an adverb). I think what you're suggesting would be closer to 財布はそこにありません (saifu wa soko ni arimasen).
Yes Both こまる and わかる represent states, not actions. So using past tense (こまりました、わかりました) on these state verbs means that a state change has happened and now the subject is in the stated state. Using continuous tense (こまっています、わかっています) means the state is in effect. To write a past state, we must use the past continuous tense (こまっていました、わかっていました).