1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Japanese
  4. >
  5. "It is over there."

"It is over there."


July 1, 2017



Wouldn't あそこです work just as well here?


No because then you'd be saying "it is that place"


That's like saying "it is there" means "it is the place there": It technically could be interpreted that way, but no one in their right mind would legitimately. That's like one of those things that you laugh at because you thought of a funny second meaning that it has. あそこ doesn't strictly mean that place there. It's essence is over there, that place, pointing to where something is far from both parties. If someone asked you where an objectwas and you pointed and said あそこです they're not gonna look at you like you're a madman, because that is one of the meanings. I don't think there's any way you could interpret あそこです as "(it) is that place" if you thought about it hard enough. English translation doesn't do あそこです justice. It couldn't possibly mean "It's that place" unless you don't understand it.


あそこです worked for me, though now that i think about it, that sounds more like 'It is over there"

But either would probably work especially with context


If I understand correctly, あそこです would maybe imply to me that "it is that place over there", which is a little less general and has slightly different meaning from "it is over there".


What does the phrase "less general" mean to you?


A bit late but my 2 cents: It can be used in conversation, but the difference is between saying in English "It is over there" (the thing you're supposed to write), and just saying "Over there.". Less formal probably.


i think it's because あそこ is the direction where it is, rather than the thing that is


Okay. I think I get it now. Too many comments here when all I want to look for is why it can't just be あそこです。?

So you're only pointing to that place over there specifically instead of telling something that exists over there, thus あります is used. However, if the "it" is animate, then います should be used instead. This is a very good example to keep in mind. And I thank you Dúo!

But then again, it was followed by another example of "The restroom is over there." or トイレはあそこです。Now, you have a specific object that is (in that place) over there. I think the context of the given example is talking about the "it" that exists (in that place) over there and not about the place that is over there. Unless "あそこです" may also still be used to say and be understood as "It is over there", then I don't know what else to make of this, if we're just overthinking it.


If I have understood correctly, you can think of a room as a place. So トイレ could actually be that place over there, rather than just being in that place over there.

I hope someone will correct me if I have got this wrong.


I think あそこです would be fine for saying it in response to an abstract thing like a party or a fire or something. But あそこにあります more likely points to a tangible thing is over there, like a book or pen or something. So I think it really depends on what 'It' represents.


Yes it would. Actually if you download the listeninf from pimsleur i believe in lesson 5 or 6 you learn ここ and あそこ which both get a です and not a あります


Is the "a" at the beginning needed?


Asoko is farther away than soko. Like "there" vs "over there".


More accurately, そこ refers to a place near the listener (vs. ここ, a place near the speaker); あそこ refers to somewhere far from both the speaker and listener.

  • 1237

But why is "soko" marked wrong for this? Given the context shouldn't both be acceptable?


It should be acceptable but it seems that Duolingo has a strict "there" = "soko", "over there" = "asoko" rule


That is irritating, as that isn't practically how you would use those words. For the purpose of duolingo, i would think either should be counted as correct but somehow also teaching the difference.


ここ here (by me) そこ there (by you) あそこ over the (away from both of us)


why isn't「あそこにいます」 accepted ?


As the English sentence does not necessarily imply that "it" is inanimate this should be accepted in my opinion.


It ought to be accepted, because the question is ambiguous. Report


"ni" is used for a direction or destination. Arimasu means an inanimate object. So I'm guessing in this combination, ni is used more for a combiner word


It's just a thing that いる/います and ある/あります use the に particle for denoting the place or association that something exists at or with respect to.

I remember this mentally by picturing both of these verbs as like "pointing towards something"...it's very different from the logic of English where saying "There is" is something that "happens" within the place where the thing exists. And this is reflected in the way these verbs and the に particle are used more broadly in Japanese than "there is" constructions are in English.

If anyone knows Russian, it's a lot like the "У (...) есть..." construction, and just like in Russian how you can say "У меня есть брат" or things like that, you can say in Japanese "私には兄がいます" and things like that (both mean I have a brother, but literally are more like, "With relationship to me, a brother exists").

Mentally picturing the に as a pointer that specifies a broader type of relationships than just location, was very helpful for understanding these sorts of constructions. It can sometimes denote physical location but it can also denote all sorts of other more abstract relationships.


What's the difference between saying あそこにありますand just そこにあります?


I agree, そこにありますshould be ok !


I would think it means "it is there" since "窓は「そこ」です" for example means "the window is there" but I could be wrong


Why ni instead of ga?


「が - ga」and 「に - ni」are Japanese particles. Japanese particles are small words, that indicate words' relations within a sentence. Most particles have multiple uses.

The particle 「が」can be used to introduce a new subject. For instance: アイスクリーム「が」あります。 Meaning "There is an ice cream."

The particle 「に」can for instance be used to indicate a location when combined with the verbs いる or ある. For instance: ここ「に」あります Meaning "It is over here."

If you want to know more about particles, then this link might be helpful> https://www.japanesepod101.com/japanese-particles/ (It's also my sauce ;3)

Short answer: が is used to say this object exists! While に is used to describe a location. (≧◡≦)


Shouldn't あそこにいます also be correct? It isn't specified whether "it" is living or not, hence います and あります should both be accepted.


Yes, あそこにいます would work for if it was referring to something living, you can report it, I guess.

  • 1237

As far as I can gather from looking into this, in Japanese, the situation would never arise where you would use "it" to describe a living thing. When talking about the relational existence of pronouns, since there technically is no "it" in Japanese, "it" is always "arimasu".


You don't use "it" on humans, but you can on animals. I don't find myself referring to spiders in my house as "he" or "she"

  • 1237

Right, but you are thinking of English....


Why it can't be あそこにいます?

  • 1237

IIRC, my understanding is that "imasu" is for animate things (he/she) while inanimate (it) has to be "arimasu".


"It" can never use います? Even if we are suggesting "it" is alive.
Say we are talking about a cat and not sure of gender. If i decide not to use the word "cat" i would then use "it" would it still be be appropriate to use あります?


Correct, animate things like animals are います.


whats the difference between ます, います, and あります?


ます is just the polite non-past verb ending

います, the polite form of the verb いる "exist" is used with animate things (animals, people)
あります is the polite form of the verb ある "exist" used with inanimate things (objects, plants)

  • 1237

I wonder... If "aru" becomes "arimasu", then (at some point) did "iru" used to conjugate to "irimasu"? Like how "desu" is a contraction of "de arimasu"?


No, verbs conjugate differently depending on their ending.
いる is called an "Ichidan" verb. It is a verb with an iru/eru ending. These conjugate very easily by simply dropping the final る and adding the new conjugation ending.
ある is a "Godan" verb. These are all the verbs that do not end in iru/eru and they conjugate differently. With 'aru/uru/oru" the final ru changes to "ri" before the conjugation ending. あ becomes あます. Similarly "nu/bu/mu/su" endings also change to an 'i' form. 読 becomes 読ます, 話 becomes 話ます.

For polite form conjugations there isn't a huge difference between ichidan and godan verbs, but when you get to て form conjugations (for commands, conjunctions and continuous verbs) the dictionary form ending is very important.

  • 1237

Whoa... thank you. Very informative. :)


thank you so much ♡♡


I said 「それはあそこです。」, which was accepted, but with the note that it can also be 「あそこにあります。」- but is the latter just a better way to say it? I want to make sure I'm not phrasing things awkwardly.


so somehow, あそこにあるよ was accepted as a right answer? and being that I'm still pretty new to this, I'm not sure why


ある is the casual/dictionary form, あります is the polite form. Both are used for non-past
あそこにありいます and あそこにある would both mean "(it) is over there"
よ is an intensifier, like adding an exclamation point to a sentence. あそこにあるよ "It's over there!" It doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence, it just makes it feel a bit more emphatic, (which is why Duo tends to translate it as "you know" when it is used)


I have a previous sentence written down that is the same but in japanese it's "ここにあります"

This time i put "そこにあります" But it required "あ"

Why? :(

  • 1237

From what I've gathered thus far...
"そこにあります" = It is there.
"あそこにあります" - It is OVER there.

One points to something nearby and the other farther away, basically.


Wouldn't 'soko ni arimasu' work? As we don't onow the context as to where the listener or the speaker is standing in this condition. I think both 'soko' and 'asoko' should work on this one.


Shouldn't あそこにいます be accepted? Or is the あり should always be included?


That would be possible if referring to an animal, sure.


そこ should be accepted in this case too because the distinction between "there" and "over there" isn't so clearly defined in English. "Over there" could still refer to by the person being spoken to.


The difference between "there" and "over there" isn't exactly the same as that between そこ and あそこ obviously, but it's close enough (in a normal scenario where speaker and listener are not too far away) it wouldn't bother me if they did insist on using the best-matching one. But as it is, あそこだ is accepted for the previous exercise "It's there", but NOT for this one, which is just bizarre.


What is the difference between あそこ and そこ?


They are 「ko こ・so そ・a あ・do ど」 words

Ko- indicates something near the speaker
これ - This one
この - This (noun)
ここ - Here (this place)
こちら - This way (direction toward me)

So- indicates something far from the speaker but near the listener
それ - That one
その - That (noun)
そこ - There (that place)
そちら - That way (direction toward you)

a- indicates something far from both the speaker and listener
あれ - that one (over there)
あの - that (noun over there)
あそこ - that place (over there)
あちら - that way (away from us)

do- is used when asking a question
どれ - Which one?
どの - Which (noun)?
どこ - Where? (What place?)
どちら - Which way? (what direction?)

Duo will usually use そこ for "there" and あそこ for "over there" but in most questions both are accepted


Yeah, both ought to be accepted because the distinction doesn't exist that way in English and adding the word "over" doesn't necessarily imply a difference in location


Just "あっち" is the normal way to say this in every day speech from what I observed. But what makes no sense is that あそこだ is accepted for "It's there", but NOT for "It's over there", even though あそこ is closer to "over there" (i.e. not near the listener or the speaker). Actually there's many many ways this could be expressed that don't seem to be accepted (including むこうだ etc.)


Why あそこに vs あそこで?


I'm pretty sure it's because に is where something is, or where it is being done, while で is only where something is being done. So if you're saying where something is, you use に.


The question that came right before this was where is your pet, so this "it" not being specified, I gave the answer あそこにいます. Shouldn't that also be accepted since we don't know what is being talked about is animate or inanimate?


Both あそこ and そこ should be correct. あそこ refers to a place that is far from both the speaker and the listener and そこ refers to a place that is far from the speaker but close to the listener. The context of the English sentence isn't very clear where the "it" is located exactly in regards to both the speaker and the listener so both options should be accepted.


Did it not accept one of them for you?


Yes, I used そこ for the Japanese translation and it said it was incorrect.


Hmm. I know そこ and あそこ are supposed to be in relation to both the speaker and the listener, but maybe Duo is more literally translating そこ as "there" and あそこ as "over there" (away from us) because they want a specific answer in this case.

Something like "way over there" would be more clear, but is also a less common thing to say in English. You never know with Duo though; strange choices seem the norm here.


Is soko ni correct? Does it have to be asoko ni?


そこ = There (away from me)

あそこ = There (away from us both)

Technically speaking, "over there" could be either of them, because it could be "over there (by you)". I think Duolingo is putting an implication of "over there" being far from both speaker and listener though, and so only accepting ASOKO.

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