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


Translation:There are no pets.

July 8, 2017



Can this also mean 'I have no pets'


I think ペットがいません。 is "I have no pets/pet". ペットはいません。is "there are no pets/pet". I hope I got it right.


My answer "I don't have pets" was accepted. Strange. Your comment makes sense, but now I'm confused.


Definitely. If you want to emphasize that you're the one without the pets, you can always add 私 or 僕 to the equation.


what if "there is no pet" (singular), is it the same?


That's what I'm thinking as well.


I think "there is no " would be "はありません"


ありません is for non-living objects, when いません is for living objects


*どうも (short for どうもありがとう). ども means "even though".


Slight correction, the distinction is between animate and inanimate objects.


I think is the same in singular and plural


Shouldnt I have no pet or I have no pets work? Because thats what I put but it marked me wrong...


'petto wa' denotes that the topic of the sentance is 'pet/s', meaning there is no implicit 'watashi wa'. I.e there is no 'I' in the sentence.


sorry to reply so late, but if you use a negative verb aren't you supposed to use wa after the object (like described here https://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/japanese-particles-change.html )? In that case, wouldn't you use 'ペットはいません'for 'I have no pets' when 'I' is the implied subject?


How do they know when it's one let or a few pets? It can't really be the same can it?


In this phrase doesn't matter know how much pets you don't have, but if you say you have a pet I think you can add a number before to give the idea of how many pets you have.


I'm confused why this is imasen instead of arimasen.


Arimasen is for non living objects, rimasen is for living


Imasen* is for living

Sorry :)


Because there are no pets, that nothing is inanimate (if that makes any sense). Imasen is for animate, arimasen is for inanimate.


But the solution was 'imasen'. Are you sure this still applies?


Your logic is faulty. If something that is not there is always inanimate due to not being there, then you would NEVER use imasen. Imasen means "there is/are no...". Imasen is used for living objects as in this sentence.


In some sentences in this section the "ga" particle is used, but here we have "wa". What's the rule?


Wa denotes the topic. In this cause the topic is pets. When the wa is omitted and ga is used in it's place it could mean one of two things. Either it imply the speaker is the topic, i.e if they were to have said watashi wa before whatever they said. If the sentence was a question then it imply the person being spoken to is the topic, i.e if they were to have said anata wa before whatever they said.

In this sentence though, wa is not omitted and is used on pet meaning the sentence is about pet/s.


Is the wa particle pronounced as "a"?

It sounds like petto a imasen


No, but it I can understand the confusion. There sometimes is only a faint w sound in wa.


I'm confused why this is imasen instead of arimasen.


Because pets are animate (moving, basically) things. arimasen is only used for inanimate things (objects and plants).


How am I to know if it's single or plural? I guessed 'there isn't a pet', but the answer is 'there are no pets'


I think the problem is somehow using contractions. But, unlike in English, Japanese has no plurals. Japanese uses numbers to represent how many. I do wonder how the Japanese get by without plurals when they don't specify a number, though.


If you think about it, not having purals doesn't really matter and it actually makes a language easier to learn because there are less words you need to remember - are/is, aren't/isn't, does/do and so on - when talking about either the singular or plurals. Also remembering that getting this right is still you are marked against in high school.

Regardless, if someone said there are pets, although you know there are more than 1, you still don't know exactly how many. So really saying there is a pet is no different from saying there is 1 pet.


I don't speak English very well, and the translation of this sentence confused me. Is it wrong writing "there are not pets"?


I don't believe there's anything wrong with that statement, but no one would usually say it like that. Normally people would say, "there aren't any pets" or more formally, "there are no pets".


“Not” negates a verb. To negate a noun, use “no.” “I do not eat apples.” “I eat no apples.”


"it is not a pet" is wrong. why?


because "it is not a pet" is actually "ペットでは ありません"


What happened to the では? Every exercise for the past 2 years included では. ie ...ではありません. Why is this one written as ...はいません ?
Is this a mistake? It suddenly appeared after a supposed "course update".

If it's not a mistake, why is it missing the で? DuoLingo, when you changed the material, can you please send out a notice explaining the changes and why.
I'm so confused now. Everything I thought I'd actually learned, in how questioning.
If it's a mistake, Omar correct it ASAP.


は is NOT part of いません, は is a topic particle, indicating that pets are what we are talking about.

います and いません are verbs that are used in "There are/is" and "There aren't/isn't" cases, from what I know. But います and いません are used for living things. あります and ありません are used for the same definition, but for NONLIVING things (objects)


Why is 'There is no pet' wrong?


Because I think without context or a specific number they default to the broad plural version. You would have to assume that someone has asked you if you have any pets and you would either say 'yes I have one pet/two pets' or 'no I have no pets'


It's tsu making the t in to stronger?


The way my Japanese teacher explained it was in words, sometimes a small tsu is put in there which makes you need to add more deffinition to the next letter. In "ペット" to type it out on a keyboard you have to type it as "petto". The small tsu doubles the consonant that comes after it. Without the tsu it would just be peto. It makes it more defined.


It's doubling the duration of the t sound


Slightly, but it's more of a small pause between the ペ and the と.




I dont think it matters in this context if its plural or singular, as there is no pets, whether 1 or 5 there is none lol


I said "I have no pets", and "I don't have pets." But got it wrong on both. Why?


Same here ... when there was いいえ before the exact same phrase "I have not pets" was accepted. That had me a bit confused ... but I guess there will always be some things missing from the database ...


It didn't accept "there is not a pet". There is no indication of plural or not.


Japanese doesn't have plurals so for the sentence to have translated to "there is not a pet" instead of pets in general, the quantity 1 would have been used.

It is similar to the sentence "shigeru desu" which translates it to "I am shigeru" rather than "I am called shigeru". In that the translation shouldn't be more explicit than the original sentence.


Plural and singular forms cant be same...how do they differentiate b/w " there is one pet ans "there r many pets" plz explain if anyone knows..arigato in advance:)


Japanese doesn't have plural and singular forms of nouns and verbs. They differentiate plural and singular by saying how many with a counter word when they think it matters or isn't obvious. So if I want to say people are going to eat but think how many will be eating is obvious or don't think it's relevant how many people will be eating, it's just 人がたベます (you could also potentially use は instead of が if you're not already on the topic). But if I want to specify that it's three people eating it's 人が三人たべます and if I want you to know it's just one person it's 人が一人たべます. It's just a different way of thinking... In most conversation, plural and singular are obvious from context and when they're not, then you specify


Why 'no pets' is wrong?


What isn't this. ペットではありません. I swear that's what the correct answer has been for the past few years!
Where is the で, since the sentence is negative (NO pets).

Please explain.


Sorry, I mean. ペットではいません.

My Austin is NOT between imas vs arimas.
My question is why is the
de. で missing?


because if you put "で" in it, it would be a different meaning. It's not "ペットでは いません". It's actually "ペットでは ありません" which means "it is not a pet".


Looks like I need to work on English instead Lol. Why is there is no pets. Wrong?


How are ありません and いません different?


what a shame


I thought the particle used was が and not は?


What about Petto arimasen instead of petto wa ii masen? Are they the same?



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