"The chair is below that."
It means "Underneath that [thing], there is a chair/are chairs." While this could refer to the same situation as "The chair is below that", the sentences are nonetheless different: in the latter the subject is clearly the chair (which happens to be below something else), but in the former the location gets a stronger emphasis.
I used が instead of は and it said false. As far as I know, が can be used as subject, ね?
It's supposed to be THE chair, that is, a known chair, nothing new. In this situation it's better to use は, since it marks a known topic. If we were talking about A chair (a previously unmentioned one), we'd use が (and probably also a different construction, like その下は、いすがあります). That being said, the difference between は and が is quite difficult to grasp, so people probably don't need to worry about it too much at this level.
I normally think of 'sono' as a standalone word for 'that', but in this case, if we replaced 'that' with some object (table, for example), we'd get いすはテ-ブルの下です. Does 'sono' ending with 'no' negate needing the possession 'no' particle?
これ、それ、あれ (kore, sore, are) are "this" "that" and "that over there" where the name of the thing being referred to is not known or used.
それは何ですか (sore ha nan desuka?) What is that? これは水です (kore ha mizu desu) This is water
When you want to name the object being referred to you use この〜、その〜、あの〜 (kono, sono, ano) instead.
このテーブル (kono teeburu) this table
その椅子 (sono isu) that chair
あの人 (ano hito) That person over there
The その〜 form is not a standalone word for "that," (that would be それ) but is attached to the thing your naming. In English we just add the name of the thing to the demonstrative ("this" to "this apple") but in Japanese the form changes from
これ (this) to このリンゴ (this apple)
In the context of this question to my understanding:
"The chair is below that."
The "that" at the end of the given English translation implies an object has been indicated in the previous sentence. However this is not what the その in the Japanese translation refers to.
その下 instead applies only to the word "below" in the English translation, or more literally "that underneath area." The thing that the chair is under is implied by the fact that under is a relative term and there must by definition be something above it.
All of which is a long winded way of saying that therefore いすはその下です would more literally translate to something like:
As for the chair, (it is in) that under(neath area).
Rather than thinking of その as a standalone word for "that", I prefer to think of そ as the concept of "away from the speaker" or "nearer to the listener." It is constant in words like それ and そこ and therefore the の still functions as the possessive particle making その〜 something like "attribute of an area nearer the listener."
How would you say "below that" then? I think this was puzzling me in the answer. Could you say それの下? Or is something else needed?
Where is my wallet?
*points to the thing* It is underneath that
その is already a contraction of それ and the possessive の. そのの would be like writing "that's's" and doesn't make sense. Words like その、あの、この must be paired with nouns to specify which noun is being talked about and do not stand on their own.
その is paired with the noun 下 to mean "The below belonging to there near the listener" or simply "that below"
Liam above has a much more in-depth explanation.
I put そのいすは下です and it was marked correct. I thought that would more read "that chair is below"? I'm not sure why it's still right?
Could anyone please explain why it's placed "その下" and not "下その"? I was just really confused about this, since I tried to put "下その". And the unfortunate thing is that Duolingo never really teaches you about syntax, only how to say certain phrases. If anyone could help that would be immensely appreciated!
It's just sentence structure. The object goes first and the location marker goes after it, with の linking them.
My wallet is inside my bag さいふはかばんの中です
に would be required if ある was used. Altering the sentence to something like "There is a chair below that" would translate to:
Why です used here instead of the usual あります existence verb?
その下 being a descriptive noun in this case rather than the location of being under something is really bizarre. "The chair IS that below" rather than "The chair is located below that"
Because the existence of the chair is already assumed- "the chair is below that."
あります would be "there is a chair below that."
Can this be acceptable too " いすは下そのです " ? Or the word order is important?
In other examples they use "no" before "migi" or "hidari" to say left of or right of. Why is it not "sono no" in this case?
See the comment chain above on this
"sono" is already a contraction of "sore" and "no"
I said 椅子はあの下です。and it was marked wrong. Was it wrong to use ’あの’ rather than 'その’? Doesn't both mean "that"?
I think the answer should be accepted with が (not only with は)