Burning ある versus いる Question...

[stonemirror]

If one wants to say, "There's a zombie!" in Japanese, would it be ゾンビがあるよ！ or ゾビがいるよ！...?

A fish in an aquarium is iru; on a plate, it's aru. A plant is alive, but doesn't move, so it's aru, too. A machine can move but it's not alive, so it's aru, as well. You'd think a zombie would be aru as well, or at least that'd be (sorta) consistent, but it doesn't seem right...

[Bueller_007]

If one wants to say, "There's a zombie!" in Japanese, would it be ゾンビがあるよ！ or ゾビがいるよ！...?

A fish in an aquarium is iru; on a plate, it's aru. A plant is alive, but doesn't move, so it's aru, too. A machine can move but it's not alive, so it's aru, as well. You'd think a zombie would be aru as well, or at least that'd be (sorta) consistent, but it doesn't seem right...

This is a "burning" question? I'd say its practicality is somewhat limited...

Anyway, 92 Google hits for ゾンビがある, 704 for ゾンビがいる.

I think that answers the question.

--EDIT--

Updated the numbers above, as there was something seriously screwy with them on the last computer I checked.

[Bucko]

If one wants to say, "There's a zombie!" in Japanese, would it be ゾンビがあるよ！ or ゾビがいるよ！...?

A fish in an aquarium is iru; on a plate, it's aru. A plant is alive, but doesn't move, so it's aru, too. A machine can move but it's not alive, so it's aru, as well. You'd think a zombie would be aru as well, or at least that'd be (sorta) consistent, but it doesn't seem right...

Haha, I don't really think it matters, but I'd use iru for ghosts and zombies. My Japanese teacher told me to use iru when I was talking about the gnomes in her garden yesterday

[Bueller_007]

If one wants to say, "There's a zombie!" in Japanese, would it be ゾンビがあるよ！ or ゾビがいるよ！...?

A fish in an aquarium is iru; on a plate, it's aru. A plant is alive, but doesn't move, so it's aru, too. A machine can move but it's not alive, so it's aru, as well. You'd think a zombie would be aru as well, or at least that'd be (sorta) consistent, but it doesn't seem right...

Haha, I don't really think it matters, but I'd use iru for ghosts and zombies. My Japanese teacher told me to use iru when I was talking about the gnomes in her garden yesterday

Yes, ghosts get "iru".
幽霊がいる = 21,600
幽霊がある = 118

Garden gnomes get "aru" if you wish to make them sound like inanimate objects, like the rocks in the garden. They use "iru" if you want them to seem/sound like they're real gnomes.

[Derek]

This is a "burning" question? I'd say its practicality is somewhat limited...

I'd say that this is one of the most important questions of our time, Buellerさん. Especially in my hobby.

My Japanese is fairly limited, but I would have to agree with everyone else that you should use いる for zombies, I'm mean they are animate objects...right? Sure they are dead, but if (to use your example, stonemirrorさん) the dead fish on your plate got up and tried to eat your date's brains, you'd probably use いる...

...but that probably wouldn't be your biggest concern at that particular moment, would it?

[stonemirror]

Good point.

There's actually a bit of practicality to this: I've been reading a great book called Words in Context by a Japanese linguist, and one of the points she makes is that words in different languages have different "scopes" which have a lot to do with the way that native speakers of those languages think about things.

An example I liked was that, in Japanese, one would 腕を折る, "fold one's arm" rather than "break" (e.g. 割る) it.

Interestingly enough, "robots" seem to represent an equivocal case: ロボットがある turns up 15,200 hits on Google, ロボットがいる get 16,900. I think you'd have to give the Borg the benefit of the doubt and say いる. But what about the Terminator (robot inside, with skin on the outside)...?

[Derek]

I think you'd have to give the Borg the benefit of the doubt and say いる. But what about the Terminator (robot inside, with skin on the outside)...?

My, but you're full of intriguing questions, aren't you stonemirrorさん?

I'm not sure exactly what you would use with the Terminator...Maybe いる simply because of the fact that he is sentient being. Now that I think about it, I suppose that the same logic could be used for Zombies, as well. They are somewhat sentient, right?

I don't know, I guess they're simply going to have to do a Survival Phrases episode entitled, "What to do if you meet a Zombie, and other burning questions of our time..."

P.S.
I might have to check out that book you mentioned. I'm a big enough geek to find that subject interesting.

[stonemirror]

My, but you're full of intriguing questions, aren't you stonemirrorさん?

I try to be. It seems to be how I most effectively learn things.

As far as the Terminator goes, I'd think (on the basis of a generally strong appearance of being human, for the most part) that いる would be the right thing. But, on the subject of robots in general, I'd guess that the likelihood of going with ある vs. いる tends to increase as the robot looks more like a machine and less like a person...

In other words, you'd almost certainly use いる for "Pru" in Bladerunner (leaving aside the question of whether "replicants" are "robots"), but you might well use ある for "Robby the Robot" in Forbidden Planet...

鏡石

PS: The book is listed on Amazon at

http://www.amazon.com/Words-Context-Jap ... 77002780X/

[stonemirror]

They are somewhat sentient, right?

Opinions vary.

[naki_mushi]

Why don't we dodge the questions by saying:
ゾンビ！Or　ゾンビがそこに。。。And just leave out　いる　And　ある。That way everyone will just add in the verb they want to.

[Bueller_007]

折る= to bend; to break (by bending)
割る= to split/shatter

That's why you 腕を折る.

[stonemirror]

Well, that's begging the question. It's not as though Japanese words come with English definitions. You should take a look at the book I mentioned, it's really quite interesting. It goes into this in depth.

[Bueller_007]

Well, that's begging the question. It's not as though Japanese words come with English definitions. You should take a look at the book I mentioned, it's really quite interesting. It goes into this in depth.

I'm not sure how that's begging the question... You don't need English to define a word.

折る:
1)紙・布など平面状・線状のものを鋭く曲げる。また、曲げて重ねる。
「端を直角に—・る」「千代紙で鶴を—・る」
(2)固い、線状・棒状のものを曲げて切り離す。
「木の枝を—・る」「足の骨を—・る」
(3)（自分の体を）深く曲げる。
「膝(ひざ)を—・る」「腰を—・る」

割る:
(1)力を加えて、いくつかの部分に分かれるようにする。
「ガラスを—・る」「薪(まき)を—・る」「卵を—・る」
(2)一つの物をいくつかの部分に分ける。
(ア)まとまった形のものをいくつかに分ける。
「桃を二つに—・る」「代金を頭数で—・る」
(イ)割り当てる。
「芝居の役を—・る」「費用は五人で—・る」
(ウ)割り算をする。除する。
⇔掛ける
「六を二で—・る」
(3)人々のまとまりをくずす。分裂させる。
「党を—・る」「国論を—・る大問題」
(4)無理に離す。押し分ける。
「雪を—・って芽が出る」「中に—・って入る」「石戸—・る手力もがも/万葉 419」
(5)ある液体に他の液体を混ぜて濃度を薄くする。
「ウイスキーを水で—・る」
(6)数量がある基準を保てなくなる。ある基準からはみ出す。
「ドルは一時八〇円を—・った」「今度の選挙で与党は過半数を—・りそうだ」「定員を—・る」
(7)たたいたり、物をぶつけたりして、皮膚に裂け目を作る。
「転んで額を—・る」「唇を—・る」
(8)境界線をはみ出す。
「土俵を—・る」

We've covered the topic of "word senses" somewhere else on the forum. It's usually possible to do sense-to-sense matching, but often not possible to do word-to-word matching. There are three senses for 折る listed above, but the key sense of 折る is the same as the key sense of "bend" (note how 曲げる is used to define every sense), and the key sense of 割る is the same as the key sense of "break into pieces". In the normal situation of breaking one's arm, it's obviously much closer to the former than the latter. Although, if your arm got run over by a steamroller, I think you'd probably use 割る.

The Amazon reviews look interesting, and I'd probably read that book if I could find it for free... But I'm not up for buying it sight unseen.

[stonemirror]

Sigh.

But English is what you initially presented. An English definition of those words isn't remotely "why" you use them that way.

But since you seem intent on driving a big spike into discussion, I guess I'll let you sit on that "Expert in Something" title and participate less in the future, thanks.

[Derek]

Thanks for the link, stoneさん.

I have to agree with naki_mushiさん, we should all just yell, ゾンビ! and let everyone else worry about the verb.

The Amazon reviews look interesting, and I'd probably read that book if I could find it for free... But I'm not up for buying it sight unseen.

There is a free preview of the book on Amazon. Only about 10 pages or so, but it does seem like it would be an interesting read. Of course, as I stated earlier, I am a geek so maybe only I would find that to be a good read.