Burning ある versus いる Question...

[Bueller_007]

Sigh.

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

I never said that the English definition is "why" you use them this way. I was equating the Japanese words with the senses in which they were being used. You have to use some language to represent the sense of a word. I'm a native English speaker. Therefore, I chose English. Personally, I don't see a problem with this. It's just as appropriate to define a sense of a Japanese word with English as it is with Japanese or any other language.

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.

So participating in a discussion is "driving a spike" into it? Okay...

[Bueller_007]

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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I missed the link to the preview entirely.

Unfortunately, the preview doesn't get into the technical aspects of the discussion, and instead just gives a couple of non-linguistic examples, as well as the 折る/割る example already discussed here.

[seanolan]

Reverting back to the "iru/aru" question, one of my Japanese friends who is fluent in English described it as "iru" is "actively exists" while "aru" is "passively exists". Not in the sense of active/passive voice, but in the terms of the world around it. If the subject actively effects the world around it, directly, motively (although not necessarily sentiently, but usually so) it is "iru". If it exists and does nothing more than exists, it's "aru". So a lot of things can actually be both, depending on how you perceive them. A car is "aru" despite it's capacity for movement because it cannot without impetus move. A corpse is "aru" because it cannot act upon the world around it. A zombie might be "iru" or "aru", depending on the perception of what causes it to move; it's own will or another impetus. Just as a stuffed animal, perceived as real by a child, is iru, but recognized as an object by an adult is aru (which is how this conversation got started with my Japanese friend.)

Robots are an interesting point...wonder what the criteria will be (are they moving on their own, or because of their programmer)? Computers are "aru", and a robot is merely a mobile computer...what will be the line between iru and aru there? The Japanese may have to define a "soul" or self-will just for the sake of their language someday...

Sean

[Derek]

Reverting back to the "iru/aru" question, one of my Japanese friends who is fluent in English described it as "iru" is "actively exists" while "aru" is "passively exists". Not in the sense of active/passive voice, but in the terms of the world around it. If the subject actively effects the world around it, directly, motively (although not necessarily sentiently, but usually so) it is "iru". If it exists and does nothing more than exists, it's "aru". So a lot of things can actually be both, depending on how you perceive them. A car is "aru" despite it's capacity for movement because it cannot without impetus move. A corpse is "aru" because it cannot act upon the world around it. A zombie might be "iru" or "aru", depending on the perception of what causes it to move; it's own will or another impetus. Just as a stuffed animal, perceived as real by a child, is iru, but recognized as an object by an adult is aru (which is how this conversation got started with my Japanese friend.)

Robots are an interesting point...wonder what the criteria will be (are they moving on their own, or because of their programmer)? Computers are "aru", and a robot is merely a mobile computer...what will be the line between iru and aru there? The Japanese may have to define a "soul" or self-will just for the sake of their language someday...

Sean

Yup, it's official. We have now completely thought this question to death.

That being said, that is an interesting point about the "actively" and "passively" existing. I'll have to remember that.

Thanks Sean.

[Bueller_007]

Reverting back to the "iru/aru" question, one of my Japanese friends who is fluent in English described it as "iru" is "actively exists" while "aru" is "passively exists". Not in the sense of active/passive voice, but in the terms of the world around it. If the subject actively effects the world around it, directly, motively (although not necessarily sentiently, but usually so) it is "iru". If it exists and does nothing more than exists, it's "aru".

I think that's an excellent way of describing it.

[Jason]

Reverting back to the "iru/aru" question, one of my Japanese friends who is fluent in English described it as "iru" is "actively exists" while "aru" is "passively exists". Not in the sense of active/passive voice, but in the terms of the world around it. If the subject actively effects the world around it, directly, motively (although not necessarily sentiently, but usually so) it is "iru". If it exists and does nothing more than exists, it's "aru".

I think that's an excellent way of describing it.

I agree.