Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese Forum

kuma

Member

ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

Hello !

About the difference between ある and いる, what is the japanese definition for an "animate object"?  How are considered plants?  Robots?  Snow-White, or the Sleeping Beauty?  Someone dead?  A zombie?  Someone in a coma?  Someone brain-dead?

Can a nuance of meaning be inserted in the choice of ある or いる to insist on living on inanimate aspect of something?
- ある for the Terminator, but いる for AIBO (from the child who plays with it)?
- ある for a tree, but いる for ivy, climbing plants, or carnivorous plants ?
- ある for a zombie, but いる for a man?
- etc.

(ref: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/negverb.html)

taekk

Administrator

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

I think it's how you want to define it. Do you associate with the aibo as a living creature or a machine?

-Tae Kim

kuma

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

I think it's how you want to define it.

If I understand well your answer, either ある and いる can be used, depending on how the speaker considers the target?  And in 99.9% of cases, the target is classical so there is no doubt on the verb to use (いる for living creatures, and ある for others).

Do you associate with the aibo as a living creature or a machine?.

I associate AIBO with a machine, but a kid could associate it with a living creature (like a doll, or a cuddly toy...).
To be more precise, what verb is used for Pinocchio ?

Maybe one of my problem comes from the fact that in French the English word "animate" can be translated by "living" and "moving".  But someone in coma lives but doesn't move, and a robot moves but is not living ...

To conclude, accordiong to your answer:
いる : plants (even carnivorous) and robots
ある : Snow-White, Sleeping Beauty, someone in coma

But I am still unable to choose for a dead person, a brain-dead person and a zombie ...

newcomer

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

I feel that a robot is an inanimate object, yet, it is an animated object.

Yokohama

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

But I am still unable to choose for a dead person, a brain-dead person and a zombie ...

I have to explain this as a Japanese.

The definition is quite simple.

いる: moving and living objects like human-beings, animals, fish.....
       and robots(having an ability to move), transportations(taxi, cars, ship, train, plaine.. when it's in service or a person who can control it is in it.),
       zombies(equol to ghosts), a dead person(死人）, a brain-dead person, a dead animal(cat, dog, bird...),
       also Snow-White, Sleeping Beauty or someone in coma.

ある: inanimate objects like plants, funiture, buldings. cars(when it's not in service).......
　　　 and a dead body(死体）, robots(placed at somewhere)......

I hope that helps.

kuma

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

Thanks a lot, Yokohama, it is much clearer.
Especially, I wouldn't have imaginated that いる could be used for vehicles. Also, the difference between activated/inactivated machine, and 死人 / 死体 is interesting.
By the way, I never saw it explained in French Japanese dictionaries and grammar books.

Gestalt

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

The definition is quite simple.

いる: moving and living objects like human-beings, animals, fish.....
       and robots(having an ability to move), transportations(taxi, cars, ship, train, plaine.. when it's in service or a person who can control it is in it.),
       zombies(equol to ghosts), a dead person(死人）, a brain-dead person, a dead animal(cat, dog, bird...),
       also Snow-White, Sleeping Beauty or someone in coma.

ある: inanimate objects like plants, funiture, buldings. cars(when it's not in service).......
　　　 and a dead body(死体）, robots(placed at somewhere)......

Hi Yokohama,

I agree plants are almost always ある, but I'm pretty sure I have on occassion heard/seen いる used (and not in the "要る" sense).  I did a quick web seach and found a few examples. Would you say the usage on the page at the link below is wrong?  Or do native speakers sometimes use 居る to express a bit more "familiarity" towards normally inanimate objects.  Just curious.

「まだまだ大きな木がいると思いますが。。」　http://plaza14.mbn.or.jp/~tonari/hosomi_walk_050529_2.html

Last edited by Gestalt (2006-02-09 20:47:27)

Kuzzy

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

「まだまだ大きな木がいると思いますが。。」　http://plaza14.mbn.or.jp/~tonari/hosomi_walk_050529_2.html

This is only speculation, but perhaps the reason that いる is used here is because it was pointed out that the tree is still growing. I think this would fit into Yokohama's definition, following examples such as the moving taxi vs. the stationary taxi. This would also go along with the switch to あります below when talking about some general trees.

Just a thought.

Yokohama

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

Also, the difference between activated/inactivated machine

This is just for the confirmation.
I said about robots, not machines(instruments).
I mean I imagine robots as machines which have armes or legs like a human, and if some of them having legs or wheels could move by themselves, you could use いる for them, but for the others（arm robots or something) you could only use ある in Japanese.

「まだまだ大きな木がいると思いますが。。」

This sentence is basically wrong in the case of this person's writing as far as I read it.
It should be 「まだまだ大きな木が生えていると思いますが」 or  「まだまだ大きな木があると思いますが」.　
And you pointed out we sometimes deal with inanimate things as animate objects, so that you could say 木がいる in a specific situation, but this is not that case, I think.

such as the moving taxi vs. the stationary taxi.

As for a taxi, bus, train, plane etc, いる or ある is only used when it is here or there.
When it is moving you can say that 走っている or 動いている....but this いる in this phrase is different one.
I said that, when there is a taxi and a driver is sitting in the seat or is by the taxi, that is, the taxi is on service, you can say タクシーがいる。, and if there is a taxi, nobody is in the taxi and you see the taxi is not on service, you can only say タクシーがある.

Kuzzy

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

I see! Thank you for clearing that up, Yokohama.

Psi-Lord

Member

Re: ある & いる: is a robot an animate object?

Ah, the bit on means of transport was exactly what I was searching for. Thanks for those specific observations, since it seems to be something that is usually missing in explanations about いる versus ある.

---

[color=darkred]樹高千丈葉落歸根[/color]
[color=black]-----[/color]
[color=darkred]目は心の窓[/color]