SciFlyBoy wrote:
I learned the 'existence' lesson, the difference between assigning an existence to a non-living thing and a living + mobile thing. The difference between arimasu and imasu.
I have a dog at home is; Uchi ni inu ga imasu. Uchi (home) inu (dog)
I have a book at home is; Uchi ni hon ga arimasu.
Assigning the negative or past tense or question is a matter of changing the sound at the end of the sentence.
Uchi ni inu ga imas-en = I don't have a dog at home.
Uchi ni inu ga imas-hita = I had a dog at home.
Uchi ni inu ga imas-ka = I have a dog at home?
Ah, right. Forgot about that distinction. Really need to go through my fundamentals book again.
Keeping in mind, Japanese is very context heavy, so, "Uchi ni inu ga imasu," is literally, "House (directional particle) dog (understood topic particle marker) exists." So if I'm remembering this right, the "ga" implies the topic of conversation is already established to be about you and your dog, not new information. Otherwise, you would say, "Ore no uchi ni inu wa imasu," to introduce the new topic.
Though any given person would probably understand what you mean, it's the difference between, "I have a dog at home," and "There's a dog in a house."
Wait. "Uchi" and "ie," both mean "house," but there might be an implied distinction. Looking it up, yeah. "Uchi" implies "one's own," while "ie" is more general. But they use the same kanji. So I'm not sure how you'd know the right reading without the context, but which one you use would define the context...hm. It appears "uchi" means the abstract concept of a home as well as the physical dwelling, while "ie" is just the physical building.
So then there's no need to use a first person personal and possessive marker to claim "uchi" unless there's a reason to think you're talking about some else's home. In which case, my point about the topic marker particle would stand, if you're using "wa" instead of "ga," then should probably use a possessive for "uchi."
Conclusion:
"Uchi ni inu ga imasu" -> "(My) home (location particle) dog (understood topic) exists (current and going, polite)" -> "At home, there is a dog."
"Boku no uchi ni inu ga imasu" -> "At my home, there is a dog." -> "I have a dog at home."
"Boku no uchi ni boku no inu ga imasu" ->"At my home, my dog is." -> "My dog's at home."
"Ie ni inu ga imasu" -> "In a house, there is a dog." ->
"Boku no ie ni inu ga imasu" -> "In a house of mine, there is a dog." -> "There's a dog in my house."
"Boku no ie ni boku no inu ga imasu" -> "In a house of mine, my dog is." -> "My dog's in my house."
”僕の家に僕の犬がいます." = "家に犬がいます。”
Then if you want to _start_ talking about the dog, swap "wa" for "ga." And most of the those permutations would almost never be used, because the possessiveness would be implied by the context. Though that raises the question if there's a word for one's own dog instead of "inu." So your example is correct, but I hope they're teaching you this pedantic stuff too.
Why, yes, Japanese is a difficult language for native English speakers, how did you know?
But yeah, that's correct conjugation.
Iru/aru - to exist (ongoing, casual) -> Inai/nai - to not exist (casual)
Imasu/arimasu- to exist (ongoing, polite) -> Imasen/arimasen - to not exist (polite)
Itta/atta - to have existed (past, casual) -> Inakatta/nakatta - to have not existed (casual)
Imashita/arimashita - to have existed (past, polite) -> Imasendeshita/Arimasendeshita - to not have existed (polite)
magnuskn wrote:Nobody, Blizzard already has made it crystal clear that Undead Hitler With Big Tits is going to survive. They value their degenerate Sylvanas fanboys more than decency in storytelling.
I watched Asmongold plow through the new story content, she's totally getting a heroic sacrifice/redemption moment after the raid, or in the next patch.
