# Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen



## guyper

"Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen"

If I want to express negation, must I use the particle WA instead of O then?

Thank you


----------



## 漢字のとき

hi,

Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen -> Kare wa gyunyu *wo* nomimasen (negative) "He doesn't drink milk"

Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen -> Kare wa gyunyu *ga* no*me*masen (Potential neg.) "He can not drink milk"

Hoping help you.


----------



## guyper

Hi, does it mean, "Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen" is wrong then?


----------



## cheshire

As I said in another thread about "wa/ga", there is no rule that prohibits you from using two "wa" in one sentence.


----------



## 漢字のとき

guyper said:


> Hi, does it mean, "Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen" is wrong then?


 
No it true. Sure but using "wa" here to impress "gyunyu" like a Subject of Verb ("nomimasu")


----------



## Flaminius

cheshire said:


> As I said in another thread about "wa/ga", there is no rule that prohibits you from using two "wa" in one sentence.


Surely both of guyper's sentences are correct but I observe slight differences in nuance.

Kare wa gyunyu wa nomimasen
 — A very contextless, general phrasing.

Kare wa gyunyu o nomimasen
 — This not only is the simple that someone does not drink milk but also implies that milk may be the only thing he does not drink ([He drinks anything] but he does not drink milk).  In contrast to the above sentence, one can read here _kare_'s stronger intention that he would not drink milk.  Finally, this sentence can be interpreted as pointing out him as the only non-milk-drinker.



漢字のとき said:


> No it true. Sure but using "wa" here to impress "gyunyu" like a Subject of Verb ("nomimasu")


I am not sure I understand you correctly but _-wa_ certainly emphasize on _gyūnyū_.  In fact, one of the many functions of _-wa_ is to mark the target of negation.

Kare *wa* gyunyu *wa* nomimasen

In this sentence the second _-wa_ accepts _gyūnyū_ within the influence of negation (not drinking).  In other words, it is milk that he does not drink.  If the second _-wa_ is replaced by _-o_, the scope of negation shifts to the noun that the first _-wa_ modifies, with the sentence now meaning, "It is him that does not drink milk."


----------



## 漢字のとき

Hi,

Exactly like you said, maybe my English bad.


----------



## SpiceMan

When learning Japanese, in the text books they usually teach that you use wo/ga when asserting something and wa when negating something related.

For example:
hon *wo* yomimasu kedo manga *wa* yomimasen.
koohii *ga* nomemasu kedo osake *wa* nomemasen.

In that specific kind of wording, which make a clear contrast between two parts, I'd say the books are pretty accurate about the actual usage.

But when simply stating something, the particles usage is not that crystal clear since choosing a particle over another may give you a subtle nuance. 

For example: 
koucha wa nomimasen. < simple fact. The speaker just doesn't drink tea.
koucha ga nomimasen. < from the perspective of the speaker, he/she had in mind several drinks as options, and _the_ one that he/she does _not_ drink is tea.

Several particles that can fit mean several nuances available to add to a given fact. Of course those nuances are hard to get at first, and the only way to grasp them is by trial and error, and paying attention to natives.


----------



## Flaminius

SpiceMan said:


> When learning Japanese, in the text books they usually teach that you use wo/ga when asserting something and wa when negating something related.
> 
> For example:
> hon *wo* yomimasu kedo manga *wa* yomimasen.
> koohii *ga* nomemasu kedo osake *wa* nomemasen.


Hi,
Contrasting two opposite yet related statements is a function of _-wa_.  I'd say, for example;
hon-wa yomimasu kedo, manga-wa yomimasen.

The same postposition is used for three-way comparisons as well:
Hanako-wa utsukushiku, Kaori-wa kawaiku, Sayaka-wa yasashii.



> koucha ga nomimasen. < from the perspective of the speaker, he/she had in mind several drinks as options, and _the_ one that he/she does _not_ drink is tea.


This sentence is ungrammatical.  I would say _kōcha-wa_ but _kōcha-o_ may be relevant in some contexts.  With _-ga_ there, the sentence would mean, "Tea does not drink [something]."  Even as we discuss different functions of _-ga_, it becomes all the clearer to me that the primary function of the postposition is to mark the subject of the verb.

If I want to rewrite the sentence with _-ga_ in its place, I'd tatter with the verb:
kōcha-ga nomemasen.


----------



## cheshire

SpiceMan said:


> When learning Japanese, in the text books *they usually teach that you use wo/ga when asserting something and wa when negating something related.*
> 
> For example:
> _hon *wo* yomimasu kedo manga *wa* yomimasen._
> _koohii *ga* nomemasu kedo osake *wa* nomemasen._
> 
> In that specific kind of wording, which make a clear contrast between two parts, I'd say the books are pretty accurate about the actual usage.
> 
> But when simply stating something, the particles usage is not that crystal clear since choosing a particle over another may give you a subtle nuance.
> 
> For example:
> koucha wa nomimasen. < simple fact. The speaker just doesn't drink tea.
> koucha ga nomimasen. < from the perspective of the speaker, he/she had in mind several drinks as options, and _the_ one that he/she does _not_ drink is tea.
> 
> Several particles that can fit mean several nuances available to add to a given fact. Of course those nuances are hard to get at first, and the only way to grasp them is by trial and error, and paying attention to natives.


 

*(1)hon wo yomimasu kedo manga wa yomimasen.*​
*(2)koohii ga nomemasu kedo osake wa nomemasen.*​ 

*(1) hon wa yomimasu kedo manga ga yomimasen.*​
*(2) koohii wa nomemasu kedo osake ga nomemasen.*​
The pink part in your text books are not true. Replacing wa/ga with ga/wa doesn't make these sentences ungrammatical, nor unnatural.

Forget "contrast", forget "negation." 
Just remember that "wa" is used to introduce a topic, "ga" to mark a subject.

Textbooks abound with rules that don't exist.


----------

