Article versus postposition

Question

I have come to the conclusion that to the beginner it is useful to equate the particle は with the article ‘the’ in English. Even more so for a Swedish speaker since the Swedish article is an ending.

A difference is that we say あなたは but not “the you”. However あなたは is short for an old あの方 and not a true pronoun. Similar ways of avoiding a true ‘thou’ were common in Sweden 50 years ago (and forced an article). English examples are rarer but we can say “the other side” instead of “they” when referring to another political party.

Thus I propose は as the definite form nominative case ending and が as the indefinite form nominative case ending.

On the whole I think that the distinction between Japanese postpositions and endings in Germanic languages is misleading. Why is の a postposition and ‘s an ending? Presently I see は, が, の and を as case endings and I would appreciate to see examples where it does not work out.

Answer 1

You will be in a world of hurt if you get into habit of thinking は to be a nominative. It is not. が can be said to be a nominative. は is not a case: it is a topic particle. It works on any case, but it "overwrites" が (nominative) and を (accusative) case markers. It usually focuses something to set the topic of the utterance, or to establish contrast. Examples:

私【わたし】が食【た】べた。

I(nom) have eaten.

私【わたし】は食【た】べた。

I(nom,focus) have eaten.

Contast: Me, I've eaten. (But he's being slow.)

My story: Me? I've eaten. (After that, I took a quick coffee. Now I have to go to a meeting.)

パンを買【か】った。

[I've] bought bread(acc).

パンは買【か】った。

[I've] bought bread(acc,focus).

Contrast: Bread, I've bought. (I forgot the milk, though.)

Bread's story: I bought bread. (It was moldy. There was all this blue stuff on it. I tried to take it to the store, but they wouldn't give me my money back.)

彼【かれ】に上【あ】げた。

[I've] given it to him(dat).

彼【かれ】には上【あ】げた。

[I've] given it to him(dat,focus).

Contrast: I did give it to him. (She gets nothing.)

そこで食【た】べる。

[I'll] eat there(loc).

そこでは食【た】べる。

[I'll] eat there(loc,focus). (That other place was not very delicious.)

Other than that, yes, は brings the "known entity" / "old topic" / "thema" meaning to the sentence, to contrast with "new info" / "rhema" that not having it usually means, in much the same way the "the" does in English when compared to "a". They are not equivalent by any means, but that aspect is there.

However, there's more meanings and usage to は than definite nominative. Don't do it, you're making yourself a disservice long-term.

Answer 2

In addition to the other comments here, I must say that は and が are poor analogues of "the" and "a". I know how you got this idea because I once had it myself. But it doesn't work all that well.

Person A: ゴルフとテニスと、どちらが好きですか。
Person B: テニスが好きです。

In B's response, テニス takes が, which suggests (according to your model) that it's indefinite. Now let's look at the same conversation in English:

A: Which do you prefer, golf or tennis?
B: I prefer tennis.

Hmm. No article. What about Spanish?

A: ¿Cuál prefieres, el golf o el tenis?
B: Prefiero el tenis.

Here the response takes "el", a definite article. Thus が is not functioning like an indefinite article, or indeed an article at all; it is a different thing altogether that only sometimes resembles the use of articles in English.

Answer 3

Comments please.

JLU is about questions and answers, not theses and comments.

I have come to the conclusion that to the beginner it is useful to equate the particle は with the article ‘the’ in English

I came to the conclusion that it was a bad idea, for it forces you to think in another language (whether this other language is your mother tongue or not is irrelevant).

If your objective is to speak, then I think instead that it is useful to observe in what situations people use は, in what situations people use が, and to do the same without thinking.

If your objective is to study the language, then get linguistics right from the beginning.