Help with grammatical correctness of sentences...

[b4d0m3n]

Hello there. Are the following sentences correct in what they are attempting to convey? Any suggestions?

あの　さる　の　うしろ　猫　です。

That monkey over there is behind a cat.

私の　かにのけ　ちゃいろ　です。

My hair is brown.

あなたの　くつ　あか　ですか？

Are your shoes red?

いいえ。　私の　くつ　くろ　です！

No. My shoes are black!

[Infidel]

particles..

あのさるは猫のうしろにです。

particles and spelling.

私の　かみのけは　ちゃいろ　です。

boss is here. cant finish sorry.

[b4d0m3n]

ishnar wrote:
particles..

あのさるは猫のうしろにです。

particles and spelling.

私の　かみのけは　ちゃいろ　です。

boss is here. cant finish sorry.

Crudmonkey! The spelling was a typo, but I guess I have no excuse for the lack of particles. What was I thinking??? Not much, I guess. What does the 'ni' in the first sentence indicate?

[b4d0m3n]

Would then the following be correct?

あなたの　くつは　あか　ですか？

Are your shoes red?

いいえ。　私の　くつは　くろ　です！

No. My shoes are black!

Man, Japanese is damn confusing.

[mandolin]

OK, would this be a case of the color being considered a noun? I have a particularly difficult time with this, because my western brain tells me that colors are always adjectives, since nouns are supposed to be person, place, or thing.

But if they were adjectives here, they'd need the -i, wouldn't they?

I agree, Japanese is confusing sometimes.

EDIT:

In relation to the the actual original post...

あの　さる　の　うしろ　猫　です。
vs
あのさるは猫のうしろにです。

The 'ni' serves.. um.. how to explain it.. hah.

OK, it equates to 'at that place'. Often refers to the place where action happens, but there doesn't always have to BE physical action. It's just a designation of a specific physical location.

In this case, behind the cat (or more literally, the cat's behind.. hehe) is the specific place where the monkey is. (that's why she changed 'ushiro neko' to 'neko no ushiro')

If translated literally, the sentence in english becomes:

that monkey (subj marker) cat's behind at that place is.

slightly better (read.. half literal? hehe) english:

that monkey is at the cat's behind.

I bet someone else comes along and explains it clearly in like 6 words or less. But I hope that helped with 'ni'.

[Taro]

I'll throw in my 2 cents:

"That monkey over there is behind a cat."
あの猿は猫の後ろにあります/います。
> Since we're talking about location here, I would use either arimasu or imasu, depending on whether you consider the monkey to be a living being or object ... not always clear in Japanese

"Are your shoes red?"
君/あなたの靴は赤いですか?
> I would use the adjective aka-i here because it seems more natural. The noun version (aka) is usually used in contexts like: その色は?赤です。or 赤の車 as an alternate for 赤い車 (If I'm not mistaken)

[AJBryant]

あのさるは猫のうしろにです。

うしろにデス！？！？！？！
>boggle<

[mandolin]

EDIT: removal of a stupid post made in anger. shitsurei shimashita, Tony-san.

[Infidel]

Tony was right. I have a bad habit of assuming the person I'm correcting is mostly right and sometimes compound the error. I was having trouble wrapping my mind around the desu but gave it no thought since the particle issue was more obvious I focused on that.

I did a big DOH! when Taro posted. Tony's comment just implied that I should know better, and I should have. He wasn't insulting me at all. I've seen Tony insult people and that wasn't it. Tony also knows that I know him from another forum and won't got offended by a chide, especially, when I deserve it, although his tone is a bit familiar for a new forum where people don't really know him yet.

[b4d0m3n]

Alright. Well, to start with, thanks everyone. I'll take this post by post.

mandolin: Right. I understand now, I think. The 'ni' particle is a locational indicator. Cool. Makes sense.

Taro: Could you explain a little more? I'm currently not familiar with 'arimasu' or 'imasu'. Are they contextual replacements for 'desu'? What is the difference between 'aka' and 'aka-i'? Can a noun be an adjective? I guess so. You used a tad more kanji than I am familiar with. Care to give me a hiragana version of your examples?

Everyone else: Chill. I'm sure my poor grammar and spelling isn't THAT rage-inducing.

[KeroGero]

「いる／います」 is used when talking about animate objects, like living breathing creatures. So, when talking about someone, you would use "iru".

「ある／あります」 is used for inanimate objects. Trees and plants are generally considered inanimate, though, even if they are alive. A rock would use "aru". Unless, say, that rock was given a personality, and made into a character, then I s'pose it would use "iru" :P

(The longer 「います」 and 「あります」 forms are more formal, and mean the same things)

[b4d0m3n]

KeroGero wrote:
「いる／います」 is used when talking about animate objects, like living breathing creatures. So, when talking about someone, you would use "iru".

「ある／あります」 is used for inanimate objects. Trees and plants are generally considered inanimate, though, even if they are alive. A rock would use "aru". Unless, say, that rock was given a personality, and made into a character, then I s'pose it would use "iru"

(The longer 「います」 and 「あります」 forms are more formal, and mean the same things)

Alrighty, but what do they actually mean? I mean, I understand now the usage in different contexts, but are they just 'to be'?

[nprz]

Aka is the noun form of Akai which is an i-adj. You can change a noun into an adjective by adding teki 的 but I think someone learning should be cautious when doing this. You can make a lot of adjectives into nouns by dropping the 'i' in an i-adj or just using it as a noun for na-adj.

Arimasu (aru) and Imasu (iru) are verbs that mean 'to exist'. Aru is used for inanimate things while Iru is used for animate things. The confusing part of this is whether things like a taxi is animate or not? Or what about an elevator? I think it even confuses Japanese sometimes.

So its translation might end up as "there is/are" when used in a sentence.

[Harisenbon]

nprz wrote:
Arimasu (aru) and Imasu (iru) are verbs that mean 'to exist'. Aru is used for inanimate things while Iru is used for animate things. The confusing part of this is whether things like a taxi is animate or not? Or what about an elevator? I think it even confuses Japanese sometimes.

I don't think the difference is very confusing for Japanese, in most cases. Some things such as ばい菌 (viruses) can get a bit sticky, but for common usage the difference between ある and いる is quite clear.

Breathing - いる
Not breathing - ある

Thus, Taxis, robots, elevators, etc are all ある

こうえんに　ねこが　いる。
There is a cat in the park

こうえんに　タクシーが　ある。
There is a taxi in the park.

こうえんに　きが　ある。
There is a tree in the park.

[InsanityRanch]

b4d0m3n wrote:
Hello there. Are the following sentences correct in what they are attempting to convey? Any suggestions?

あの　さる　の　うしろ　猫　です。

That monkey over there is behind a cat.

私の　かにのけ　ちゃいろ　です。

My hair is brown.

あなたの　くつ　あか　ですか？

Are your shoes red?

いいえ。　私の　くつ　くろ　です！

No. My shoes are black!

I don't think anyone has actually corrected all the sentences yet?
(Of course now *I* will mess up <g>)

That monkey over there is behind a cat.
あの さる は 猫 の うしろ に います。
Think that's been explained.

The second one is ok except for かみのけ rather than かにのけ. But can anyone tell me why it is that 茶色 becomes 茶色の, 灰色 becomes 灰色の, but 黄色 becomes 黄色い?

Another sentence pattern you might want to learn is:
私 は ちゃいろ の かみけ が あります。
I have brown hair.

Are your shoes red?
あなた の くつ は あかい です か
OK, maybe I'm wrong, but あかい sounds more natural to me than あか.

Also, this is one of those beginner's sentences that I hate, since it leads to very unnatural sounding Japanese. When would you ask someone "Are your shoes red?" In most cases, in natural Japanese, you wouldn't have to spell out all the parts of this sentence! But without knowing the context it is impossible to tell WHICH parts of the sentence to leave out.

No. My shoes are black!
いいえ、くろい　です！

If this is the answer to the question above, you would NEVER specify "my shoes" -- that is known from context.

Shira