1568
In one of the Japanese classes I attended, I've been taught that while we use
「何も出来ない」to say "He cannot do anything", to say "He can do anything" we use
「何でも出来る」 instead of 「何も出来る」.

Why is there a grammar rule that says 「何も」 is used before negative predicate
while 「何でも」 is used before positive predicate? Why do we need additional で
particle for the positive predicate?

Is the rule still being followed, and are there any exceptions (something like
[exceptions to the 全然+negative
rule](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/794/with-positive-
adjective-na-adjective))?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-27T16:20:24.103
1565
2020-02-27T03:07:02.523
2020-02-27T03:07:02.523
9831
112
question
grammar particles negation polarity-items
The reason for using 何も+negative, but 何でも+positive
This is not a very helpful answer, but: I think you are needlessly
complicating a fairly simple grammar rule by looking for an "explanation".
There might be some deep and obscure etymological link between the 'も' and
'でも' of 何も/誰も/いつも, but knowing it won't further your understanding of the rule
itself.

It would be exactly the same as asking "why is there a grammar rule that says
'any[thing/one/time]' is used with a negative predicate while
'some[thing/one/time]' is used with a positive"...

As you can see, the analogy even holds up for the similarity between the
words.

While 何でも出来ない sounds a little strange (but not unthinkable), negative forms
with 何でも definitely exist. For example: `何でもないよ。` ("It's nothing").

**Note** : 全然+positive that you mention is not a "grammatical exception" (at
least not yet). As the answers told you, it is a very colloquial use, strongly
discouraged in anything more than casual conversation with friends.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-27T16:54:07.317
1566
2011-06-27T16:54:07.317
290
1565
answer
Rather than memorizing edge cases like this one, I think the key here lies in
understanding the difference between も and でも in this context.

In **positive** statements using **も** , the grouping is explicit. In other
words, when you say 何も, だれも, どれも, and so on, it's clear through context or
prior statements what "every" includes:

> ピアノ、ギター、ドラム…彼はどれ｛○も／×でも｝上手に弾ける。 Piano, guitar, drums…he can play all of them
> well.
>
> 友だちはだれ｛○も／×でも｝DSを持っている。 All my friends have a DS.
>
> 私がお店に入ったとき、彼女はいつ｛○も／△でも｝いる。 When I enter the store, she's always there.

In **negative** statements using **も** , you don't have to worry about
qualifying the scope of the statement, so 何もできない and だれもいない are sufficient.

With **でも** , however, the grouping can be left unstated:

> こんな簡単な問題はだれ｛△も／○でも｝解けるよ。 Anyone can solve a simple problem like this.
>
> これで本をいつ｛×も／○でも｝読める。 With this I can read a book at any time.
>
> 娘は好き嫌いが全然なくて、何｛×も／○でも｝食べてくれる。 My daughter isn't picky at all, and she'll eat
> anything.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-27T18:19:50.540
1568
2011-06-27T18:19:50.540
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
94
1565
answer
## Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in English

Every language has lexical items which are restricted, seemingly arbitrarily,
to specific contexts. Let's start with some English sentences to introduce the
concept:

> ​1a. I don't like her **at all**.  
>  ​1b. *I like her **at all**.

The first sentence is fine, but the second sentence doesn't work because _at
all_ is a [**Negative Polarity Item** (NPI)](http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/npi.html)--a lexical item restricted to
negative contexts.

Sometimes we have pairs of positive and negative polarity items:

> ​2a. I like her, **too**.  
>  ​2b. I don't like her, **either**.

Here, _too_ and _either_ are a positive-negative pair. If we swap them, the
sentences don't work (at least, not with the same meaning):

> ​3a. *I like her, **either**.  
>  ​3b. *I don't like her, **too**.

Many NPIs can also appear in interrogative contexts--that is to say, in
questions like 4c:

> ​4a. I don't like her **at all**.  
>  ​4b. *I like her **at all**.  
>  ​4c. Do you like her **at all**?

But every polarity item has its own requirements, which can be arbitrary,
complex, and context-dependent. For example, _till_ is an NPI in clauses with
a punctual interpretation:

> 5a. We won't leave **till** six o'clock.  
>  5b. ??We will leave **till** six o'clock.

In 5a we interpret _leave_ as a punctual event, one that takes place in a
single point in time, but _till_ can't appear in positive punctual predicates,
so we can't interpret 5b the same way. Instead, we interpret 5b as durative--
it sounds like we're planning on leaving for a while, possibly for hours at a
time. This is, of course, nonsense, so 5b is highly questionable.

English is full of examples like these, and unsurprisingly, so is Japanese.

* * *

## Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in Japanese

Japanese has a number of NPIs. One of the first ones taught to learners is しか,
which is always followed by some form of negation:

> ​6a. ​ 行く **しか** ない！  
>  ​6b. *行く **しか** ある！

There's no reason in principle why this is true. Positive しか could make sense,
and indeed 日本国語大辞典 notes that there are rare historical examples of しか
unaccompanied by negation. But in Japanese as it's spoken today, the negative
requirement is more or less an ironclad rule.

Unlike English, Japanese is verb-final, and negation usually comes toward the
end of a sentence. Many Japanese NPIs appear early, and they're often signals
that a negative predicate is coming up:

> ​7a. ​ **決して** 忘れたりしない。  
>  ​7b. * **決して** 忘れたりする。

In many cases, this signal is strong enough that you can leave out the actual
part of the predicate containing the negation (as long as it can be inferred
from context):

> ​8a. **ちっとも** 変わらない。  
>  ​8b. **ちっとも** 。

This is true even for items like 全然 which have an _association with negatives_
rather than a strict requirement:

> ​9a. **全然** わからない。  
>  ​9b. **全然** 。

(Of course, I haven't supplied any context here; you'll have to imagine the
context that allows the verb to be left out if you want 8b and 9b to make
sense.)

Your example too is among the Japanese NPIs:

> ​10a. ​ 私は **何も** 食べない。  
>  ​10b. *私は **何も** 食べる。

There's no reason in principle why 何も shouldn't be possible in positive
contexts. It would make sense, just like certain other combinations of
question words plus も. For example, どれも is fine either way:

> ​11a. ​ **どれも** おいしかった。  
>  ​11b. ​ **どれも** おいしくなかった。

So is いつも:

> ​12a. ​ **いつも** 面白い。  
>  ​12b. ​ **いつも** 面白くない。

So is 誰も:

> ​13a. ​ **誰もが** 知っている。  
>  ​13b. ​ **誰も** 知らない。

Notice here the arbitrary and quite strong preference for が in 13a. Notice too
the arbitrary difference between 知っている and 知らない, using 〜ている only in the
positive. Every word has its own story to tell, and its own way of being used.

And 何も has its own story, too. Unlike these other question words in examples
11-13, 何も happens to have an arbitrary restriction to the negative, while 何でも
does not--and you'll just have to memorize this difference.

To convince you that it's truly arbitrary, consider あまり／あんまり. The following
examples are borrowed from [a paper by Ai
Matsui](https://www.msu.edu/~matsuiai/papers/salt21-matsui-anmari.pdf):

> ​14a. *今日は **あんまり** あつい。  
>  ​14b. ​ 今日は **あんまり** あつくない。

In this particular example, it seems that あんまり requires a negative context.
However, this is not always the case. In the following example, it's licensed
in a positive context by the presence of から:

> ​14c. ​ 部屋が **あんまり** あつかった **から** エアコンを付けた。

Why? No reason. That's just how the language is.

Sometimes we can speculate as to why. Sometimes we can look at the historical
evidence and try to find a reason from etymology. For example, some linguists
suspect that しか contains a contracted version of the particle は, often
associated with negative predicates. And it's true that we have relatively few
cites for しか in positive contexts, even historically.

But generally speaking, _why_ is a difficult and possibly unanswerable
question when it comes to polarity items. For us learners, they're just
something we'll have to memorize.

* * *

_In this answer, the * symbol marks a sentence as ungrammatical._
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-05-21T09:01:24.927
16060
2014-05-21T10:10:28.557
2014-05-21T10:10:28.557
1565
answer