61180
In [this part of this Wikipedia
article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_dialect#Existence_verbs), it
states

> In other areas such as Hyogo and Mie, いる /iru/ is hardly used and おる /oru/
> does not have the negative usage.

What I want to know is, does this statement mean that おる is used in nearly all
of the instances いる would be used in Standard Japanese? Does おる also replace
the duties of ある? How does おる work in Hyogo and Mie?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-29T05:48:00.623
61178
2018-08-29T08:16:32.963
31041
question
verbs dialects word-usage subsidiary-verbs kansai-ben
Existence verbs in the Kansai Dialect
That statement basically only applies for おる as a simple existence verb. [Non-
humble おる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/26091/5010) is very common in
Kansai. As a subsidiary verb, various forms including とる/ちょる/よる are commonly
used instead of standard (～て)いる, but there are considerable regional
variations even inside Kansai. See [this
discussion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/28277/5010).

>   * 太郎はおる。  
>  There is Taro. / Taro is here. (≒太郎はいる)
>   * 太郎は来とる。  
>  [Chugoku/Shikoku] Taro has (already) arrived. (≒太郎は来ている)  
>  [Osaka/Kyoto] Taro is (now) coming. / Taro has (already) arrived.
> (≒太郎は来ている)
>   * 太郎は来よる。  
>  [Chugoku/Shikoku] Taro is (now) coming. (≒太郎は来ている)  
>  [Osaka/Kyoto] (Damn,) Taro will come! (≒太郎は来やがる)
>

おる does not replace ある for inanimate objects. 本がおる is incorrect. (The article
says the opposite (先生がある) happens in parts of Wakayama, but I'm not familiar
with that.)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-29T06:31:07.157
61180
2018-08-29T08:16:32.963
2018-08-29T08:16:32.963
5010
5010
61178
answer