1907
When learning Japanese everyone's taught いる is for a living thing and ある is
for non-living things. However, I recently saw the following sentence ...

> あと、サッカー選手でもあります。

... which ends in ある / あります for a living subject, assuming were not talking
about a dead soccer player!

Now the following make uses of ある sense to me:

> 〜である  
>  〜がある  
>  〜にある

But in my mind these adhere to the living/dead rule learned in those first
Nihongo classes all those years ago.

So where does もあります fit in? How should I think of this in English (equivalent
phrase)?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T23:19:36.387
1905
2022-02-23T11:19:07.767
2012-01-10T19:44:13.233
37
168
question
grammar particles
When is it okay to use あります with a living subject?
`で（は）あります` is the expanded form of `です`. So when you say 「XはYです」, it is really
「XはYで（は）あります」. From this, you can easily see the negative form (ではありません). And
also でもあります as in your example. `でもあります` means "is also".

> あの人はサラリーマンです。あと、サッカー選手でもあります。 → That guy is a business worker (salary man).
> He is also a soccer player.

That's the reasoning as to why it's あります in this situation. As to why です is a
contraction of `で（は）あります` and not `で（は）います`, I'm not sure.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T23:31:03.787
1907
2011-07-13T23:31:03.787
78
1905
answer
でもあります is actually derived from である (basically a written-Japanese way of
saying です) and basically means "... is ... as well". For example:

>   * AはBでもあります。 → A is B as well (in addition to something previously
> mentioned or understood).
>

Or the following:

>   * 彼は大学生であり、サッカー選手でもある。 → He is a university student, and he is also a
> soccer player.
>
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T23:31:23.773
1908
2011-07-13T23:31:23.773
384
1905
answer
As istrasci and rintaun correctly point out, `サッカー選手でもあります` has a similar
meaning to `サッカー選手です`. But it is also true that `ある` is not the same word as
`です`. One important thing that hasn't been pointed out is that the `ある` used
here is not a predicate. It is comparable to the English `be`.

>   * A is a soccer player
>   * A is smart
>

In the sentences above, you can tell that the predicate is the noun/adjective
phrase following `be` but is not `be` itself (in other words, `be` is not
contributing to the meaning) from the fact that they can be used retaining
their meaning, without `be`:

>   * I consider A a soccer player
>   * I consider A smart
>

On the other hand, `be` in the following examples is used to express
existence, and is a predicate.

>   * I think, therefore I am
>   * There is a soccer player
>

The animacy restriction on Japanese `ある` and `いる` only concerns the predicate
usage (the usage meaning existence or possession). While the following `ある`
and `いる` are in the predicate usage,

>   * A の書いた本がある
>   * サッカー選手がいる
>

the following `ある` is not.

>   * A はサッカー選手である
>   * 昨日のうちに買い物をしてある
>

Therefore, your example is a case where the animacy distinction is irrelevant.

Furthermore, as is well known, even the predicate `ある` can be used with
animate subjects.

>   * 昔、ある所におじいさんとおばあさんがあった
>   * A には子供がある
>

The distinction between `ある` and `いる` is actually much more complicated than
mere animacy opposition.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2011-07-14T02:58:32.923
1914
2022-02-22T19:50:40.077
2022-02-22T19:50:40.077
30454
1905
answer