9443
We can personify things. By using "want" with an inanimate object, it is
personified:

> An object with inertia **wants** to maintain its state of motion.

**(Question)** First, is it possible in Japanese for this kind of desiderative
sentence to be formed?  
If it is possible, do I use `～たい` or `～たがる`? Because according to [Derek
Schaab's answer to "When to use 欲しがる instead of
欲しい"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/2538/542):

>   * you cannot presume to know the intimate details of a third person's
> mental state
>
>   * and even if you're 100% certain he wants, you can't say this directly.
>
>

Will an entity that does not hold volition take `～たがる` when personified?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-14T13:55:36.137
9435
2015-12-14T00:11:54.870
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
542
question
word-choice auxiliaries modality personification
Can desire be expressed for entities that do not hold volition?
I think using "want" in this way sounds weird even in English. Some better
words to use would be "tends", "apt", or "inclined". This can be expressed as
`〜傾向がある`. Or if it is a negative tendency, `〜嫌いがある`.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-14T16:04:33.730
9436
2012-11-14T16:04:33.730
78
9435
answer
You can definitely personify objects in Japanese.

> 慣性のある物体は運動状態を維持したがる

is not _wrong_ per se, but firstly, it's obvious to the listener that a
personification is going on, and secondly, the colloquial feeling that the
personification creates might not go well with the scientific feel of the rest
of the sentence. A more natural translation might be

> 慣性のある物体は運動状態を維持しようとする

When objects are personified in Japanese, it's probably more obvious to the
listener than is the case in English, and therefore more restricted to
colloquial/jocular use. But that doesn't mean it's uncommon. For example, it's
quite common to use こいつ to refer to things, and somebody trying to be funny
might even say このおっさん.

In the company where I work, I wouldn't find it strange if somebody complained
about some software causing trouble by saying

> こいつはいつも問題を起こしたがるんだよ

but the statement would be obviously jocular.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-15T01:43:03.343
9443
2012-11-15T01:43:03.343
1073
9435
answer