になっている vs がある ？


I found a sentence from my study book.

It said:

> このマンションは動物を飼ってはいけない規則になっている

Why is it

> になっている

and not

> がある ?

Is it replaceable?




To answer your question, I think that it would be good to review the V + ている
conjugation.

A lot of the time we are taught that V + ている means "verb-ing." For many cases
that is correct. However, there are some cases where "verb-ing" is not 100%
accurate as far as translation goes. For example, 死{し}んでいる does not mean
`dying`, but `dead`.

In my time in Japan, I spent a bit of time going door to door as part of my
work. Quite often, the person answering the door would say:

> 主人{しゅじん}は仕事{しごと}に行{い}っています。

In the morning, translating this as `My husband is going to work` would make
sense, but it doesn't make as much sense at 4:00PM. This is because
translating 行{い}っている as `going` isn't correct. Rather, you should translate it
as `has gone to __` or `is at __`. Long story short, you would translate it
as:

> My husband is at work.

For more information, please see [this](http://www.punipunijapan.com/japanese-
te-iru/) webpage. I really like how it describes the meaning of V + ている in
terms of resultant states. We are dealing with a resultant state in this
situation. To use their words:

> If the verb indicates an instantaneous change of state or transfer, then the
> て- form + いる (iru) will express a resultant state.

Like 行{い}っている (has gone to/is at) or 死{し}んでいる (is dead)。

* * *

Become (なる) is another one of those cases. You cannot translate it as
becoming, as that would not be correct, but rather translate it as `it is
established` or `it is the case that.`

> このマンションは動物{どうぶつ}を飼{か}ってはいけない規則{きそく}になっている
>
> It has been established that keeping pets at this mansion is not allowed.

Why not ～がある？ Well, in terms of overall meaning you _could_ replace ～になっている
with ～がある、and have it carry _almost_ the same meaning (I wouldn't do it
though). This is not just a question of style/formality, but also a question
of meaning. It's not as formal to say ～がある, and it means something different.

Just to be clear, this does not mean ～がある ＝ ～になっている。That is false, as _the
meanings are different_. It just happens to be the case that you _could_
rephrase the sentence with ～がある and carry a similar meaning. Here is an
example to drive this point home:

> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることになっている。
>
> In our home, we don't use chopsticks, we eat with our hands.

Setting aside the peculiarity of this sentence, if we were to replace ～になっている
with ～がある、we would have a different sentence. Eating with your hands in that
home is an established thing. When I say established, I mean that things are
always that way. It's a tradition, not a one-time deal.

If we were to say:

> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることがある。
>
> In our home, there are times when we don't use chopsticks and eat with our
> hands.

There is no sense of establishment. This isn't a tradition, it's more of a
fling.

* * *

So, bringing it all together, the reason they use ～になっている in your sentence is
because the rule (規則{きそく}) is established. It's not just a thing that happens.
There is a sense of permanence and there is an expectation that you will abide
by that rule.

If you were to say ～がある、you would get the feeling that there's a rule that
pets aren't allowed, but not everyone follows the rules. So while you would
get _almost_ the same meaning, they are in fact different.




To answer your question, I think that it would be good to review the V + ている
conjugation.

A lot of the time we are taught that V + ている means "verb-ing." For many cases
that is correct. However, there are some cases where "verb-ing" is not 100%
accurate as far as translation goes. For example, 死{し}んでいる does not mean
`dying`, but `dead`.

In my time in Japan, I spent a bit of time going door to door as part of my
work. Quite often, the person answering the door would say:

> 主人{しゅじん}は仕事{しごと}に行{い}っています。

In the morning, translating this as `My husband is going to work` would make
sense, but it doesn't make as much sense at 4:00PM. This is because
translating 行{い}っている as `going` isn't correct. Rather, you should translate it
as `has gone to __` or `is at __`. Long story short, you would translate it
as:

> My husband is at work.

For more information, please see [this](http://www.punipunijapan.com/japanese-
te-iru/) webpage. I really like how it describes the meaning of V + ている in
terms of resultant states. We are dealing with a resultant state in this
situation. To use their words:

> If the verb indicates an instantaneous change of state or transfer, then the
> て- form + いる (iru) will express a resultant state.

Like 行{い}っている (has gone to/is at) or 死{し}んでいる (is dead)。

* * *

Become (なる) is another one of those cases. You cannot translate it as
becoming, as that would not be correct, but rather translate it as `it is
established` or `it is the case that.`

> このマンションは動物{どうぶつ}を飼{か}ってはいけない規則{きそく}になっている
>
> It has been established that keeping pets at this mansion is not allowed.

Why not ～がある？ Well, in terms of overall meaning you _could_ replace ～になっている
with ～がある、and have it carry _almost_ the same meaning (I wouldn't do it
though). This is not just a question of style/formality, but also a question
of meaning. It's not as formal to say ～がある, and it means something different.

Just to be clear, this does not mean ～がある ＝ ～になっている。That is false, as _the
meanings are different_. It just happens to be the case that you _could_
rephrase the sentence with ～がある and carry a similar meaning. Here is an
example to drive this point home:

> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることになっている。
>
> In our home, we don't use chopsticks, we eat with our hands.

Setting aside the peculiarity of this sentence, if we were to replace ～になっている
with ～がある、we would have a different sentence. Eating with your hands in that
home is an established thing. When I say established, I mean that things are
always that way. It's a tradition, not a one-time deal.

If we were to say:

> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることがある。
>
> In our home, there are times when we don't use chopsticks and eat with our
> hands.

There is no sense of establishment. This isn't a tradition, it's more of a
fling.

* * *

So, bringing it all together, the reason they use ～になっている in your sentence is
because the rule (規則{きそく}) is established. It's not just a thing that happens.
There is a sense of permanence and there is an expectation that you will abide
by that rule.

If you were to say ～がある、you would get the feeling that there's a rule that
pets aren't allowed, but not everyone follows the rules. So while you would
get _almost_ the same meaning, they are in fact different.

