Article versus postposition


I have come to the conclusion that to the beginner it is useful to equate the
particle は with the article ‘the’ in English. Even more so for a Swedish
speaker since the Swedish article is an ending.

A difference is that we say あなたは but not “the you”. However あなたは is short for
an old あの方 and not a true pronoun. Similar ways of avoiding a true ‘thou’ were
common in Sweden 50 years ago (and forced an article). English examples are
rarer but we can say “the other side” instead of “they” when referring to
another political party.

Thus I propose は as the definite form nominative case ending and が as the
indefinite form nominative case ending.

On the whole I think that the distinction between Japanese postpositions and
endings in Germanic languages is misleading. Why is の a postposition and ‘s an
ending? Presently I see は, が, の and を as case endings and I would appreciate
to see examples where it does not work out.




You will be in a world of hurt if you get into habit of thinking は to be a
nominative. It is not. が can be said to be a nominative. は is not a case: it
is a topic particle. It works on any case, but it "overwrites" が (nominative)
and を (accusative) case markers. It usually focuses something to set the topic
of the utterance, or to establish contrast. Examples:

私【わたし】が食【た】べた。

I(nom) have eaten.

私【わたし】は食【た】べた。

I(nom,focus) have eaten.

Contast: Me, I've eaten. (But _he's_ being slow.)

My story: Me? I've eaten. (After that, I took a quick coffee. Now I have to go
to a meeting.)

パンを買【か】った。

[I've] bought bread(acc).

パンは買【か】った。

[I've] bought bread(acc,focus).

Contrast: Bread, I've bought. (I forgot the milk, though.)

Bread's story: I bought bread. (It was moldy. There was all this blue stuff on
it. I tried to take it to the store, but they wouldn't give me my money back.)

彼【かれ】に上【あ】げた。

[I've] given it to him(dat).

彼【かれ】には上【あ】げた。

[I've] given it to him(dat,focus).

Contrast: I did give it to him. (She gets nothing.)

そこで食【た】べる。

[I'll] eat there(loc).

そこでは食【た】べる。

[I'll] eat there(loc,focus). (That other place was not very delicious.)

Other than that, yes, は brings the "known entity" / "old topic" / "thema"
meaning to the sentence, to contrast with "new info" / "rhema" that not having
it usually means, in much the same way the "the" does in English when compared
to "a". They are not equivalent by any means, but that aspect _is_ there.

However, there's more meanings and usage to は than definite nominative. Don't
do it, you're making yourself a disservice long-term.

