What is the difference between 有る【ある】 and ある？


I found these example sentences plus their translations from [WaniKani by
Tofugu](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/japanese-learning-stack-
koichi/#wanikani-for-kanji-and-vocabulary), but I got confused by the
differences between 有る【ある】 and ある.

> マヨネーズなら、まだ少し有ります。 We still have a little mayonnaise.
>
> 彼には金も有るが、屋根の上に銀もある。 He has gold as well as a silver on his roof.

Why in the second sentence, they use both 有る and ある？

To me it seems that they both mean "to have", so why the change in
kanji/hiragana?

Are they interchangeable?

Also, how often and when do people use 有る?




I believe here we have to think of the fact that ある is not necessarily 有る in
kanji, but could be 在る and 或る as well (we can forget about the last one here).
More on the differences [here](http://chigai-
allguide.com/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E5%9C%A8%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E6%88%96%E3%82%8B/).

The first one is used to indicate possession, ownership of something
(「財産が有る」「貫禄が有る」「有りがち」etc.). On the other hand, 在る indicates existence, "being
somewhere" (「東京に在る」,「要職に在る」 etc). I'm sure you know this already.

This being said, I think in your sentence the actual meaning is intended as
follows:

>   1. If (you need) mayonnaise, I still **have** some. (Rather than **there
> is** some).
>
>   2. He **has** gold but **there is** even silver on his roof.
>
>

I think the difference here is that the second ある in sentence number 2 is
probably supposed to be 在る here. This is the only difference I can think of
and at least what it seems it can be inferred from the structure of the
sentence and the use of kanji and kana. If the writer used 在る this would be
extra clear but I believe this is seldom written in kanji anyway. This is
probably true for 有る as well but maybe here it has been used just to make
clearer the difference between the first and second.

What actually confuses me is the translation you provide. Is that yours or it
was given on the website? If it's coming from an official Japanese language
site, the translation is probably better than mine and in that case I would
not understand well the difference you are asking for as with that translation
both should be 在る in that case (there are both silver and gold on the roof,
which means of course that "he has" those). However, no matter how I try to
parse the sentence, I feel my translation is OK. Maybe someone can comment on
this.

* * *

To expand on this subject, there is actually a document compiled on October
1st of the year Showa 56 (1981) that establishes a set of rules for the use of
kanji and kana in official documents to which everyone who belongs to an
official institution (and writes official documents) should adhere.

Regarding ある, it precisely states the following:

> **ある** （その点に問題がある。）

Where the sentence in brackets is meant to give an example of the situations
in which ある should be written in kana. You can find the full thing
[here](http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/Jusl/Bunsyo/BunKanji.html).




I believe here we have to think of the fact that ある is not necessarily 有る in
kanji, but could be 在る and 或る as well (we can forget about the last one here).
More on the differences [here](http://chigai-
allguide.com/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E5%9C%A8%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E6%88%96%E3%82%8B/).

The first one is used to indicate possession, ownership of something
(「財産が有る」「貫禄が有る」「有りがち」etc.). On the other hand, 在る indicates existence, "being
somewhere" (「東京に在る」,「要職に在る」 etc). I'm sure you know this already.

This being said, I think in your sentence the actual meaning is intended as
follows:

>   1. If (you need) mayonnaise, I still **have** some. (Rather than **there
> is** some).
>
>   2. He **has** gold but **there is** even silver on his roof.
>
>

I think the difference here is that the second ある in sentence number 2 is
probably supposed to be 在る here. This is the only difference I can think of
and at least what it seems it can be inferred from the structure of the
sentence and the use of kanji and kana. If the writer used 在る this would be
extra clear but I believe this is seldom written in kanji anyway. This is
probably true for 有る as well but maybe here it has been used just to make
clearer the difference between the first and second.

What actually confuses me is the translation you provide. Is that yours or it
was given on the website? If it's coming from an official Japanese language
site, the translation is probably better than mine and in that case I would
not understand well the difference you are asking for as with that translation
both should be 在る in that case (there are both silver and gold on the roof,
which means of course that "he has" those). However, no matter how I try to
parse the sentence, I feel my translation is OK. Maybe someone can comment on
this.

* * *

To expand on this subject, there is actually a document compiled on October
1st of the year Showa 56 (1981) that establishes a set of rules for the use of
kanji and kana in official documents to which everyone who belongs to an
official institution (and writes official documents) should adhere.

Regarding ある, it precisely states the following:

> **ある** （その点に問題がある。）

Where the sentence in brackets is meant to give an example of the situations
in which ある should be written in kana. You can find the full thing
[here](http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/Jusl/Bunsyo/BunKanji.html).

