Verb pairs, and the state left behind

Japanese pairs almost every verb of change with a separate verb for causing that change, so where English uses "open" for both the door and the person opening it, Japanese has two different words. Choosing between them is not a stylistic matter: it decides whether anybody is being held responsible for what happened.

Verbs come in pairs

An intransitive verb describes something happening to a thing, and the thing takes が. A transitive verb describes somebody doing it, and the thing takes を.

ドアが開あく doa ga aku the door opens

ドアを開あける doa o akeru someone opens the door

The two verbs are related but distinct words, with their own conjugations, and neither is derived from the other by a rule you can rely on. Here is a working set, and it is worth learning them as pairs from the start rather than meeting them one at a time.

The patterns, and their limits

Two patterns cover a good part of that table. Where the intransitive ends in -aru, the transitive usually ends in -eru: 閉しまる and 閉しめる, 始はじまる and 始はじめる, 決きまる and 決きめる, 集あつまる and 集あつめる. Where the intransitive ends in -eru or -iru, the transitive often ends in -su: 出でる and 出だす, 消きえる and 消けす, 落おちる and 落おとす, 壊こわれる and 壊こわす.

Be honest about how far that gets you. Linguists describing this system count more than a dozen sub-patterns, several of them with only a handful of members, and there is no reliable way to predict from a verb alone which one it belongs to. 入はいる and 入いれる fit no pattern and change their reading as well. 並ならぶ and 並ならべる pair a group 1 verb with a group 2 verb. The generalisations are worth having as a memory aid and are not worth trusting to produce a form you have never seen.

There is one reliable consequence, though. Transitive verbs in a pair are almost always group 2 or -su verbs, and -su verbs are group 1 with a completely regular て form, so the conjugation side of this is easy once the pair is known.

Example. 窓まどが閉しまっています uses the intransitive. What is the transitive, and how does the sentence change?

The transitive is 閉しめる, and the sentence becomes 窓まどを閉しめています, which means somebody is in the act of closing the window. The particle moves from が to を and the meaning moves from a description of the window to a description of a person. This is the pattern throughout: が plus intransitive says what the world is like, を plus transitive says what somebody is doing.

Now you. Give the transitive partner of 消きえる, 落おちる and 集あつまる, and say which pattern each follows.

Which one Japanese reaches for

Given a choice, Japanese leans towards the intransitive more often than English does, and the reason is that the intransitive does not name anybody.

コップが割われました koppu ga waremashita the glass broke

An English speaker who dropped it says "I broke a glass". A Japanese speaker in the same kitchen is much more likely to say コップが割われました, which reports the same event and assigns no blame. This is not evasiveness so much as a default: the language offers a way to describe an outcome without an actor, and speakers take it.

The same instinct shows up all over ordinary life. A machine that stops is 止とまりました, not that somebody stopped it. A meeting whose time has been settled is 決きまりました. A lost thing that turns up is 見みつかりました. Learners who translate from English produce the transitive far too often, and the effect is to sound as though they are constantly attributing events to people.

ている with an intransitive verb

Now a fact that trips up almost everyone. ている with an action verb means the action is in progress: 食たべています, I am eating. ている with an intransitive verb of change means the change has happened and the resulting state persists.

窓まどが閉しまっています mado ga shimatte imasu the window is closed

That does not mean the window is in the process of closing. It means it closed at some point and is now shut. The same goes for 電気でんきがついています, the light is on; ドアが開あいています, the door is open; 田中たなかさんは結婚けっこんしています, Tanaka is married. This last one is the classic example, because a learner reading it as an action in progress produces something absurd.

The rule of thumb: if a verb describes a change from one state to another rather than an activity carried out over time, its ている is a state, not a progress. 知しっている, from the beginner course, is the same phenomenon: knowing is the state left behind by finding out.

てある, and the agent behind a state

てある attaches to the て form of a transitive verb and describes a state that somebody has deliberately produced and left. The object of that transitive verb takes が.

会議室かいぎしつに椅子いすが並ならべてあります kaigishitsu ni isu ga narabete arimasu chairs have been set out in the meeting room

名前なまえが書かいてあります namae ga kaite arimasu the name is written on it

Nobody is named, and yet the construction says somebody did it on purpose and that the result is still there for a reason. That is a lot of information for one auxiliary verb, and English needs a paraphrase for all of it.

Put the three together on one door and the system becomes visible.

The middle one is an intransitive verb reporting a state. The bottom one is a transitive verb, with its object promoted to が, reporting a state that was arranged. In a room where the door has blown open, the middle sentence is right. In a room where somebody propped it open to let air in, the bottom one is.

Example. You walk into a lecture room. The projector is on and a handout is lying on every seat. Describe both, and say what your choice implies.

プロジェクターがついています for the projector, using the intransitive つく with ている, because you are reporting a state and making no claim about who is responsible. プリントが置おいてあります for the handouts, using the transitive 置おく with てある, because somebody plainly put them there for a purpose and the arrangement is the point. Reversing them would be strange in both directions: プロジェクターがつけてあります is possible and pointedly says somebody turned it on deliberately, while プリントが置おいています is simply ungrammatical, since 置おく is transitive and its object cannot take が without てある.

Now you. The window is open and there is a note stuck to the fridge. Describe both, and say why the second cannot use ている.

ておく and てしまう

Two more auxiliaries on the て form finish the topic, and both are among the commonest things in spoken Japanese.

ておく means to do something in advance, or to leave something as it is.

ビールを冷ひやしておきます biiru o hiyashite okimasu I'll put the beer in to chill (ready for later)

The preparation sense is the usual one, and the second sense, leaving something alone, shows up in そのままにしておいてください, "just leave it as it is". In speech ておく contracts to とく and でおく to どく, so 買かっておく becomes 買かっとく and 読よんでおく becomes 読よんどく.

てしまう marks an action as finished off completely, or as regretted, and context decides which.

全部ぜんぶ食たべてしまいました zenbu tabete shimaimashita I finished the lot

電車でんしゃに傘かさを忘わすれてしまいました densha ni kasa o wasurete shimaimashita I went and left my umbrella on the train

The regret sense dominates with verbs that describe mishaps, and the completion sense with verbs that describe tasks, which is why the same auxiliary can be triumphant on a plate of food and rueful about an umbrella. Its contractions are ちゃう from てしまう and じゃう from でしまう, so 忘わすれちゃった and 飲のんじゃった, and these are so common in casual speech that the full forms can sound deliberate.

Example. You are hosting this evening. Say that you will chill the beer and tidy the room in advance, and then admit that you have eaten all the snacks.

ビールを冷ひやして、部屋へやを片かたづけておきます, and お菓子かしは全部ぜんぶ食たべてしまいました. Note that ておく attaches once, to the last verb of the chain, because the て form of 冷ひやす has already joined the two actions and politeness and aspect both live on the final verb. That is the rule from the first lesson still doing its work. In the second sentence てしまう could be read either way, as pride or as confession, and the は on お菓子かし pushes it towards confession by marking the snacks as the awkward exception to your preparations.

Now you. Say that you left your umbrella on the train, and that you had better book the restaurant now rather than later.

Vocabulary

The intransitive verb makes the actor disappear by choosing a different word. The next lesson makes the actor disappear by grammar, and adds a construction English has no equivalent of at all: a passive for things done to you that you did not want.