Could someone tell me the purpose of "ga aru" in terms of grammar?

What is the purpose of “ga aru” in mid sentence?

I’m guessing by “mid-sentence” you’re probably talking about a relative clause.

For instance お金がある (to have money).
If you want to use that to describe someone (or something, if appropriate) you can affix it as a relative clause on a noun.

お金がある人 (a person who has money)

Then that whole thing can be used as a noun.

お金がある人がいますか。 (Is there anyone who has money?)


It was used more like combining attributes together but not using te-form

Well… Go ahead and post the actual sentence… Or would you like me to keep guessing :wink:

(Though I’d be kind of surprised if it’s not some kind of relative clause)


Okay, here it is. “A park with a beautiful pond” 綺麗な池があるこえん。(the “ko” at the end is the one for public, couldnt get the computer to use that sign)

According to bunpro the sentence structure is N1+ ga aru/no aru + N2.

Yeah, that’s a relative clause. That’s what my first post was about. Also, it should be こうえん. That’s why it didn’t recognize it.


It clearly helps if I could spell. :slight_smile:

@Leebo Couldn’t you just use ”と” since that means “with” also? Although, if I just looked at it – I’d assume it was “and”.

Like… 池と公園? That would just be “a pond and a park.”

3 Likes"with"+in+japanese

But I see your point. It isn’t usually used for that purpose, hence the relative clause. The pond becomes an attribute of the park.

You mean like わたしと行く (go with me)? That’s not the same と grammatically. There are many functions of と.


Then there is some rule I’m not aware of as to how it’s used. Otherwise, I would see the function of “ga aru” Thanks!

がある isn’t really a special grammar point on its own. It’s just one example of a relative clause. You can have a relative clause with other parts of speech, other verbs, etc.


It might help if you think of it as “A ‘beautiful pond-containing’ park” rather than as “a park with a beautiful pond”. ’ 綺麗な池がある’ is sort of like an adjective describing the park. Whereas if you used と, it would be making the pond and the park into a separate list, like “there is a beautiful pond and there is a park”.

Like Leebo said, this isn’t just limited to がある. Here’s a page that might be helpful if you want more information.


Did you just mark yourself as the “best solution” :smiley:


I want to see you keep guessing. Guess what sentence in Japanese I’m thinking of right now.


When going through Bunpro, do you carefully examine all the example sentences and read maybe one or two of the supplemented articles? Doing that should help you understand the grammar points. I was very confused by this one too at first but when I just stuck with it for some half an hour and tried to understand what it’s about, I understood it quite easily after all. :smiley:

Although it seems that you already understand where the issue is, it’s important to not make one-to-one equivalents with translations. The translated sentence uses “with”, but it could also use “that” and still give the same meaning: “A park that has a beautiful pond.” I believe that this translation would actually show the grammar that Leebo was referring to (relative clause). Japanese doesn’t require words like “that” to go between relative adjective clauses. Hopefully that helps to wrap your brain around this grammar.

1 Like

I was really just thinking that it was solved. Not trying to promote myself as the solution.

I probably should do that.

You’re probably right. Just because it CAN be used as “with” doesn’t mean it is usually or is understood as that.

Next time, I’ll try to do the proper study before I ask the questions. Thank you all for your help.

“Hey, meet me at the park after school.”

“Sure. The park with the cherry trees, right?”

“No, not that one.”

“Oh, you mean the one with the carousel?”

“That’s in the next town over!”

“Then, you mean the one that’s closed off for the winter?”

“Why would we be meeting at a closed-off park?”

“Then which park am I supposed to meet you at?”

“The park with the beautiful pond!”

Although the word “with” is used in English here, the Japanese verb ある refers to something which “exists”. Thus, a more literal translation might be:

“The park that has the beautiful pond!”

I agree with @LucasDesu that you don’t want to make one-to-one translations on specific words. There are plenty of times when multiple Japanese words all translate to the same English word, or a single Japanese word may have many possible English translations. ある is about existence. Something “is”, it “exists”. 「池がある」, a pond exists. There is a pond. “The pond does exist.” 「綺麗な池がある」, a pond described as “pretty” or “beautiful” does exists. 「綺麗な池がある公園」 is not just any park. It’s a park in which a beautiful pond exists. The park has a beautiful pond.

Edit: Regarding marking a post as “best solution”, if there was a specific post that someone made that you feel answers your question, you can mark that one as the solution. That way, anyone else who sees your post can see the specific answer immediately as it will show up attached to the first post. It took me some time to get used to how the forum software works, as well!