As a grammar point, Vないものはない forms a strong negation. As a stand-alone phrase, however, the meaning becomes a whole lot more figurative, something along the lines of 仕方ない - like “there’s nothing we can do, you don’t have what you don’t have”, feeling. “It is what it is.” WaniKani’s translation is perhaps a hair more interpretive than I would have gone for, but it’s fine otherwise.
The town of Ama in Shimane Prefecture adopted it as their motto, defining it as " ①無くてもよい ②大事なことはすべてここにある"
it sort of makes sense in english but it is definitely not a common way of framing it anymore. sort of a ‘when the cat is away the mice will play’ kind of thing.
I’m gonna give you the best advice a language teacher gave me once.
“Translation are a scam, do not even try, get at it raw”.
The whole point being that a language is, at the core, a way to express concepts though “commonly” agreed upon rules.
Trying to convert one rule set to another is a really inefficient way to understand meaning.
It’s a lot more precise for your brain to get to understand the native way.
So if you do not bother with the translation and accept the intent of the sentence you’re reading a lot of things will be easier.
I’m curious where you saw ないものはない in WaniKani (since it has no kanji in it), but without any extra context, “You can’t give what you don’t have” is a correct interpretation. I say “interpretation” because the subject is omitted here (which is a common thing that happens), so the translation could change slightly depending on what the context is (i.e. it could also be “I can’t give what I don’t have.”)
Here’s a (rough) breakdown of the grammar in the sentence:
ない (not exist, 無い) + もの (thing, 物) = thing that doesn’t exist
+
は (indicates ないもの is the subject of the sentence)
+
ない (not exist, 無い)
= “what doesn’t exist doesn’t exist”
But as a translation, “what doesn’t exist doesn’t exist” isn’t the most helpful, because in real-world use it’s an emphatic expression, often in situations where someone wants something from someone else, and the latter wants to be clear that they absolutely cannot give it because they just don’t have it.
So for example, imagine that a little kid really wants candy and is begging their parent because they’re convinced that they have some, even though that’s not the case. That parent could say “ないものはないのよ” to the kid as a way to communicate “I can’t give you the candy that I don’t have” (the の adds some emphasis while よ softens the statement a bit in a way that’s appropriate for talking to a kid.)
However, that use is only when the phrase is used standalone. If ないものはない is in another sentence the meaning changes, as seen in the other examples you found (though お金がないものはない should be お金がないことはない.)
持っていないものはあげられない is absolutely another way to put it, they’re both correct.
Aha, true that it sounds weird in English, but hopefully it’s possible to tell that it’s a figure of speech in Japanese!
Yup, the difference between using 広げて vs 伸ばして is that the latter focuses on the act of stretching out, whereas the former focuses on the state of being spread out, if that makes sense. Just conjures up a bit of a different mental image.
A good example should show clear context. It’s that simple. You could start the sentence off with a kid wanting candy or whatever and then the interpretation makes more sense.
I agree, but a good example should clearly show that intent. In the first example it does not. Interpretations without context are confusing and should involve more information to express the intended meaning.
Ah! I see now, I thought it was an example sentence but it’s a Common Word Combination. Those are meant to be short examples of words that commonly co-occur together but I see your point that it’s not helpful to have that particular example standalone like that!
What I’m going to do is remove it from the Common Word Combinations and make it an additional context sentence for ない with extra context added to help make the meaning clear. I’ll also add a new CWC to take its place. I’ll update here when I’m finished!
I see now, I thought it was an example sentence but it’s a Common Word Combination. Those are meant to be short examples of words that commonly co-occur together but I see your point that it’s not helpful to have that particular example standalone like that!