The operative word here isn’t ありません, it’s ではありません. That’s the negative copula, no matter the animacy of the noun. Similarly, in very formal contexts, the positive is である rather than です.
ではありません is another way of saying じゃないです, just like ではない and じゃない are equivalent. いません would be used if the sentence was talking about the existence of the animate object, in which case the verb would directly refer to 日本人 (日本人がいません = “there are no Japanese people”). But your example translates to “is not Japanese”, so ありません refers to the quality of being Japanese, which is not an animate object.
it’s one of the forms of the copula
だ・である・です・であります・~~でござる~~・でございます
just the negative form of the 4th one there
it has a は in there because は is frequently after a particle (like で) in negative context, though でない・でありません・でございません can also exist sometimes
The ある=inanimate rule is a relative newcomer to Japanese grammar. Older grammar patterns (like this copula) don’t have to respect it.
Basically the で on this case transforms the word “Japanese person ” into the concept of “being a Japanese person” . The subject of the sentence is not a Japanese person but their “being Japanese” ; in this case, since the person is not japanese, “there is no being Japanese” in them. Maybe kinda weird to put it this way but it’s how I came to understand it
5 comments
The operative word here isn’t ありません, it’s ではありません. That’s the negative copula, no matter the animacy of the noun. Similarly, in very formal contexts, the positive is である rather than です.
ではありません is another way of saying じゃないです, just like ではない and じゃない are equivalent. いません would be used if the sentence was talking about the existence of the animate object, in which case the verb would directly refer to 日本人 (日本人がいません = “there are no Japanese people”). But your example translates to “is not Japanese”, so ありません refers to the quality of being Japanese, which is not an animate object.
it’s one of the forms of the copula
だ・である・です・であります・~~でござる~~・でございます
just the negative form of the 4th one there
it has a は in there because は is frequently after a particle (like で) in negative context, though でない・でありません・でございません can also exist sometimes
The ある=inanimate rule is a relative newcomer to Japanese grammar. Older grammar patterns (like this copula) don’t have to respect it.
Basically the で on this case transforms the word “Japanese person ” into the concept of “being a Japanese person” . The subject of the sentence is not a Japanese person but their “being Japanese” ; in this case, since the person is not japanese, “there is no being Japanese” in them. Maybe kinda weird to put it this way but it’s how I came to understand it