The Difference Between the Particles “wa” and “ga”

Written by Richard Webb | March 9, 2017

Whether you are a beginner, intermediate or advanced speaker of Japanese, there is probably one question that keeps coming back to haunt you:

What is the difference between “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」?

You’ve probably asked about it, maybe even compared a whole range of sentences trying to figure it out, but with no satisfying conclusion.

And do you know why you can never get a simple, straightforward answer?

Because it’s the wrong question to ask.

It does have an answer, but it doesn’t really tell the whole story.

Of course, there’s no way you could have known this. I certainly didn’t, and for a long time had the same trouble finding an answer that really made sense to me.

One day, however, when I was studying at a university in Japan, one of my teachers started talking about these things called “kaku joshi”かく助詞じょし, or “case-marking particles”. These are a specific subset of particles that, for the most part, are the main particles we use in everyday Japanese – “de”「で」, “wo”「を」, “ni”「に」, and a few others.

But not “wa”「は」.

As she explained more, it became obvious why I could never get a clear answer. The problem was that instead of trying to figure out the difference between “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」, I should have been asking…

What is the true purpose of “wa”「は」?

We know it defines the topic, but what exactly is that? And why do we use it in some situations but not others?

Understand this, and the choice between “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 becomes considerably easier, while also giving you a deeper understanding of the mindset behind the Japanese language as a whole.

Hopefully this article will help you see “wa”「は」 for what it really is, and as a result, be better equipped to choose between “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」.

Disclaimer: I said easier. Not easy. Not crystal clear, never have to think about it again, but easier. The grammatical concept of the “topic” – which is what “wa”「は」 defines – is completely foreign to English (and most other languages for that matter), so of course it will take time and effort to fully understand. This article aims simply to remove a large portion of the confusion around it. It’s also somewhat generalised to make it more digestible.

The difference between “wa”「は」 and the other major particles
The true purpose of “wa”「は」
Comparing our options
Sentences with both “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」
Key take-aways

The difference between “wa”「は」 and the other major particles

What is so special about “wa”「は」?

The “kaku joshi”かく助詞じょし, or case-marking particles, I referred to earlier are very simple in terms of their function – they tell us how the word or phrase before them relates directly to the action described by the verb.

And of particular note:

So what is “wa”「は」?

“wa”「は」 marks the topic of the sentence; it tells us what we are talking about.

Let’s put that side-by-side for clarity:

  • “ga”「が」 tells us who or what performs the action.
  • “ni”「に」 tells us the destination of the action.
  • “de”「で」 tells us where the action takes place.
  • “wa”「は」 tells us what is being talked about in the sentence.

Unlike the other major particles, “wa”「は」 does not directly relate to the action in any specific way. Instead, it tells us information about the sentence (or, more accurately, the clause) in which it is used.

The reason “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 are so easily confused is because in a lot of cases, the sentence is talking about the person performing the action, so the topic and the subject are the same person (or animal or thing).

Let’s look at a really simple example:

Taro bought a book.

Here, the person who bought the book is Taro, so Taro is the subject of the verb “bought”.

At the same time, the sentence as a whole is talking about Taro, so in Japanese, the topic of the sentence would also be Taro.

As such, we could use either “wa”「は」 or “ga”「が」 to define Taro’s role:

tarō ga hon wo kaimashita

たろう が ほん を かいました


tarō wa hon wo kaimashita

たろう は ほん を かいました


Both of these sentences describe the exact same activity, and are also both 100% grammatically correct. They are, however, quite different.

To understand the difference, we need to understand the true purpose of “wa”「は」.

The true purpose of “wa”「は」

As we know, “wa”「は」 defines the topic. More specifically:

“wa”「は」 can be used in place of, or together with, other particles (as well as independently) to define the word or phrase before it as the topic of the sentence or clause.

The topic is basically the thing that we are talking about in the sentence.

But why do we ever need to define a topic, when it doesn’t even exist in most other languages?

Put simply: For clarification.

The true purpose of “wa”「は」 is to clarify the context within which the rest of the actions described in the sentence take place.

What does that mean?

Consider that when communicating in any language, there are two main parts:

  • Context
  • New information

We talk or write to communicate new information to others, and we do so with a certain amount of already understood or implied background information, or context.

Sometimes there is a lot of context, sometimes there is none, but it looks something like this:

What we have here is a context bubble, which is defined by all the contextual information we have at any given time. This changes constantly.

Next to it is the new or important information we are trying to communicate. In any given sentence, this new/important information only relates to whatever is inside the context bubble.

We can demonstrate this with a simple conversation in English:

Paul: What did Taro do today?
Susan: He bought a book.

When Paul asks the question, there was no pre-existing context – the context bubble is empty. He had to express his question in full because if he didn’t, Susan wouldn’t know what Paul was talking about.

As he asks the question, though, the information in his question gets added to the context bubble for their conversation, which in this case is the person being spoken about (Taro) and the relevant time period (today).

This means that when it comes time for Susan to answer the question, she can just say “he” instead of “Taro”, since the context bubble tells us who “he” is. Similarly, she doesn’t need to say “today” in order for the timing of the action she’s describing to be understood. The constantly evolving context bubble saves us from repeating ourselves.

The same is true in Japanese, but with one small difference. Let’s take a look:

P: What did Taro do today?

P: tarō wa kyō nani wo shimashitaka

P: たろう は きょう なに を しましたか?

P: 太郎たろう今日きょうなにをしましたか?

S: (He) bought a book.

S: hon wo kaimashita

S: ほん を かいました

S: ほんいました

As before, there is no context before Paul’s question, but as he asks it, Taro is added to the context bubble, together with timing of today – the same as we saw in English.

The difference is that in Japanese, instead of using “he”, the context allows Susan to not mention Taro in her answer at all.

In both languages, the information inside the context bubble doesn’t generally need to be repeated for the message to be understood.

In English, however, certain parts of the sentence need to be included for the sentence to be grammatical.

In this case, “he” is one of those words. It is necessary because English sentences must include a subject (the person/thing doing the action) to be grammatically complete. Depending on the verb, they sometimes also need an object (the thing the action was done to).

There are, however, no such requirements in Japanese, so we can just completely leave out the things that are already known.

This is part of the reason that pronouns (I, you, he, she, it, they, etc.) are far more common in English than in Japanese. We need them in English to form complete sentences without repeating the same information over and over again (imagine a five minute conversation in which Paul and Susan have to keep referring to Taro by name, instead of just as “he/him”…). In Japanese, however, these words simply aren’t needed.

So what does this have to do with “wa”「は」?

Recall what we said earlier – that “wa”「は」 clarifies the context for the rest of the actions in the sentence.

In other words, “wa”「は」 is used to redefine or clarify the contents of the context bubble, or part thereof.

The context bubble contains the background information we need to understand what we are talking about. The topic is basically just background information that needs clarifying.

In effect, the topic is the context bubble, or at least part of it. It gives us a way to explicitly state what we are talking about.

We would do this in situations where we start talking about something new, or when the context isn’t clear or has changed, either partially or completely.

The best way to illustrate this is to compare the different ways that we can communicate the same idea.

Comparing our options

You’ll recall that for our example, “Taro bought a book”, we had these two options:

tarō ga hon wo kaimashita

たろう が ほん を かいました


tarō wa hon wo kaimashita

たろう は ほん を かいました


As we have seen, we actually also have another option that can be used in certain situations:

(He) bought a book.

hon wo kaimashita

ほん を かいました


The question is, how do we choose between these three alternatives? Let’s look at each one.

The ‘nothing’ option

We already know that we can use the last option (which doesn’t mention Taro at all) when the context makes it obvious that we are talking about Taro, such as when answering a question that is specifically about Taro. This should be relatively straightforward, if not always easy.

The ‘ga’「が」 option

“Ga”「が」 is basically the other extreme. It describes the full action literally, with the subject, object and verb defined in full.

This means that instead of using the context bubble, Taro is included in the new/important information part of the sentence.

Remember, “ga”「が」 marks the subject, telling us who or what performed the action, so the effect of this is that a direct connection is drawn between Taro and the act of buying.

Importantly, since it places him in the new/important information part, marking Taro with “ga”「が」 actually emphasises that Taro bought the book. Not someone else, but Taro.

We might want to emphasise Taro in a situation like this:

A: Who bought the book?

A: dare ga hon wo kaimashita ka?

A: だれ が ほん を かいました か?

A: だれほんいました か?

B: Taro bought the book.

B: tarō ga hon wo kaimashita

B: たろう が ほん を かいました


In this case, B needs to emphasise “Taro” because that is the answer to the question being asked. Taro is new and important information.

This is also why “dare”だれ should be followed by “ga”「が」 in the question. The ‘who’ is the information being sought, so of course it is important.

Quick note about this example

After A’s question, the book has, of course, moved into the context bubble…

…so B doesn’t need to include it. Instead, he could just respond:

B: Taro bought it.

B: tarō ga kaimashita.

B: たろう が かいました。


Notice that in English, “the book” is replaced by “it”. The book has moved into the context bubble in English too, but because the English sentence would not be grammatically complete without an object (the thing that was bought), “it” is used to plug the hole.

The inclusion of the verb itself is a bit more optional. Complete sentences need verbs, so whether or not he includes “kaimashita”いました」 would depend on whether or not he needs to answer in a complete sentence. If Taro were speaking with someone familiar, for example, he could avoid using a complete sentence answer and simply reply:

B: tarō (ga)

B: たろう (が)

B:太郎たろう (が)

“Ga”「が」 is optional here, and can help to emphasise that Taro is the person who performed the act of buying the book. It’s not usually necessary, however, when the verb is omitted and it is clear what role Taro played in the action being described (ie. it’s obvious that Taro bought the book, and wasn’t, for example the thing being bought).

The ‘wa’「は」 option

“Wa”「は」 is somewhere in between the other two.

Where the ‘nothing’ option relies entirely on the context bubble, and the ‘ga’「が」 option doesn’t use the context bubble at all…

“wa”「は」 is used to clarify or add to the context bubble.

We use “wa”「は」 when:

  • it is not 100% obvious from context who or what is being talked about, AND
  • the ‘who’ or ‘what’ is not the important information trying to be communicated.

In the sentence…

tarō wa hon wo kaimashita

たろう は ほん を かいました。


“wa”「は」 is effectively used in place of “ga”「が」 to define Taro as the topic, so instead of putting him in the new/important information part of the sentence, we are adding him to the context bubble:

This difference is everything.

Taro is no longer emphasised, and we are basically putting him on the same level as background contextual information. We only mention Taro at all to clarify that he is the person we are talking about.

In effect, “wa”「は」 shifts the emphasis of the sentence away from the word or phrase it is marking, and onto the information that follows.

Instead of drawing a direct line between Taro and the act of buying, we are referring to Taro more generally. This is a bit like saying, “Speaking of Taro, …” or, “As for Taro, …”, and then describing what he did, as opposed to just directly saying, “Taro did this”.

We could therefore say that “tarō wa hon wo kaimashita”太郎たろうほんいました」 is roughly equivalent to:

Speaking of Taro, bought a book.

Why do the Japanese phrase it in this more generalised way? Because that’s just how Japanese is. It is generally a vague and indirect language, and, as we’ve seen, even information that plays a major part in the action being described can be omitted entirely if it’s understood from context – not even a pronoun is required.

Although communication in Japanese may be vague, it’s important to note that what is actually communicated (eg. Taro bought a book) is usually just as specific as it might be in English. It is only the words used to describe it that tend to be more vague. As such, important information is often expressed in generic-sounding terms (eg. bought a book), with any other details just being implied by context. Then, if the existing context alone isn’t quite enough, “wa”「は」 is used to clarify it.

Now of course, “wa”「は」 is not only used at the beginning of conversations to define who we are talking about. It is used throughout conversations in many different ways to redefine and clarify the context bubble.

We can see this if we modify our example a little:

Speaking to Taro and Eriko
A: What did you do today?

A: kyō nani wo shimashita ka?

A: きょう、 なに を しました か?

A: 今日きょうなにをしましたか?

Taro: I bought a book.

Taro: watashi wa hon wo kaimashita.

Taro: わたし は ほん を かいました。

Taro: わたしほんいました。

Eriko: I went to school.

Eriko: watashi wa gakkō ni ikimashita.

Eriko: わたし は がっこう に いきました。

Eriko: わたし学校がっこうきました。

Here, if Taro were to simply say “hon wo kaimashita”ほんいました」, it would imply that both Taro and Eriko bought a book. Because A’s question doesn’t mention anyone specific, the fact that she is talking to Taro and Eriko implies that she is asking about both of them. In effect, Taro and Eriko are both put inside the context bubble implicitly as the question is asked:

Their answers will apply to this context bubble unless it is changed, so to talk only about himself, Taro needs to clarify this by redefining the context bubble using “wa”「は」:

Taro: I bought a book.

Taro: watashi wa hon wo kaimashita

Taro: わたし は ほん を かいました。

Taro: わたしほんいました。

Only then can he go on to provide the information that was being sought, since his answer only applies to himself.

We could say that his answer is roughly equivalent to:

Taro: As for me, bought a book.

Taro clarifies that he is speaking about himself, then conveys the important information.

We can see that Eriko then does the exact same thing.

She redefines the topic as herself (this time replacing Taro), then provides her answer as it relates to the new context bubble.

To be clear, if Taro (or Eriko for that matter) were to use “ga”「が」 in this situation, he would actually be emphasising that he did the act of buying, since this would place him in the new/important information part:

He does need to mention himself for clarity of course, but ultimately, the important information is what he did, not who did it. That is, after all, what the question was asking. The same is true for Eriko.

To recap, we have three main ways to describe a simple action that somebody did:

  • hon wo kaimashita

    ほん を かいました


  • tarō ga hon wo kaimashita

    たろう が ほん を かいました


  • tarō wa hon wo kaimashita

    たろう は ほん を かいました


We can say that:

  • Neither “wa”「は」 nor “ga”「が」 is needed if it is obvious who/what we’re talking about
  • “Ga”「が」 emphasises the information that comes before it as new or important information
  • “Wa”「は」 helps clarify who/what we are talking about, shifting the emphasis to the information that comes after it

Now let’s look at some of the most common situations where “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 can be particularly confusing.

Sentences with both “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」

Most non-complex sentences (ie. those without sub-clauses) will only contain either “wa”「は」 or “ga”「が」, but there are some that contain both. It is these sentences where the context bubble should start to be particularly handy.

“Wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 usually appear together when we want to communicate information about someone or something, but do so by referring to them in relation to someone or something else.

One common situation is when we describe body parts; that is, we want to describe the body part, but in relation to the person to whom the body part belongs.

Let’s look at an example of this, starting with a sentence where the verb isn’t “desu”「です」:

His legs grew longer.

kare wa ashi ga nobimashita.

かれ は あし が のびました。


Let’s break this down, working backwards.

First, let’s acknowledge the most important element in the sentence, our verb, “nobimashita”びました」, meaning “grew longer” or “lengthened”.

Next, let’s remember what “ga”「が」 does:

“ga”「が」 tells us the subject of the verb; that is, who or what performs the action.

So, who or what is it that grew longer? The thing marked by “ga”「が」“ashi”あし.

Just using what we have so far, our sentence is:

(The) legs grew longer.

ashi ga nobimashita.

あし が のびました。


That bring us to our last piece, “kare wa”かれは」. Remember that:

“wa”「は」 is used to clarify or add to the context bubble.

By adding “kare wa”かれは」 before “ashi ga nobimashita”あしびました」, we are just putting “kare”かれ inside the context bubble.

With “wa”「は」, we are clarifying who we are talking about for the rest of the sentence, just as we did before.

Once we have that context bubble defined, we go on to say, “the legs grew longer”. This on its own is a generic statement about some legs, but since “kare”かれ is in the context bubble, we know that the legs must belong to “him”. The result is something like this:

As for him, the legs grew longer.

This is obviously very different to English, where we would usually define the legs as being owned by him (his legs), and describe the action that his legs are performing (growing longer).

You can do this in Japanese too, so it’s not wrong to say, for example:

His legs grew longer.

kare no ashi wa nobimashita.

かれ の あし は のびました。


This, however, isn’t a very natural way to express this kind of idea.

One thing I would like to point out here is that there is a major difference between this sentence and our example with Taro. The difference is:

  • Taro performed the act of buying the book.
  • “He” did not perform the act of growing longer.

Yet, both were marked by “wa”「は」 (at least in some cases).

The reason this is possible is because all “wa”「は」 did was tell us who the sentences were about. The important information was something else related to these people. In one case (Taro’s), it was what that person did. In the other, it was an action done by something else (his legs).

Now let’s see how this works with sentences that use “desu”「です」, both for body parts and various other things.

Using “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 when the main verb is “desu”「です」

“Desu”「です」 may be a special verb, but in terms of “wa”「は」 and our context bubble, nothing really changes.

Let’s look at an example sentence:

His legs are long. / He has long legs.

kare wa ashi ga nagai desu.

かれ は あし が ながい です。


We can break this down the same way we did a moment ago, except we need to clarify something first.

With adjectives, such as “nagai”ながい」, we should look at this as being grouped together with “desu”「です」 to form a single phrase meaning “being long” or “is long”. If we do this, we end up with a phrase that is comparable to other verbs, such as “nobimasu”びます」 (grow longer) from our previous example.

If we put them side-by-side…

  • nagai desuながいです = being long
  • nobimasuびます = grow longer

…we can see that they are roughly equivalent in terms of the nature of what they describe. In English, their meanings both have a descriptor (the adjective “long” and the adverb “longer”) and a verb (“are” and “grow”).

This is simplifying things a little, but in order to make the highly irregular verb “desu”「です」 somewhat comparable with every other verb, we will group “nagai”ながい」 and “desu”「です」 together to be a single phrase that describes a certain act of being.

So, our action is “nagai desu”ながいです」, or “being long”.

Who or what is it that is “being long”? The thing marked by “ga”「が」“ashi”あし.

Lastly, “kare wa”かれは」 appears before “ashi ga nagai desu”あしながいです」, so just like before, “kare”かれ is inside the context bubble.

As always, we start by clarifying who we are talking about, then describe something related to that. In this case, that translates roughly to:

As for him, the legs are long.

Now, let’s apply this approach to a few more confusing situations.

Suki, kiraiきら and hoshīしい

Coming from English, “suki”き」 (like), “kirai”きらい」 (hate) and “hoshī”しい」 (want) probably take some getting used to because they are adjectives, while their English equivalents are verbs. They are also often used in sentences that include both “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」, so let’s see how we can apply the context bubble to make better sense of them.

Since they are adjectives, these words all work in exactly the same way as “nagai”ながい」 did in our previous example. Let’s take a look:

I like sushi.

watashi wa sushi ga suki desu.

わたし は すし が すき です。


If we break this down as we did before, we can see that the same rules apply.

What is the action? The adjective/verb combination “suki desu”きです」, which roughly means “being liked”.

Who or what is performing that action? The word or phrase before “ga”「が」, which is “sushi”「すし」.

Our sentence so far is therefore:

Sushi is liked.

sushi ga suki desu.

すし が すき です。


Lastly, who or what are we talking about? The word or phrase before “wa”「は」, which is “watashi”わたし.

We therefore have “watashi”わたし in the context bubble, and this tells us who we are talking about when we say “sushi is liked”.

When talking about me, sushi is liked.

We can do exactly the same thing with “kirai”きらい」, “hoshī”しい」, and other similar words.

I hate natto.

watashi wa nattō ga kirai desu.

わたし は なっとう が きらい です。


I want a new computer.

watashi wa atarashī pasokon ga hoshī desu.

わたし は あたらしい パソコン が ほしい です。


Again, this is obviously very different from English, where these ideas are expressed as actions that we perform – we like, hate and want things in the same way that we do things. Hopefully, though, you can see how this is entirely consistent with other Japanese expressions, and that the roles of “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 are clear and consistent. They just take a bit (or a lot) of getting used to.

Bonus: The ~tai~たい form of verbs

Verbs with the ~tai~たい ending, such as “tabetai”べたい」, also work the same way as these adjectives because that’s exactly what they are. Let’s see an example:

I want to eat sushi.

watashi wa sushi ga tabetai desu.

わたし は すし が たべたい です。


Here’s what that looks like:

In this sentence, I’m talking about me, and then within that context, I’m saying in fairly generic-sounding terms that the eating of sushi is wanted.

Arimasuあります and imasuいます

The verbs “arimasu”「あります」 and “imasu”「います」 can also be a little tricky, as they share similarities with “desu”「です」 as well as all other verbs. We can, however, apply all of the principles we’ve covered so far in the same way.

Let’s start by looking at an example where “arimasu”「あります」 is used just like any other verb that isn’t “desu”「です」:

Her bag is in the classroom.

kanojo no kaban wa kyōshitsu ni arimasu

かのじょ の カバン は きょうしつ に あります。


The first thing we need to make absolutely clear – just to be on the safe side – is that even though the English translation here uses the verb “is” or “to be”, it has a distinctly different meaning to when “desu”「です」 was used.

While “desu”「です」 is essentially used to equate two things as being the same (A = B), “arimasu”「あります」 describes existence (as does “imasu”「います」).

As such, we could kind of translate the above as, “Her bag exists in the classroom”. We could not, however, change our “desu”「です」 example sentence to “His legs exist long”. These “to be” words mean very different things.

Now, if we put this “arimasu”「あります」 sentence side-by-side with our example from earlier, we can see that they are very similar:

tarō wa hon wo kaimashita.

kanojo no kaban wa kyōshitsu ni arimasu.

たろう は ほん を かいました。

かのじょ の カバン は きょうしつ に あります。



Who/what is performing the action in each of these sentences?

  • “tarō”太郎たろう is the person watching
  • “kanojo no kaban”彼女かのじょのカバン」 is the thing that is being/existing

As these are the person/thing performing the action, they could be marked by “ga”「が」, but as we have learned, this would emphasise them too much.

Instead, we use “wa”「は」 to define them as our topic, essentially demoting them to the context bubble. Then, using that context bubble, we describe the important information that we actually want to communicate:

This should be relatively straightforward.

However, “arimasu”「あります」 and “imasu”「います」 are also sometimes used in sentences that include both “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」, and this is where it can get confusing.

Fortunately, our same rules apply – “wa”「は」 defines/clarifies the context bubble, and “ga”「が」 defines the thing that is performing the act of “being” (or, if it’s easier, “existing”).

For example:

I have an older sister.

watashi wa ane ga imasu.

わたし は あね が います。


First, we clarify that “watashi”わたし is in the context bubble. Then, in that context, we describe the older sister as being/existing.

Within the context of “watashi”わたし, an older sister exists.

Here’s another example:

He doesn’t have any money.

kare wa okane ga arimasen.

かれ は おかね が ありません。


Within the context of “kare”かれ, no money exists.

As a side note, notice how the way we express these ideas in English is with the word “have”, not “be” or “exist”. This is further evidence of the indirect nature of the Japanese language. In Japanese, I don’t own my sister, just as “he” doesn’t own money. My sister and money exist on their own; they just so happen to do so in a way that relates to me and him, respectively.

This reflects a broader cultural and linguistic difference that actually shapes the way we view the world. Generally:

  • In English, people do and own things.
  • In Japanese, things happen and exist.

I’ve often thought about the chicken-and-egg situation that this represents – did the Japanese culture of indirectness evolve due to the structure of the language, or did the language evolve to make vague expression easier? I suspect the answer is both, as ultimately, language is culture.

Key take-aways

Here are the main lessons I hope you can take from this article:

  • Particles like “ga”「が」, “wo”「を」 and “ni”「に」 define how certain things relate to the action, while “wa”「は」 tells us what is being talked about in the sentence
  • There are two main things that determine the meaning of what we communicate – context, and new/important information
  • Marking something as the subject using “ga” classifies it as new/important information, giving it emphasis
  • “wa”「は」 allows us to redefine or clarify some or all of the context before stating new/important information
  • “wa”「は」 shifts the emphasis of the sentence away from the word or phrase it is marking, and onto the information the follows

Of course, this doesn’t cover absolutely everything. Entire books have been written about “wa” and “ga”「は」 and 「が」 simply because there are so many different variables at play in any given situation.

Hopefully, though, you now have a better understanding of the difference between these two essential particles, and will be able to apply these lessons much more widely than I have here.

Do you have a specific situation involving “wa”「は」 and/or “ga”「が」 that you’re struggling with? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

    1. Luke: “As far as you are concerned as a topic, to the object that is my father, past killing action is applied!”
      Darth: “Disagreement, Luke. As far as I am concerned explicitly as a /subject/, to the object that is your father, equivalence is applied!”
      Luke: “Disagremeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeent!”

      1. ルーク:お前は僕のお父さんを殺したんだ!



        1. I meant “ルーク” on Vader’s response, that is how they officialy transliterated him… I don’t know if this is the official sentence, just translanted what Tosu wrote accordingly. I do think “俺は” would be better suited than “俺が” on Vader’s response

    2. I looked up the scene on YouTube to figure out what the line really was, and it’s “違う! お前 の 父 は 私 だ.” (Chigau! Omae no chichi wa watashi da.) (Although I think the voice actor pronounces it so it sounds like “washi”? Is that just a dialect thing?) So the context is “your father” and the new/important information is “it’s me!”

  1. Richard, 4 of your blogs alone thought me more than a month worth of understanding. It is probably one of, if not the best, summaries about the Japanese language. I love your way of learning through foundation than through ‘knowing words’. Thank you very much for what you’ve given.

  2. I look forward to learning more from you. This post unlocked a set of mysteries plaguing me for the last 10 years as a Chado student. My fellow students, native speakers, have been unable to explain Wa Ga in a way I could understand the difference. Thanks.

  3. The next time any of my Japanese coworkers complain about how difficult English is, I’m pointing to this article just to explain how much we need to understand “wa” and “ga”.

  4. I love your articles, but I find your insistence that です is a verb to be perturbing. In my studies I have never heard this before. And the sentences where you’ve used it can all exist(in their casual form) without it. 私の脚が長い is just as correct as your example including です. I understand that you want to teach people using the polite form as much as possible, but that in particular, seems slightly disingenuous.
    Just a related rant: The insistence to use the polite form for everything in all of the study materials I’ve used to date has been pretty frustrating, really. It would be much easier to learn verbs using the dictionary form and learning conjugations from there, but everything I’ve studied teaches us that 食べます is the verb and to conjugate it we have to take off ます and replace it with the other forms, like passive, causative, て-form, た-form, etc. It would be easier to just learn that the dictionary/plain form the verb is 食べる since the stems generally seem to vary depending on the last sound of the dictionary form(使われる、着られる、来させる)and using the ます form as the default makes it harder to figure out which conjugation pattern is the correct one. Verb conjugation has been the most difficult thing for me so far because I can’t find something to teach it to me from the root like that with the consistency that I need to grasp it.

    1. It’s not the first time I hear the complaint about teaching the -masu form as THE verb form. I learned Japanese by taking private classes and from the very beginning my teacher explained the verb conjugation by using the dictionary form, extracting the base of the verb and then adding suffixes like -masu, -tai, -rareru, etc. I also find it extremely weird that people are taught the -masu form as the initial verb form.

      By the way, from the linguistic point of view (and how I learned this) です is a “copula”, or, as my teacher was saying “a copula verb”.

  5. You can see the same type of subtly in English. For instance consider the following sentences:

    At the library, Taro bought the book.
    Taro bought the book at the library.

    Much like the Japanese sentences with wa and ga, they mean essentially the same thing. However, consider the following question:

    Where did Taro buy the book?

    Only one of the above sentences makes sense as an answer. If you were to reply “At the library, Taro bought the book.” it would sound strange and stilted, for much the same reason using “Taro wa” to answer “who bought the book?” would sound strange in Japanese.

  6. Thank you! Even though I’ve studied Japanese, it never occurred to me to think of “hoshii” and “suki” as adjectives! As an ALT of Japanese junior high school students, now I GET IT. “I’m don’t like natto,” and “I am want sushi,” make so much more sense now.

  7. Any true understanding of the complexities of the Japanese language need to be done in Japanese. To discuss them in English may be a great academic exercise, but it does not lead to any true understanding of the Japanese language. It also introduces all sorts of difficulties that do not exist if the discussion and understanding are in Japanese. If the discussion is too complex for someones current Japanese language abilities, then they are probably not ready for the discussion. I highly recommend that all students of the Japanese use a Japanese-Japanese dictionary (start with one published for elementary students and work your way up) and get explanations of the Japanese language in Japanese whenever possible.

    1. this works for advanced students but not for beginners. When an adult learns a new language, (s)he does need to anchor the new information to previously learned concepts (their mother tongue). It helps them understand things much faster. Otherwise they will be floundering in the ocean of the unknown for years before all this clicks in. Another thing is that when they use their mother tongue to learn a new language they need to constantly stay conscious that languages do not map 100% to each other.

  8. I’ve been learning Japanese for a long time and, while, my teacher basically explained things the same way you did in this article, I still often struggle, because once you start talking in more complex sentences things usually get not that obvious. At least for me 🙂

    I have to nitpick at this sentence, though, because it’s too outrageously untrue:
    “But why do we ever need to define a topic, when it doesn’t even exist in most other languages?”
    In linguistics there is a concept of a theme (topic) and a rheme (comment). You can apply this concepts to most (if not all?) languages
    Topic gives the context while comment gives the new information (focus). In many cases the subject becomes the topic that’s why it’s easy to confuse these things. For example, in Russian (my mother tongue) understanding the idea of the topic and the comment is important for putting the words in the sentence in the correct order, because grammatically you can shuffle them almost arbitrarily, but the order changes the meaning of the sentence (because the topic and the comment change when you change the order).

    1. In American Sign Language the Topic-Comment sentence structure is actually very common and confusing to beginning learners, as it’s not really used much in English.

  9. There are methods for not using the mother tongue to learn Japanese or other languages, even from day one. If you are interested in functional usage of the target language, they will get you there faster, though they are more intensive and require a more active learning process. In the end, no matter how you learn the language, ultimately you have to ‘forget’ your native language if you want to achieve any degree of fluency. My experience says the sooner the better. During my learning process, my wife answered my questions about Japanese, and I insisted that she answered in Japanese. If I did not understand, I waited and asked her again later, often much later. Now, 35 years later, I am glad I forced myself to learn Japanese in Japanese. On the phone, people rarely realize that I am not a native speaker of Japanese.

    1. I agree with you, up to a point. Once you have a foundation built, you should have an all Japanese text/study in Japanese. But at the lowest level? I think that’s kind of crazy to expect a person with zero Japanese experience to have a lick of comprehension without some guide in their native tongue.

      A friend of mine took a short Japanese course, in Japanese, and told me how easy it was! Then he explained that は meant “be”. So that didn’t work out so well, since he automatically mapped English grammar onto Japanese. In the early stages, people need to be clearly cautioned about fundamental differences.

  10. It would be helpful if you also discussed changing “ga” to “wa” in negative sentences. e.g., Tegami ga kimashita./Tegami wa kimasen deshita.

  11. Why did you write the adjective after the noun in one of the examples instead of before the noun? I thought the adjective was the same order as English, going before the noun?
    What’s the difference between both of these?

    1. 好きなリンゴ is, depending on the context, the apple I like, or my beloved apples.
      リンゴが好き is more like, I like apples.

      It’s not so different from English. You can say, I have long legs, or, my legs are long. Sometimes before the noun, sometimes seperately.

  12. In your post you write:


    To me,


    sounds more correct. Am I mistaken?

    1. When the ~たい form of a verb is used, が replaces を. Therefore, 私は寿司が食べたいです if you want sushi but 私は寿司を食べました if you ate sushi.

      1. Great to know the rule…but difficult to understand and use if I don’t know why…. so can you please elaborate why “When the ~たい form of a verb is used, が replaces を”

        1. Because sushi is the thing/object you “want” to eat – you’re emphasizing that over other foods. It’s the same with any other ~tai verb (except transportation verbs like go/walk/run/ride) – it’s the thing you specifically “want” to whatever.

  13. The main use that confuses me is in phrases like 「髪が長い」. Why does “hair” need to be emphasised? Why can’t you say “As for hair, long”? Another example phrase, 「猫の目が青い」.

  14. Subject particle “が”, to me, is used to describe past/present/future facts or events in novel or newspaper articles. In normal day-to-day conversation, “が” is most likely used to pinpoint, emphasize, volunteer, step-forward, accuse, with a flavor of positiveness, certainty, responsibility, or no-one-but, or willy-nilly.

    Anything else is “は”, with an exceptional usage of “が” in place of “の”, like 我が妻=my beloved wife, 誰がために鐘は鳴る=for whom the bell tolls.

    I may be wrong, but that’s how I feel being Japanese living in Japan. — Regards all.

  15. So basically that line in Death Note (俺/僕が正義だ) precisely means “I am Justice” or “It’s I who am Justice”. But if が were replaced with は, it would turn into something douche-ier like “Me? Justice.” or anything else (“Me? Justice is the word I hate”).

  16. ありがとうございました!I have struggled with this for years. This explanation is the CLEAREST I have ever heard! Thank you so much; it really helped.

  17. This article helped a lot conceptually. Regarding using wa and ga to refer to parts of a person’s body doing things, I’ve noticed a similar pattern in some European languages at least when the body parts are the indirect objects. For instance, in German, to say “I brush my hair,” you say, “Ich buerste mich die Haare,” which would translate literally into English as, “I brush myself the hair.” People tend to poo-poo using literal translations, but I think they are invaluable for understanding grammar. They aren’t particularly useful as a medium to translate your thoughts from one language to another, but they are pivotal in wrapping your head around the concept behind word choices and order.

  18. Why is it :
    gohan ga suki desu
    gohan wa oishii desu

    I always see ga with suki and wa with oishii
    Can someone please shed some light on these kind of usage differences?

  19. Very helpful article but one question. Related to your example about where her bag was, if the student had been taken to hospital after getting injured at school and someone asked “Where are her things?’, could part of the answer be ‘kanojo wa kaban ga kyōshitsu ni arimasu.’ ? to give emphasis to her ‘bag’ as well as to being in the ‘classroom’, given that her bicycle might have been somewhere else and her umbrella in another place.

  20. I have a weird question.
    I’m Hungarian. For us, this wa/ga-thing seems to be much less difficult because Hungarian basic sentence structure is T*Q*FA* so topic always comes first, including the so-called natural subject in neutral sentences (with no focus or quantifier). This natural subject is always translated as wa. “Long” (=dative-case) possessors can also be natural subjects.
    Péter-nek meg-hal-t az ap-ja.
    Peter-DAT Perf-die-Past the father-PossSg3
    ‘Peter’s father has died.’
    According to this logic, ‘Peter’ should be translated with wa and father with ‘ga’.

    My question is: how is English passive translated into Japanese?
    In Hungarian:
    Péter-t el-fog-t-a az ellenség.
    Peter-ACC Perf-catch-Past-Sg3Def the enemy.
    ‘Peter was caught by the enemy.’
    Here, ‘Pétert’ is the topic and the object at the same time and the ‘enemy’ is the subject. How should this sentence be translated into Japanese?
    Péter-rel el-men-t-ünk sétál-ni.
    Peter-INSTR away-go-Past-Pl1 walk-Inf.
    ‘We went to take a walk with Peter’.
    Here, ‘Péterrel’ is the topic and Pl1 is the subject.
    How should this sentence be translated into Japanese?

  21. I think your explanation for DESU causes confusion because you are using an I-adjective + desu. I-adjectives don’t need a copula, and desu only makes it polite.


    I suggest you change your example to use something other than an i-adj., perhaps a noun or a na-adj.

  22. Can I use ‘ga’ twice in the same sentence to avoid all vagueness and be as direct and explicit as possible?

    For example, instead of ‘Sue san wa daigaku ga suki desu’ —> ‘Sue san ga daigaku ga suki desu.’

    So instead of, ‘as for sue, College is loved’ it becomes —> ‘Sue loves College,’ with personal agency and responsibility rather than vagueness.

  23. Really great article. Never quite understood the real difference but with this way of representing it I’ve got a lot more clarity on the subject. Thanks!

  24. Pingback: Verbs | Pearltrees
  25. Fantastic article! Really was enlightening and increased my understanding on a relatively confusing subject that was broached in text books in, very clearly, the wrong way.

  26. Brilliantly explained perspective on は vs が! The communication model you introduced here has so many more applications outside of learning Japanese.

  27. Best article that has been explained its differences. I learned its minor differences in a basic japanese dictionary from japanese times it’s really helpful, and u also helped me! I love ur cheat sheets to!

  28. Can’t really fault your explanation except unfortunately it doesn’t explain why は is typically used when negating 好き and 欲しい etc. which is the only part I don’t quite get.

  29. As a Japanese-American I have to say this is one of my favorite articles on the Internet. I was always mystified by this distinction when I was growing up struggling to understand Japanese from my after-school Japanese classes. I am now married to a Korean and I was floored to learn that Korean has the exact same distinction, except in Korean it is “eun/neun” vs “ga/i”. This entire article, as far as I know, could be applied to Korean, just swapping out “wa” with “eun/neun” and “ga” with “ga/i”. This fact still astonishes me, and I think it’s a clue to a strong ancient connection between the cultures.

  30. Fantastic! I have only just started learning Japanese and was already realizing that wa vs. ga was going to be a struggle. This was SUCH a breath of fresh air! Love the context bubble model. どうもありがとうございます!!

  31. This helped me so much. I really couldn´t wrap my head around it. It is not usually explained in most of the courses, at least not at the beginning. While you can get away not thinking about it at first, it is a source of confusion in the long run. Thank you for the thorough explanation!

  32. Thank you so much for giving everyone a very memorable chance to read from this blog. It’s always very pleasurable plus jam-packed with fun for me and my office acquaintances to search the blog not less than three times a week to find out the latest guidance you will have. And indeed, I’m always astounded considering the wonderful guidelines served by you. Selected 4 tips in this posting are without a doubt the most efficient I’ve ever had.

  33. Does “wa” in “de wa arimasen” comply with these rules (as opposed to “ga arimasen”)? Or is it some sort of exception?

  34. richard you have quite possibly written the best blog in existence, this all has made it easy for my unga bunga えいご brain to understand. please never take this down i swear i owe my entire life to you you are amazing i hope you have a good life thank you so much

  35. I have come across this in my studies and I don’t think I understand why ga is used in the first case, and wa is used in the second.

    X ga arimasu (X exists)
    X wa arimasen (x doesn’t exist)

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}