Hi, I have a question.
Bunpro says the following:
［な］Adjective + なら（ば）
Noun + なら（ば）
But those are forms for the なら conditional.
Both Tae Kim and Wasabi (first 2 readings for this grammar point) say the following:
For nouns and na-adjectives: Attach 「であれば」
No examples for this grammar point show non-negative nouns or na-adjectives.
The negative form is correctly written: で + なければ, and since ある and ない are the same verb, I cannot figure this one out.
Is this a mistake?
なら(ば) vs であれば
They can both be used, but であれば is more formal as it comes from である whereas なら(ば) comes from だ.
ば attaches to the 仮定形 (hypothetical form) of a word.
Nouns don’t have a 仮定形 so you need to use either だ or である (You can’t use です since it doesn’t have a 仮定形). The 仮定形 of だ is なら. The 仮定形 of ある is あれ so である will become であれ.
The 仮定形 of a な adjectives just has you attach なら to it, but you can also use である like we did for nouns.
There is a whole grammar point dedicated to なら if you need some example sentences.
ある and ない are not the same verb. In fact this ない is not even a verb, but an い adjective.
They can both be used
Is there not a difference in meaning between the ば and なら conditionals? Are they interchangable for nouns and na-adjectives? Does this not confuse the meaning?
There is a whole grammar point dedicated to なら if you need some example sentences.
I need example sentences for ば that use nouns and na-adjectives in a positive meaning so I can understand the difference between ば and なら conditionals.
なら in just a shortened version of ならば.
Yes, they are the same. But when you see なら being used after a verb or い adjective technically those are being nominalized (they are turned into nouns). If you go to the page for the なら grammar point you can see the の (which can be ommited) that nominalizes them.
Just imagine there is a ば after all of those なら then.
なら in just a shortened version of ならば.
How do you differentiate the meaning then? All the sources for the conditional grammar points separate them into different groups of conditionals w/ different meaning (hypothetical vs. contextual).
If I wanted to say: If I were a plane… → 私が飛行機ならば…
But that translates to “Since I’m a plane…”, not “If I were”.
Wasabi says なら is not applicable for hypothetical conditions. So that’s what’s confusing me right now.
They mean the same thing (though ならば is more formal since it’s longer / you aren’t omitting something).
That’s just how they decide to teach it. The contextual meaning comes from always using the hypothetical form of だ instead of any other word. Technically, you could skip teaching たら and なら since they come from たらば and ならば, but it doesn’t hurt to take a closer look at the differences between using them. For example you can take a more top down approach and just look at the differences between 食べれば, 食べたら, and 食べなら without having to care about what auxiliary verbs things are coming from.
私が飛行機なら飛べる can be translated to “If I were a plane I could fly.”
Since なら is the hypothetical of だ the statement kind of exists independent from time. For the hypothetical conditions that wasabi is talking about it happens temporally. If X happens at time Y then Z should happen.
The Bunpro grammar page, in the box at the very bottom, states:
Caution - So that you do not mix up the conjugation rules for ば, and potential verbs, remember that the last kana of the verb will change to an あ sound, before adding れる, with potential verbs. However, this change is to an え sound with ば.
Isn’t this wrong – the 〜[あ]れる (for 五段 verbs) form referred to here should be called the passive form, whereas the potential form is 〜[え]る, or is it not?
Hi @dpn, apologies for the late reply! This appears to be a mistake, and has since been fixed. The correct form will appear on the website shortly. 
I’m just a (upper beginner?) Japanese learner, so I hope this doesn’t come across as arrogant. I’m just confused, that’s all. I don’t understand why all the “literal” examples for the ば conditional form are “literally” translated in the passive form. Maybe whoever added the translations mixed up the ば conditional form with the passive form?
明日雨が降れば、映画を見に行くつもり。
If it rains tomorrow, then I will go watch a movie.
[lit. “if rain gets fallen”]
For what it’s worth, I do think a “literal” translation for this sentence would be helpful, since the natural English sentence uses “rain” as a verb, unlike the Japanese, which uses it as a noun. But the “literal” translation would be more like “If rain falls, then…”, treating rain as an active subject. I don’t understand why the passive voice was added in the “literal” translation.
毎日サッカーの練習に行けば、 …
If you go to soccer practice every day, then …
[lit. “if practice gets gone to”]
I don’t even know what to say here. “…gets gone to”?
As far as I can tell, none of the examples is actually using the passive voice, but I only posted the first two examples. Is there something I’m missing here?
I have a question for the conjugation やめる
雨が止めば、今日も釣りに行くつもりです。
should this not be やめれば
Thanks Andy
The verb isn’t 止める (transitive), it’s 止む (intransitive).
ahh Thank you yes, of course similar me. Im not very good at the transitive and intransitive
This example has been touched upon already here, but I still can’t completely understand, how negative conditional form is conjugated here:
そのコーヒーを好きでなければ、この飲み物も絶対好きじゃないでしょう。
And what exactly is である and why it completely loses ある when conjugated to negative conditional. Is it even a complete verb or is it で (because of 好き) + ある? Even though shouldn’t it be あなければ then?
It’s で (particle) + ある (verb).
The negative form of ある is just ない, which conjugates like an い-adjective.
In certain older texts, you might encounter あらねば or あらざれば too, but not in modern standard Japanese.
It’s not an ichidan verb so it can’t be this.
Thank you for taking time to explain this to me. The conjugation of ある still confuses me too much. I guess I just need some time for it to sink in.
It’s not the で particle, it’s the te-form of the copula. 好き is a na-adjective, and you need で to connect a noun and a na-adjective to the negative conditional.
Treating で as the te-form of the copula is only a modern reanalysis. It’s about as far removed from explaining the structure of である as possible.
Thank you for your explanation.
Almost all negative grammar points I’ve encountered so far can be conjucated with either じゃ or では, so is it ok to say じゃなければ instead of でなければ?