Given that X__ Vてある means someone did V to X, when should X be followed by は, が, and を?

The Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar says

"X" is most frequently marked by the topic marker は or the subject marker が; occasionally, it is marked by the direct object marker を. The agent is usually omitted.

but it provides no explanation about when to use each particle.

In addition, I found an example where が marks the agent rather than X: 「彼が殺してある」translated as "He has already killed someone" (rather than "He has already been killed"). This puzzles me further: how can I tell when が marks X and when it marks the agent?


The Vt-てある construction describes the way something is intentionally left in the resulting state of an earlier action upon it. When a sentence focuses on the resulting state, the object of the action usually takes the subject’s slot followed by が.

A book is left on the table.

The object marker を seems to put focus more on the action than its resulting state, and the agent of the action may be specified with が in this case.

He has lunch prepared (for someone).

If you omit the object, you end up with a sentence like the following.

He has it prepared (for someone).

The object or the agent may be topicalized or singled out for contrast with は.




Let me give you a pair of examples in which a person is the object of a verb in one and the agent of the same verb in the other.

  1. 中村さん[任命]{にんめい}してあります。
    We have Nakamura-san assigned (for some purpose).
  1. 中村さん任命してあります。
    Nakamura-san has someone assigned (for some purpose).

It’s hard to interpret the second sentence in the same way as the first (i.e. to see 中村さん as the object) because a person is not usually described with ある. The first sentence doesn’t describe Nakamura-san’s state as much as it does the fact that someone has assigned him/her.

It could become more ambiguous if it were about a robot. ロボットが置いてある could go either way.

  • IIUC what you say, it seems が could mark either the person doing the action (your "if you omit the object" example) or the person who is acted upon (your first example). How then can I tell whether 中村さんが直してある means that someone unspecified healed Nakamura (in preparation for the next battle), or Nakamura healed someone unspecified (in preparation for the same)?
    – max
    Jul 5 '21 at 8:33
  • @max: It’s basically dependent on the context, but If が marks a person, it would be pretty safe to assume that person is the agent of the action, not the object. See my edit.
    – aguijonazo
    Jul 5 '21 at 10:52
  • Thanks! I'm curious, is there any grammar dictionary or textbook that explains the information in your edit? While I understand this point after your explanation, I'd like to have a good source to look up other grammar questions in the future. I thought Dictionary of Japanese Grammar was the best source but it completely omits this subtlety.
    – max
    Jul 5 '21 at 12:14
  • 2
    @max: I’m a native, and what I know about Japanese, I didn’t learn from books :-) I see some parallel to the difference between が and を with potential verbs, and this answer seems to suggest that difference is explained in a book titled Japanese, The Spoken Language. You might want to take a look. I haven’t seen it myself and don’t know if it will be useful for your purpose, though.
    – aguijonazo
    Jul 5 '21 at 12:59

彼が殺してある He has already killed someone for him/her/something.


HE has already killed someone for him/her/something.

彼を殺してある I have already killed him for him/her/something.


I have already killed HIM for him/her/something.

Or Someone have already killed him for him/her/something.

彼は殺してある Someone has already killed HIM for him/her/something.


HE has already killed someone for him/her/something.

XがVてある equals XがVしておいた X prepared V for him/her/something

You can look up the word しておく(present tense), しておいた(past tense, present perfect)

  • There's probably a typo, since the two alternative translations you give for "彼が殺してある" are identical. Could you clarify which two you meant?
    – max
    Jul 5 '21 at 8:27
  • There are two meanings. One was HE. Another one was he. I will explain in a different way. There are two meanings as he has killed and He is the one who has killed.
    – Teacandy
    Jul 5 '21 at 10:14
  • Ahhh so there's no way to distinguish between these two very different meanings without additional clarifications?
    – max
    Jul 5 '21 at 12:08
  • There's no way. But you can guess from context.
    – Teacandy
    Jul 5 '21 at 12:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.