把...给...Construction

[nipponman]

My recent discussion with koneko lead to my creating this thread. I have studied both the 把

and 给 constructs seperately, and this combination of the two seems rather intuitive. My question is rather about the preferred usage of this expression over an expression that is "simpler" (i.e. requiring less grammatical constructs).

I'll just use the two examples in that thread:

koneko's sentence : 昨天你也没在学校赶快把午饭给吃了

my sentence : 昨天,你也在学校午饭吃得很慢吧?

English sentence : you also didn't eat lunch at school quickly yesterday, right?*

So again, if my sentence is indeed correct, what is the difference b/w these sentences, and why would I want to use 把...给... here?

*This sentence is easier to understand than the original english sentence provided imo.

Afterthought: When I learned about 把, I remember reading that the object that follows must be distinct. I.e. ...把這張照片... instead of ...把照片...;however, the previous sentence seems to imply that this is not necessary with 把...给...

Your help would be appreciated

nipponman

[Koneko]

昨天你也没在学校赶快把午饭给吃了

I need to emphasise that my example was not written in good Chinese, but it was close to what KiraKira wanted to see. I still think the sentence is not smooth enough.

把這張照片... instead of ...把照片...

Both are correct. The former indicates a specific photo; whereas the latter refers to photos in general.

E.g.

把這張照片给重洗两次。

Redevelope THIS photo twice.

把照片给重洗两次。

Redevelope THESE photos twice.

K.

[nipponman]

Thanks for your input koneko. My main point for this thread was to focus on the general

difference b/w把...给... sentences, and sentences that could be said without them, not to bash your sentence . To me, if you don't need 把...给... why say it? Unless it confers some sort of semantic meaning not present in non-把...给...sentences. Said semantic meaning is what I'm after.

[skylee]

To me, if you don't need 把...给... why say it? Unless it confers some sort of semantic meaning not present in non-把...给...sentences.

But it is a language we are talking about I suppose. Languages are not always that logical I guess. Remember that flammable/inflammable example?

Well this is really none of my business.

[nipponman]

But it is a language we are talking about I suppose. Languages are not always that logical I guess. Remember that flammable/inflammable example?

Yeah, thats true. I just want some basis for when I can/should use it as opposed to not using it.

[lokki]

koneko's sentence : 昨天你也没在学校赶快把午饭给吃了

my sentence : 昨天,你也在学校午饭吃得很慢吧?

English sentence : you also didn't eat lunch at school quickly yesterday, right?*

This discussion is way over my head and I have nothing useful to contribute, but I can't resist nitpicking. It seems to me there is a 没 missing in your sentence, right?

[HashiriKata]

It seems to me there is a 没 missing in your sentence, right?

You're right, lokki

By the way, if we can't see a 没 missing, that doesn't mean a 没 is not missing (Am I deep? ). Likewise, if we can't see or can't rationalize the differences among different sentences, that does not necessarily mean that there are no differences or that the variations are not needed. A language that consists of only visible logics is in fact a very poor language indeed, and HashiriKata'd say so!

[nipponman]

This discussion is way over my head and I have nothing useful to contribute, but I can't resist nitpicking. It seems to me there is a 没 missing in your sentence, right?

you also didn't eat lunch at school quickl[/b']y yesterday, right?*

It would if the "didn't" modified the "eat" clause, but I took it to modify "quickly". Therefore, I merely inverted the negative construct into a positive construct using a negative word (慢 vs 快) Therefore negative the need for a 没 is nonexistent since simple past is indicated with a time word here. If "didn't" modified eat, then you would be right, and in this sentence, it most possibly can, but that's not how I interpreted it.

[Koneko]

my sentence : 昨天,你也在学校午饭吃得很慢吧?

I think it would be more accurate to have 把 between 校 and 午.

When you use 把 before the object, you can actually make Chinese sentence structure look like Japanese one, i.e., Subject-Verb-Object ----> Subject-把-Object-Verb

K.

[nipponman]

When you use 把 before the object, you can actually make Chinese sentence structure look like Japanese one, i.e., Subject-Verb-Object ----> Subject-把-Object-Verb

Thanks, but those are the basics, I already know that:)

I think it would be more accurate to have 把 between 校 and 午.

This is what I want to know, Why? What's the difference?

[Koneko]

If you analyse your sentence again, you will see that it actually fits into S-O-V word order format, hence you'll have to have 把

昨天你也在学校 = Subject

午饭 = Object

吃得很慢吧 = Verb

Of course, the sentence can further sub-divided into many other functions like adverb, adjective, etc.

K.

[nipponman]

No, my sentence is implicitly S-V-O

昨天你也在学校 = Subject

(吃)午饭 = Verb

吃得很慢吧 = Verb Complement

Many times when people use the V + obj + V de adj. they omit the first verb and allow the rest to remain. E.g. 我睡覺睡得很晚-> 我覺睡得很晚 so it is therefore S-V-O, just a slangy, colloquial way of saying it, it really is the same as 我睡覺睡得很晚.

[Koneko]

Taken from CRIENGLISH.com

（七）“把”字句（三）

主＋“把”＋宾１＋动（成／作）＋宾２

（这类“把”字句必须用“把”）

（１） 主＋“把”＋宾１＋动＋成＋宾２

他把试卷揉成一团了。

父母总是把成年的儿女当成孩子。

我们一定要把家乡建设成美丽的果园。

（２） 主＋“把”＋宾１＋动＋（作）＋宾２

大家不要把这个“灸”字写作“炎”字。

他把老张认作父亲。

主＋“把”＋宾＋动＋补语（２）

（１） 主＋“把”＋宾＋动＋时量补语

我们把开会的时间延长了一天。

他把整个北京城走了一多半。

他把这件重要的事情压了好几天。

（２） 主＋“把”＋宾＋动＋动量补语

他爸爸把他狠狠的打了一顿。

你把里里外外再检查一遍。

（３） 主＋“把”＋宾＋动＋介宾补语

我们要把这项工作推向新阶段。

你们想把这孩子带往何处？

（４） 主＋“把”＋宾＋动＋情态补语

他把这马累得浑身大汗。

今天把我冻得直打哆嗦。

这事把小王愁得吃不好睡不好。

主＋“把”＋宾＋给＋动

他把我的英镑给丢了。

大风把柱子给刮倒了。

他一句话就把大家给逗乐了。

你这一问还真把我给问住了。

（八）“把”字句与其他句型套用

１兼语句与“把”字句套用

我叫他马上派车把她送回家。

大使让我们坐飞机把药品运回国。

２连动句与“把”字句套用

我打电话让妹妹把他送回老家。

你开车去把李教授接到这儿来。

Do you find this useful?

K.

[nipponman]

Yes it does help a little, thanks

P.S. where did you get that grammar stuff from? That's very well detailed