在了

[Pravit]

I have often noticed "在了" used when I thought just "在" alone would be fine. What gives?

[xiaocai]

Any examples?

[skylee]

I guess it appears as 不在了 (does not exist any more) instead of 在了, right? Like -

>我爸爸不在了。

>誒，那本書剛剛還在桌子上，現在怎麽不在了?

[zhwj]

Something like this, perhaps:

国企改革的最大缺憾是把职工放在了一边

他们的心停在了东经92.2度

or "吃在了肚子里" ?

[Pravit]

Yeah, like in zhwj's examples!

more examples:

县委书记王炳荣的工作活动定格在了4月13日下午:....

2006年6月1日，由中宣部、国家安全生产监督管理总局等部门共同举办的“安全生产万里行活动”，第一站就选在了贵州。

[HashiriKata]

The 在 here is the regular preposition 在, and the 了 that follows it is also the regular aspect 了. However, it's improtant to note that the 了 you see here is modifying the verb preceeding 在(Think "verb+在" as one grammatical unit, and 了 is modifying the unit).

BTW, I came across this title of a novel: 我把你弄丢在了心里.

Can someone please confirm that it means something like: I've lost you (somewhere) in my heart ?

[skylee]

Weird. For the examples quoted in #4-#6 I would put 了 before 在 or at the end of the sentence. But then maybe it is just me.

[Pravit]

HashiriKata: I understood that the sentences were in past tense(了) and that 在 was referring to something after it, but I don't understand why this is grammatically correct. I've never seen anything like this in my textbooks, but it seems quite common, esp. on some news sites. Like skylee said, why not just put 了 at the end of the sentence or before 在? It sounds quite awkward to me to have "在了".

[Pravit]

Anyone else have any comments on this usage? It's really weird.

[Quest]

The only awkward sentence to me is:

我把你弄丢在了心里.

The other examples seem fine to me. 在 is treated as part of the verb.

Others:

他喜欢上了猫。

他攻下了城。

墙纸贴在了墙上。

[xiaocai]

I can't explain why...It just sounds more natural to me if you put “了” after “在" in most of the cases here.

But for "吃在了肚子里", I would say "吃到了肚子里" instead.

[Guest Pipas]

"在 is treated as part of the verb"

Is it 趋向补语, 时地补语 or 动词后缀? I'm lost

[monto]

国企改革的最大缺憾是把职工放在了一边

他们的心停在了东经92.2度

......工作活动定格在了4月13日下午:....

........第一站就选在了贵州。

In any of the four, the "了" can be dropped out with slight changes in the meaning, because the "了" indicates something in past.

[HashiriKata]

"在 is treated as part of the verb"

Is it 趋向补语, 时地补语 or 动词后缀? I'm lost

It's 时地补语.

[cui ruide]

Maybe I don't need to point this out, but 了 doesn't necessarily represent "past" as I've seen said here a couple of times. It's a marker for "completion" of a verb (我去了饭馆--I have (completed) gone to the restaurant). This doesn't seem to be the case in the original example: 我爸爸不在了. Here, 了 seems just to be marking "change of state"--another common meaning. "My dad isn't here anymore (change of state--he was, but now he's not)." Am I missing something?

了 has lots of meanings and usages, and apparently scholars right entire dissertations just on this character alone.

[gougou]

For a discussion of 了 in general, see this thread on 了, which is part of the grammar sticky.

[Guest Pipas]

HashiriKata, thank you!

[yersi]

I'd hazard a wild guess and say it is a habit in spoken Chinese that's crossed over into writing. Thanks for bringing this up, very interesting!

[Guest Pipas]

Hi again! Do you think these sentences are correct?

睡觉在这样的房子里.

..也可以撒種在好土中.

我撒下春天的种子在我们的花园里 (侃侃's lyrics)

And this is from "On the Evolution of “Ｖ在Ｌ” Structure" by Shao Hongliang:

"值得注意的是，若名词宾语前的数量修饰语　

具有实际的表数功能，名词宾语可以不用被提前。　例如：　

(22)不曾招得一个好的在家里。(«金瓶梅・第三回»)

至今还可自由地使用，如：

他写了几个字在黑板上／他放了两本书在桌上。

这些句式似乎与“表面结构法则”相违背，其原因可能是语用上的需要：

被提前的宾语往往具有有定性，而加了数量　

短语的宾语是无定的；同时“在Ｌ”位于Ｖ后，具有将处所焦点化的作用。　"

Then what about the rule "if a verb is a compound composed of a verb and an object morphologically, the locative phrase cannot even occur after the verb compound??

[HashiriKata]

The evidence you gathered seems to have indicated that it is possible.

Rules are made-up things (literally so, as there are no god-given rules!) and therefore can be broken. And when you break a rule, you're in effect creating a new or different one, aren't you?

(Ok, I'm only talking about language rules and if you break any other kinds of rules, then working out the implications is your sole responsibilty! )