开 Kai1

[Altair]

I am confused about what meaning, if any, the word 开 kai1 gives to certain expressions.

What does 开 kai1 mean in the expression 开玩笑 kai1 wan2xiao4 (to joke around or make fun of) ?

How about the expression 开会 kai1 hui4 (hold/attend a meeting)? I used to think that 开 here meant something similar to the 开 in 开车 kai1che1, until I learned that it could also apply to people attending a meeting. If you 开车, you are the one controling things. If you 开会, how can you be a mere attendee? Is this a case of "loose reference"?

[shibo77]

开 kai1

1. open

2. make an opening, open up

3. open out, come loose

4. to make appear

5. to thaw out

6. to lift (a ban, a restriction...)

7. to start, to operate (machinery) >开车 to operate (drive) a car

8. to leave, to part, to start (of a train, a bus, a ship...) >开车 to start a car

9. to set out (of troops)

10. to start, to run (a factory, a school, a store....)

11. to begin, to start

12. to hold (a meeting, an exhibition) >开会 to hold a meeting

13. to make a list of, to write out

14. to pay (wages, fares...)

15. to fire (an employee)

16. to boil

17. to eat up (informal)

18. to express a ratio based on ten

19. division of standard size printing paper

20. carat

21. to indicate separation and dissemination

22. to indicate the beginning and continuation of an action

23. to indicate capacity

开 kai1 as a verb can be either (我开门. I open the door.) transitive or (花开了. The flower has bloomed.) intransitive.

开玩笑 to crack a joke (to crack open..., to begin to make...)

An attendee who is in a meeting would be "人在开会. One is holding a meeting." or "人在开会. One is in a meeting."

But if someone is watching (as a spectator) at someone else's meeting, speech or presentation. "他看他们的会(仪). He is watching their meeting (proceedings)."

-Shibo

[Altair]

Hi Shibo,

Thanks for the reply. "Cracking" a joke really rang a bell, but I would not have thought of this as "beginning to tell" one if you had not suggested it.

I still do not get why 人在开会 could mean that someone was simply "in a meeting," as opposed to "holding a meeting." Is this some sort of loose passive, or does it correlate somehow to one of the other 23 meanings you listed? By "loose passive" I am wondering whether 人在开会 could be interpreted as meaning that "a person is present where someone else (who is not mentioned) is 'holding a meeting.'"

[shibo77]

I think you are thinking on a higher level than what I think of 开kai1.

开会kai1hui4 hold or attend a meeting: 人在开会. One is holding a meeting. or One is attending a meeting.

In English:

to keep in a certain position; to have (a meeting, etc.)

I think "to hold a meeting" even in English, with the meaning of "to have a meeting" can mean both someone who is holding the meeting and actively participaing in the meeting, or simply someone who is simply attending the meeting, perhaps taking a little note.

"我在上班! I am working!"

In Chinese and in English, I can be working and yet I'm surfing the Internet...

"我在开会! I am having a meeting!" ...

I'm not sure about "loose passive", that seems a bit deep for me.

-Shibo

[smithsgj]

I think Altair is right, though I'm not sure about the term "loose passive" either! The origin is clearly "hold" a meeting, and in English that cannot mean to merely participate in the meeting, Shibo.

Is the term ergative, or unaccusative, does anyone know? It's like the English word "cook", isn't it:

I am cooking dinner

Dinner is cooking

This sort of flexibility of argument structure is rare in English, but commonplace in Chinese. Another example with 開 is 開刀, literally open:knife, whose primary meaning is "perform a surgical operation". But because of the distibution of surgeons and non-surgeons in the population, it is more *frequently* used to mean "undergo an operation".

[galitonwu]

yes , just like English , there are many meaning with a word.

It is very difficult in studing it .

[Altair]

This sort of flexibility of argument structure is rare in English, but commonplace in Chinese. Another example with 開 is 開刀, literally open:knife, whose primary meaning is "perform a surgical operation". But because of the distibution of surgeons and non-surgeons in the population, it is more *frequently* used to mean "undergo an operation".

Smithsgj, 開刀 really rings a bell. I think this is indeed directly analogous to 开会. Someone else "holds the meeting," but you can participate in the experience as a recipient of the action.

I think Altair is right, though I'm not sure about the term "loose passive" either! The origin is clearly "hold" a meeting, and in English that cannot mean to merely participate in the meeting, Shibo.

Is the term ergative, or unaccusative, does anyone know? It's like the English word "cook", isn't it:

I am cooking dinner

Dinner is cooking

I think this is actually a very complicated area of linguistics, because it involves several different issues: transitive vs. intransitive verbs, passive constructions, agents vs. subjects, "loose reference," verb valences etc. "Ergative" refers to something different, that does not exist in Chinese or English.

The pair of sentences above illustrates the fact that many transitive English verbs can be used intransitively with what would otherwise be their objects. (E.g., this books sells well.) Some verbs can also switch valences and take new specialized objects. (E.g., "This car seats four people.)

I think the issue in Chinese is that there are many expressions where the subject of the verb need not be the true agent of the action, but merely undergoes what is stated by the verbal phrase. (E.g., 我开刀 wo kai1 dao1, 我叫小瓶 wo jiao4 xiao3 ping2). I think this is called "loose reference," since the apparent subject is not the logical subject of the verb phrase. "Loose passive" is just something I made up and is not a term of art. A similar, but probably separate issue, are the topic-comment structures common in Chinese, but almost completely absent in English.

I found the phrase 开会 kai1 hui4 surprising, because there is usually nothing in the context to warn an English speaker that the subject may not be "holding" a meeting, but may merely be "in" a meeting. I never realized that the latter meaning was possible.

Shibo, I think that the word "hold" in English almost always implies some sort of effort or conviction. "Have" sometimes implies the same, but can also imply that the subject simply receives something without any effort. For example, "holding a party" always implies "planning for the party." "Having a party" is often used as a synonym, but may sometimes be used to describe a party that happens spontaneously around you, without your intention or through someone else's effort. "'Holding' a meeting" and "'having' a meeting" have similar distinctions.

All of these subtleties are indeed difficult, as Galitonwu suggests.

[shibo77]

Sorry for my misled notion of "to hold"

我叫小瓶.

This reminded me of sth...

FRENCH> Comment s'appelle? (How calls oneself?) (reflexive)

FRENCH> Je m'appelle Xiaoyu. (I call myself Xiaoyu.) (reflexive)

ENGLISH(Eng with Norman influence)> What are you called? (passive)

ENGLISH(Eng with Norman influence)> I am called Xiaoyu. (passive)

CHINESE> 你叫什么? (You called what?) ("loose passive?")

CHINESE> 我叫小宇. (I called Xiaoyu.) ("loose passive?")

From FRENCH to ENGLISH, the reflexive pronoun "myself(which exists as the intensive pronoun)" is lost. Of course, "I call myself Xiaoyu.", is still acceptable.

From ENGLISH to CHINESE, "I am called Xiaoyu. 我叫小宇." Both sentences are passive. But the CHINESE sentence doesn't have the passive"被", nor the reflexive"自己".

Maybe this "loose passive" has something to do with the absence of the reflexive pronoun/indicator?

-Shibo