shi...de/le: rules for usage?

[Haoqide]

Hello!

I'm having some trouble getting myself straight on when to use "shi...de" and when to use "le" to refer to things that have happened in the past.

Also, I'm not totally sure about where the particle "le" goes in a sentence. Does it go direclty after the verb, or does it go after the object of the sentence? For example:

"wo he le pi jiu"

or

"wo he pi jiu le"

Which of those is correct? I've learned that you put the "le" at the end of the sentence unless you're listing several things you've done, in which case it would go directly after the verb.

Can anybody give me help on when to use "shi...de" and when to use "le" and where that particle goes in a sentence?

非常感谢！

[Claw]

This link gives a pretty good overview of when to use the verb-了 and when to use the sentence-了: http://trc.ucdavis.edu/msjacob/chn1/L5_2.htm

As for the 是…的 construction, it is mostly used to give emphasis. For instance:

我在公園裡找到你的狗 I found your dog in the park.

是我在公園裡找到你的狗的 It was I that found your dog in the park.

我是在公園裡找到你的狗的 It was in the park that I found your dog.

我在公園裡是找到你的狗的 It was the act of finding your dog that I did in the park.

However you can't put 是 in front of the direct object: *我在公園裡找到是你的狗的 (this is incorrect).

In order to say, "It was your dog that I found in the park," you need to put the 的 after the preceding verb: 我在公園裡找到的是你的狗

是…的 is a bit more intricate than the examples I described above, but those should be enough for you to get by for now.

[Claw]

Another way to think about 是…的 is as follows:

是 ("to be") is used to connect two noun phrases.

的 is used to indicate possession or more generally link a descriptive phrase to a noun. If you use 的, the noun being described can be optional, making the descriptive phrase act as a noun phrase. For instance:

這是我的書 This is my book.

這是我的 This is (an object that belongs to) me.

Now let's apply it to the 是…的 construction.

是我在公園裡找到你的狗的 I am (the person that) found your dog at the park.

我是在公園裡找到你的狗的 In the park is (the place that) I found your dog.

我在公園裡是找到你的狗的 Finding your dog is (the act that) I did in the park.

我在公園裡找到的是你的狗 Your dog is (the thing that) I found in the park.

I'm not completely sure, but I think the reason why you need to move the 的 to before the direct object in the last example has to do with not interrupting the transitive-verb phrase 找到你的狗. By putting 的 after the verb, you are essentially making two new noun phrases (the thing that is found 找到的 and your dog 你的狗) that are connected by 是 instead of having one verb phrase that is interrupted in the middle with 是.

[skylee]

我在公園裡是找到你的狗的 It was the act of finding your dog that I did in the park.

This Chinese sentence is problematic.

[Claw]

This Chinese sentence is problematic.

Really? I was under the impression that this sentence is grammatically correct. Why is it incorrect?

[shibo77]

我在公園裡是找到你的狗的

(我)(在)(公園)(裡)(是)(找到)(你的)(狗的).

(I) (in) (public-park) (in) (is) (to have found) (your/you-'s) (dog-'s).

Are you trying to translate:

"I have found your dog in the public park."

Where do you find the "am,are,is"? shi...de?

It's not "I am have found your dog."

Also, "找到 have found" is perfect, completed, add the perfect particle 了le at the end.

This is the correct way:

(我)(在公園裡)(找到了)(你的狗).

(I) (in the public-park) (have found) (your dog).

You cannot use the shi...de construction here, it doesn't even exist in the English.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, in this sentence there is the "am", thus add the shi...de construction:

我是在公園裡找你的狗. -I am searching for your dog in the public park.

(我)(是)(在公園裡)(找)(你的狗).

(I) (am) (in the public-park) (searching/finding) (your dog).

It translates perfectly into English.

-Shibo

[Haoqide]

Thanks for the replies! Well, my question probably wasn't very clear. Here's an example of what I'm talking about...

我是跟一个朋友来这里的。

or

我跟一个朋友来这里了。

When do I use the former sentence construction (and can you give me some rules to follow as to when to use it), and when do I use the latter?

Thanks!

[Altair]

I may be able to help with this, although I do not have time at the moment for a complete post. I also need a lot of help with the details, but here are the general outlines of what I intend to post.

The shi...de constuctions is used to comment on the manner of an occurrence or a feature of an occurrence, not directly to relate the fact of an occurrence. It comments on "how," "when," "where," etc as an important aspect of what you intend to express.

Verbal "le" is used to sequence verbs within the context of a narration. It is used to express what happened and in what order. The occurrence must have enough detail and specificity to make sequencing relevant. It is as if you are verbally relating the things able to be captured by a movie camera; whereas the "shi.....de" construction would be commentary on what the film would show.

Sentence "le" is used to indicate that the statement ahead of it characterizes a specific situation relevant to the context of the communication. It does not describe an objective fact, but rather relates a fact to a given situation understood between the speaker and the listener. It allows you to break up occurrence into stages and to limit comments to a particular stage within an assumed process.

Verbal "le" and sentence "le" are always combined into one "le" when they would otherwise occur side by side. The use of the "shi....de" construction is incompatible with the "le" constructions, but the "le" constructions can combine in the same phrase. The "le" constructions can also indirectly convey almost the same meaning in many structural contexts, but their basic purpose remains distinct.

[Haoqide]

Hey, thanks, Altair! That's the kind of info I'm looking for! Can you give me the complete rules (when you have time) about when the "shi...de" combination is used?

Thanks a ton in advance!!!

[smithsgj]

我在公園裡是找到你的狗的 may be ungrammatical, I have no idea. I suspect it is marginally acceptable; and as a matter of general principle it's much more difficult to rule things categorically ungrammatical in Mandarin than in a local version of Chinese, or a language like English. But Shibo why do you ask

> Are you trying to translate:

> "I have found your dog in the public park."

when Claw has already given the gloss

> It was the act of finding your dog that I did in the park.

Claw was making the point that the location of the 是 in the 是...的 construction affects the pragmatic role of the sentence without really changing the meaning. Does Shibo/other people think all the example sentences are wrong (as Shibo implies he does by saying that 是...的 is incompatible with 找到, even though he only singles out Skylee's "problematic" sentence for criticism). Can anyone suggest an alternative sentence where the 是 can be moved around to effect?

Or is this 是 movement a figment of Claw's imagination? Somehow I doubt it.

(Also Shibo why do we need to equate the 是...的 construction with the English verb 'be'? In a sentence like 你是什麼時候來的? I can't see it at all. Or maybe that sentence is ungrammatical too.)

[Claw]

smithsgj: actually your example fits well with the point I was making.

你是什麼時候來的 What time is (the time that) you are coming = What time are you coming?

Granted, I don't know if my analysis is completely correct as I'm not a native speaker. But I have found that it seems to work for all the 是…的 examples I've encountered/could think up of and it has been helpful for me to think of the construction this way. If anyone has any counterexamples, I would like to see them.

[shibo77]

Sorry! I think equating "是shi...的de" with the English "to be" is faulty logic. Sorry!

Altair's explanation is great!

"我在公園裡是找到你的狗的." is problematic, and it is not acceptable.

For all my English knowleadge, I don't understand this sentence:

"It was the act of finding your dog that I did in the park."

Are you trying to say,

"It was to find your dog, that I went into the park."

Then you would use the verb 去qu4 "to go(went)" here.

When I saw the examples, I thought it might be:

我是在公園裡找你的狗. -I am searching for your dog in the public park.

so I typed it...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some other faults in the translation from Chinese to English, and some can't add English dummy "It.." because they are subordinate clauses like this: "是我在公園裡找到你的狗的." which I might want to change into "是我在公園裡找到了你的狗" which would be ""It is I who found your dog in the public park."(rather than someone else) Here is the explanation:

If you use "了le" then don't use "是shi...的de".

If you place "是shi" in front, then you are using it as "to be", and it is not the "是shi...的de" construction anymore. It is now a verb "是shi -to be". With verbs, you will need to use verbal particles and the verbal "了le" if it is a completed action.

是我在公園裡找到你的狗的.

(是)(我)(在公園裡)(找到)(你的狗)(的).

(is) (I) (in public-park in) (to find) (your dog) (?).

There is no more "是shi...的de" construction anymore, and there is no "的de" at the end.

This is the correct sentence:

"是我在公園裡找到了你的狗."

(是)(我)(在公園裡)(找到了)(你的狗).

(is) (I) (in public-park in) (to have found) (your dog).

In this way, it is not the 是shi...的de construction anymore, and uses a verbal particle "了le" for the completed action of "to have found".

At most, you might hear a sentence like this from children who have not studied grammar. You won't find this sentence in adult speakers. Maybe marginally correct for an average Taiwanese... sorry, it is only my stereotypical opinion!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the same:

我在公園裡找到的是你的狗. Your dog is (the thing that) I found in the park.

Let's dissect, huh?

(我)(在公園裡)(找到)(的)(是)(你)(的)(狗).

(I) (in public-park in) (to find) ('s) (am/are/is) (you) ('s) (dog).

The 的 's there in blue, is not part of the "是shi...的de" construction, but part of "你ni3 -you" >> "你的ni3 de5 (you +'s= your/yours)".

In this way, the preceding "是shi" is instead the verb "to be" (or is it called a copula specifically? Still a verb nevertheless), and not part of a "是shi...的de" construction.

The 的 's here in red, connects the subordinate clause and the main clause together. "我在公園裡... I in the public-park" and "...你的狗 your dog". Using the verb "找到zhao3 dao4 -to find". I add this 的 's at the end to make "找到的 zhao3 dao4 de5 -the which that was found".

Let's combine:

(我)(在公園裡)(找到的)(是)(你的狗).

(I) (in public-park in) (the which that was found) (am/are/is) (your dog).

Make this a little nicer:

I, in the public-park, the which that was found, was/is your dog.

Your dog was found by me in the public-park.

Or with Claw's translation:

"Your dog is (the thing that) I found in the park.

Like the 1st sentence, this sentence have nothing to do with the "是shi...的de" construction. Rather the construction is not used at all, and the 是shi and 的de have other functions in the sentence.

I appreciate the effort to analyse with all the direct object and so on, but most things are really simple to explain. Maybe it's my Daoist philosophy that the truth is really quite simple, simple yet perfect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little more to add. Chinese have two cases if you want to classify it this way. Common and Genitive.

Common: 我 I/ we

Genitive: 我的 my, mine/ our, ours

English have two sets to show possession, one are the adjectives (my, our), and the other are the pronouns (mine, ours).

With this regard:

(這)(是)(我的書).

(this) (am/are/is) (my/mine/our/ours) (book/books).

(這)(是)(我的).

(this) (am/are/is) (my/mine/our/ours).

It's like a buffet, pick out the correct English translations:

(這)(是)(我的書).

(this) (am/are/is) (my/mine/our/ours) (book/books).

(這)(是)(我的).

(this) (am/are/is) (my/mine/our/ours).

這是我的書 This is my book.

這是我的 This is mine.

See very simple, don't think too much.

I think that this is one of the bad sides of using characters. One doesn't know to which side does a single character like 是shi4, 的de5 belongs to, and for the foreign learner, it would probably be quite difficult to assign the function to each single character. I apologise that my explanation for a simple thing is bulky...

In any case, at least the dog found its way home

-Shibo

[Altair]

To analyze issues like this, I think it is worth considering whether grammatical rules can be divided into at least three categories: (1) those rules determined by objective facts, (2) those determined by what one wants to say about objective facts, and (3) those determined by arbitrary structural and lexical considerations. Most European grammatical traditions have a heavy emphasis on 1 and 3; whereas Mandarin has a heavy emphasis on 2.

The concept of verb tenses belongs to category 1. The concept of verbal aspects belongs to category 2. The concept of conjugations belongs to category 3. In actuality, many grammatical rules mix one or more of these categories together.

In trying to figure out how to translate the past tense into Chinese, one confronts the fact that English use of the past tense mixes categories 1 and 2, with a slight emphasis on 1. I will ignore category 3, for the moment. Chinese also mixes categories 1 and 2 together, but has an overwhelming emphasis on 2. This means that, from an English viewpoint, one must often ignore objective facts, while giving unusual consideration to what viewpoint one needs to express.

The basic use of the “shi…..de” construction is to confirm or deny an aspect of a statement relating to the past. According to my understanding, “shi” and even “shi….de” also have other closely related uses that conform to slightly different grammatical rules. For instance, in some of these other structures “de” can be omitted. In others, its presence is not allowed. Sometimes this indicates tense; sometimes it does not. Shibo has kindly provided some examples of these other structures. All of these structures are probably etymologically (i.e., historically) related to each other and are similar to certain English constructions, such as “cleft” sentences (e.g., “it was yesterday that we arrived.”)

The precise rules for the “shi…de” construction are quite complicated. When I have time, I would like to offer up what I think to see what others opinions are. For the moment, let me stick to the original question.

Sentence “le” differs a great deal from the “shi…de” constructions. First, I should say that most good grammars treat “sentence-final ‘le’” apart from “verb-final ‘le.’” Although Mandarin uses the same word for these functions, many Chinese dialects do not. Linguists are even unsure if these two words really have the same origin.

Regardless of the origin of “sentence-final ‘le,’” it may be worthwhile to view its meaning as deriving from “liao3,” which means “to finish” and which is written with the same character. The question is, “What implication of “finishing” does this “le” imply? I think it implies that circumstances have reached a certain point or that a certain stage in the action has been completed. All this is irrespective of tense. Below are some examples of this. Note that the English can use several different tenses to describe what in Chinese is the same situation.

車來了. che1 lai2 le. Here comes the bus. The bus is coming.

車走了. che1 zou3 le. There goes the bus. The bus has left.

我走了. Wo3 zou3 le. I'm off now. I am leaving. I am about to go.

來了. Lai2 le. I'm coming! I'm on my way. I'll be there in a moment.

媽媽老了. Ma1ma lao3 le. Mom is getting on in age. Mom is old now. Mom is getting old.

天黑了. Tian1 hei1 le. It is getting dark. It has gotten dark.

好了. Hao3 le. Good. That's it. Enough for now. Let's stop there.

Many grammars talk about this as indicating a change of state, but I think this is not quite right. “Le” indicates that the listener must now make an assessment of the situation or that the speaker has assessed the situation. Such an assessment has an implication of change, but it is not the change itself that forces the need for “le.” It is the mental process of the speaker or listener.

那些山很高了. "Nei4 xie1 shan1 hen3 gao1 le" could be translated as "Gee, those mountains look tall." The Chinese is grammatical with or without the "le," but the meaning would be different. The presence of "le" indicates that the speaker is making an assessment as of the moment, perhaps because he or she is surprised at how tall the mountains appear. The change is in the perception of the speaker, not really in the state of the objective facts. One could talk about a change in the state of the speaker's knowledge, but all such changes do not require "le." If one omits the "le," the sentence can no longer refer to a situational assessment of the mountains, but simply describes a general characteristic, independent of the current moment; for instance, "Those mountains are tall."

"Sentence-final 'le'" is never grammatically required to complete a sentence; however, its presence is usually not optional. Omitting it will create either a different meaning or make the sentence awkward. For instance, if you have been running with a partner and you have been exhausted for the last 2 miles, you can say: "I'm tired." This is not really a change of state, but it is your assessment of where things have gotten to. Because of this, you must say in Chinese: "我很累了" "wo3 hen3 lei4 le." You are implying that action must now be taken. You are not simply making a neutral description.

"你几岁了" "Ni3 ji3 sui4 le" (How old are you?) implies you have an interest in tracking the listener's progress through life. "你几岁" "Ni3 ji3 sui4" implies a detached viewpoint, like a bureaucrat filling out a form for a stranger.

"Verb-final 'le'" can also be thought of as lending an implication of "finishing"; however, here it is not that a stage in the action has finished and is being assessed, but rather that the action of the verb itself can mark off time. The fact that this action is in the past is not important, but rather that the action of the verb marks off precise moments in time. Marking off time generally implies a need to narrate and sequence events. It is not used to comment on them or assess them.

"Verb-final 'le'" has many, many constraints. From the point of view of native speakers, I think these constraints always have to do with the meaning one wants to express. From the point of view of language learners, I think it is better to think of these as structural constraints. First, let me talk about when it is virtually required.

When using some verbs to describe past actions, "le" will always be present. This is because these verbs in Chinese always describe an endpoint that marks off time. Examples are 死 si3 ("to die") and 忘 wang4 ("to forget"). From what I understand, these verbs cannot describe the processes of "dying" or "forgetting," but only the endpoints of these processes. (By the way, how does one express in Chinese such sentences as: "He is dying," "I'm forgetting my Chinese," and "Help me, I'm drowning"?)

This "le" is also virtually required to describe past actions when there is a phrase that measures the action of the verb in come way. Such measures can be in the form of an adverb phrase like 很久 or a defined direct object that can limit the extent of the action. "Le" tells you the boundaries of what is being measured.

"Verb-final'le'" cannot occur when the action described by the verb is too vague to indicate how time or space should be "marked off" by "le." For instance, "I ate yesterday" (我昨天吃饭 wo3 zuo2tian1 chi1 fan4) cannot include "le," because even though the action is clearly in the past, the sentence gives no sense of how to mark off time. When did the eating stop or start? How did the eating relate in time or space to other activities?

One could, however, say 我昨天吃了一顿饭 wo3 zuo2tian chi1le yi2dun4 fan4, which means: "I had a meal yesterday." I think one can even say: "我在那家有名的饭馆儿吃了饭" wo zai nei4jia1 you3ming2 de fan4guanr3 chi1le fan4 ("I ate in that famous restautant (not elsewhere))." This last sentence becomes acceptable and complete, because the location is stressed and limits the action enough so that it is no longer a simple description of an action, but rather an event limited in some way. It now has enough status to mark off time, rather than merely to categorize.

One can also say 我吃了饭了 wo chile fan le (I have eaten). Here the "sentence-final 'le'" signals that the action has reached a stage of completion that can be assessed. This is enough specificity that the verb can mark off time. There is a sense of definite sequence.

One can of course use 我吃了饭 as the beginning of a more complete sentence that explains what comes next in the sequence of events; for instance, 我吃了饭就走(了) wo chile fan jiu4 zou3(le) ("I ate and then left" or "After I ate, I left.").

"Verb-final'le'" can also not occur where some other element already marks off time. In other words, you cannot mark off the action of the verb in two different places. This is particularly an issue when verbs have complement structures. The grammar of these is extremely complex, but just about every case I have run across can be analyzed in this way. For instance, one cannot say: 猫跳了在桌子上 mao1 tiao4le zai4 zhuo1zi shang ("The cat jumped onto the table"). 在桌子上 zai4 zhuo1zi shang specifies the end point of the action. Adding "le" incorrectly implies that the jumping stopped somewhere before this. "Le" cannot be used in this sentence for this reason. Directional complements are particularly troublesome, because sometimes the "le" is possible and sometimes it is not. Sometimes a phrase like 他跑了起来 ta pao3le qilai (He started to run) is more or less interchangeable with 他跑起来了 ta pao3qilai le, even though their origin is different. If you want to try your hand at a difficult construction, consider how many ways you could translate: "he climbed up the mountain," "He picked up the rock," or "she continued to sing" (using 下去 xia4qu4 as a complement).

One more thing to consider about "le" is that when it occurs after a verb and at the end of the sentence, it can represent either "le" or both together.

The use of both types of “le” is also affected by rhythmic constraints. Mandarin has a strong preference for a dissyllabic rhythm. When a verb is already dissyllabic and the meaning is already fairly clear, “le” can be omitted. The opposite can also occur, when a seemingly optional “le” cannot be omitted because of rhythmic constraints. Compare “客人早以离开了 Ke4ren2 zao3 yi3 li2kai1 le with 客人早以离开 Ke4ren2 zao3 yi3 li2kai1. These both can express: The guests have long since left. On they other hand, if one uses 走 zou3, instead of 离开 li2kai1, one can say only 客人早以走了 Ke4ren2 zao3 yi3 zou3 le. (These examples come from Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar by Yip Po-Ching and Don Rimmington)

One last thing to consider is that Chinese has yet more ways to indicate past tense. "过" "guo4" can be used as a verb complement to indicate that something has been experienced at least once. "I was a nurse" could be: "我当过护士" "Wo3 dang1guo hu4shi." I think one can even say: 我小的时候去过国三次日本 wo3 xiao3 de shi2hou qu4guo san1 ci4 Ri4ben3 "I went to Japan three times last month. This sentence works even though it specific events are involved. The sentence does not, however, refer to the events themselves, but rather tallies up the experience. To recount the events as such, you would use "le" instead of "guo." The greeting 你吃过饭没有 ni chi1guo fan4 meiyou ("Have you eaten") does not ask about an event, how time was marked off, or how a situation can be assessed. It inquires whether the listener has gone through a certain experience before the moment of speaking.

When all else fails and none of the above viewpoints applies, Chinese simply uses an appropriate adverb or the previous context to indicate past tense. 你今天做什么 Ni jin1tian zuo4 shen2me (What kind of things are/have beenon the agenda for today)? 你今天做什么了 Ni jin1tian zuo4 shen2me le (With things at that juncture, what was on/is on the agenda?). 你今天做了什么 Ni jin1tian zuo4le shen2me (Please narrate today's past events).

[xuechengfeng]

I may have this backwards, I'll have to check, but the way we were taught was

我看了三本書了。

I've read 3 books (and I have to/might read more).

我看了三本書。

I've read 3 books (and am finished).

[Altair]

I may have this backwards, I'll have to check, but the way we were taught was

我看了三本書了。

I've read 3 books (and I have to/might read more).

我看了三本書。

I've read 3 books (and am finished).

Yes, this is correct, but I think such description are oversimplified to ease learning.

"我看了三本書了。" can indeed be translated as "I've read 3 books." The fist "le" means that the action was concluded and rose to the status of an "event." The second one means that a stage in a larger process or context can be viewed as concluded. A more meaningful translation would be: "I've read 3 books so far." I think, however, that the entire time frame could also be moved into the past, so that this sentence could also be translated as: "I had read 3 books at that point."

The final "le" could also mean that you are correcting the context that was previously understood between you and the listener. In this case the implication could be something like: "I (have) read three books after all! (Now leave me alone!)"

我看了三本書

While this can be translated as: "I've read 3 books (and am finished)," I think such a simplification creates two misconceptions. First, the objective fact of whether or not you are or were finished does not determine the translation. According to my understanding, what happened is irrelevant. What matters is what you want to describe about what happened.

我看过三本書 can also be translated as: "I've read 3 books" or maybe as "I used to read 3 books." Both of these translations imply that the process finished; however the "guo" sentence is different from the "le" one. The "guo" sentence merely describes an experience you have had, whereas the "le" sentence narrates an event. The finishing is important in the "le" sentence only because of the idea of sequencing. It tells the listener to focus on what came or would come next.

I think there are also in reality to uses of "guo." I think that in what I stated above, "guo" is usually not stressed and so is optionally toneless. In the other use, "guo" is always stressed. In this other use, the sense of "having undergone" something is strongest.

我看了三本書 can also be translated quite well as: "I read three books (on that occasion)." We see the event as a unitary whole. It is one stoke marking an event along an imaginary timeline.