想了半天 and other questions

[chrix]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I actually do look up Li & Thompson before citing them.

Your other example is tangential here because it's structurally different (granted I didn't make this clear enough), but we're discussing SOV constructions without 把, and on p.161 they write: "The SOV form, on the other hand, is typically used in a situation in which what is being conveyed is contrary to the expectation expressed by the other person."

Of course it's not gospel what Li & Thompson write but one shouldn't dismiss out of hand what they write (not that I claim that you did)

[renzhe]

I have also learned the two to be basically equivalent, in spoken language.

It is possible that there is a slight difference, but not large enough to change the meaning significantly in many contexts.

[HashiriKata]

It is possible that there is a slight difference, but not large enough to change the meaning significantly in many contexts.

I agree! This is what I meant by "In all practical purposes"

I'm not sure what you're getting at

Sorry Chrix, but you're not the first to say this to me . I'll certainly have a look at Li & Thompson's when I have a chance. Still only half way through my day of work at the moment.

[chrix]

Well, I beg to differ. For me, the difference between pragmatically neutral and pragmatically marked constructions is an important one. Of course, this is not something you can easily ask native speakers about because they rarely tend to (and need to) think in those categories, and there are cases where the difference between the two is not entirely clear, further confusing L2 speakers. Ultimately it is a question of how much you trust the judgement of Li & Thompson. They don't seem to have done statistically relevant conversation analysis for their book, but it should be borne in mind that their theoretical background is in discourse analysis.

I think one shouldn't tell beginners they're basically the same, because that might lead to the wrong conclusions, one should advise them to first internalise the verb-copying structure (the one labelled the "neutral" one) and then to observe the usage of the SOV structure as they advance in their studies...

[HashiriKata]

Dear Chrix,

As I had some time after work, I had a look at your quote in Li & Thompson's (as you posted in #21). It's turned out that you've completely misinterpreted them and therefore misquoted them as I'd somehow thought you might:

I don't know what their view would be on what we're discussing, but beware that readers can sometimes misinterprete what they write. I would agree, for example, in sentences such as (1) 中国菜我很喜欢吃, one may prepose the object for the purpose of contrast. However, bear in mind there are also other motivations for object-preposing, such as in the case under discussion, where the preposing is simply to vacate the slot to accommodate the complement, whereby one can avoid repeating the verb: (2) 我汉语说得不好 (Note that there's no such necessity in 中国菜我很喜欢吃 above.) Again, the object-preposing in the (3) 把-structure has also nothing to do with contrast.

Please go back and have another read, starting from p.159, you'll see that the type of sentences they're talking about is just as I said in type (1) above, where I said one may prepose the object for the purpose of contrast: 中国菜我很喜欢吃. They do not, however, touch upon the type of object-preposing which we have been discussing, namely, that which is done in order to avoid repeating the verb: (2) 我汉语说得不好. As far as I can see, they have nothing to say on this issue, but please look at Ch.13 & Ch.22, which are about verb-copying and verb complementation, and let me know if I miss anything.

Good luck!

[chrix]

Well, for me it looks like that clauses of the type 我汉语说得不好 could be subsumed under "Direct Object without ba before the verb", which they do discuss from p.161. I guess you're right to question if this type of clause actually falls under this subtype, but I wouldn't call it a total misintepretation.

Still don't get why you keep bring up sentence type (1) a la 中国菜我很喜欢吃. That was never the issue here.

[HashiriKata]

Still don't get why you keep bring up sentence type (1) a la 中国菜我很喜欢吃. That was never the issue here.

Because this is the only type of sentences Li & Thompson discuss and, as you said it, has never been the issue in our discussion. So why did you cite Li & Thompson in matters they didn't even have any view on? And that is where you've gone wrong, in spite of my very early warning that not all object-preposing structures are the same:

I'd say that if someone was at a murder scene when the murder took place, that person may be the murderer. However, we shouldn't from this conclude that everyone who is at a murder scene is a murderer

Such is the size of the misunderstanding, I'm afraid I'll have to make this my last post on the matter.

Cheers,

[Kai13]

What does 想了想 mean?

I don't understand how to use 比较？ Please give me a few examples using basic chinese.

Thanks a lot. Thanks to you I could understand very important things that I hadn't understood by any other means.

[HashiriKata]

What does 想了想 mean?

You need a subject (x) before 想了想, then it'll become:

"x thought"/ "x thought for a moment" (indicating the process is very short)

I don't understand how to use 比较？

比较 can be a verb, a noun, an adverb, etc. You should give some context when asking or there'll be no simple but relevant answers. Why not look it up in a dictionary and pick out the uses that you need?

[Kai13]

我听了，想了想，就明白了。

今天天气比较好，昨天不太好。 I know this one's used to compare, I just don't know how to use it.

Thank you so much. 谢谢。

[renzhe]

Here it turns "good" into "better".

"Today, the weather is better, yesterday it wasn't that great".

With 比较, you are expressing a comparison to something else.

[adrianlondon]

You can also translate it in your head as "relatively".