Continuation of time and aspect particles??

[taiwanshaun]

I ran across an example questions that I was trying to figure out grammatically, so just wanted to get chinese-forums advice on some of them.

Unfortunately, despite referring to some grammar texts, I wasn't really able to find any information about this one.

我___想秋天到海邊去玩，___想想秋天去也許太冷，現在決定夏天去。

These were the possible answers:

以前。。。以後

從前。。。以後

本來。。。後來

原來。。。以後

I've already referred to the answer key, but rather than just showing the answer, I wanted to get your thoughts on which answer would be the most appropriate and why the other answers can't be used, because this question really confused me.

My next question is a little simpler, and I think I understand it.

我昨天因為開著燈睡覺，所以睡覺不好。

Because I left the lights on yesterday while sleeping, I slept very poorly.

The question that was asked was, can we say 開燈睡著覺 instead?

And I think this is why we cannot:

開著燈 is used to show the circumstance or manner which accompanies the subsequent main verb 睡覺, which is going to sleep. 因為 provides support for this as well. Aka, because the lights were left on while sleeping, I slept very poorly. Furthermore, 著 can be used to show the prolongation of a state, such as a door being open or lights being on.

Sources used:

A Proper Guide to Spoken Chinese Page 154

Practical Audio-Visual Chinese 2nd Edition Chapter 8 Page 196

Thanks everybody for any help!!!

-- 尚恩, Shaun

[semantic nuance]

我___想秋天到海邊去玩，___想想秋天去也許太冷，現在決定夏天去。

I'll go: 我原本/本來想秋天到海邊去玩，後來想想秋天去也許太冷，現在決定夏天去。

can we say 開燈睡著覺 instead?

著 here indicates a state, a situation, so 開著燈睡覺 shows to sleep with lights on, namely, to sleep in a state/situation that the lights are on. I don't think 開燈睡著覺 is correct. However, if you say 睡著覺的妳看起來好可愛 is correct because here 睡著覺 is using to describe the noun, you.

[taiwanshaun]

Thanks for your input.

The answer is to the second one was:

本來, and 後來, but I'm still not sure why we can't use 原來 and 以後.

Is it because the sentence would sound incorrect?

我原來想秋天到海邊去玩以後想想秋天去也許太冷，現在決定夏天去。

*After* I *originally* wanted to go to the beach in the fall , I was thinking that the weather might be too cold, so I've decided to go during the summer. Something like that?

[semantic nuance]

Perhaps you can read the discussions on 以後, 後來 here.

[taiwanshaun]

Useful link, however it unfortunately doesn't cover differences between 原來 and 本來.

However, after further investigation,this is what I've come up with:

原來 seems to connote a bit of a surprise, like you had been assuming something and than suddenly you realized, it was different.

怪不得你的中文這麼好，原來你在中國長大。

No wonder your Chinese is so good, you grew up in China all along.

我找 了你好久，原來你在 這裡。

I looked for you for a long time and you were here all along.

本來 can be used to express that things have always been that way.

* 這本來就不是你的錯，你又何必自責？

(This was never your mistake. Why would you blame yourself?)

人的血本來就是紅的。

Of course human blood is red.

你是男人，本來就應該拿重的東西。

You're a man. Of course you should carry heavy things.

Hopefully, other people find this useful.

[semantic nuance]

Your understanding is correct. Additional note: 原本=原來=本來, meaning 'origianlly, in the first place' are interchangeable. But when 原來 indicates the situation as your explanation shows, 原來 has the totally different meaning from 原本.

Hope it helps!

[Pendragon]

I was also puzzled by the difference between 本来 and 原来, and this thread helps. But I have another question: according to my grammar book "本来 cannot from the “的” pattern (本来的[名词]) while 原来 can (原来的[名词]). But I often see the pattern "本来的" and if I google it I get 10 million hits.

Is the rule about 本来 not being combined with 的 just hyper-correction in my book? Or is it more subtle?

[陳德聰]

原来 and 本来 are used to mean "originally, in the first place", but only 原来 can be used with the meaning "actually". This would account for the original distinction, but as for constructions with 的... I don't see why 本来 would not be able to form a construction with 的. If you don't trust your book, a helpful tip is to search on google for the exact construction and if it is extremely common among native speakers it is likely the book is giving you a prescriptive rule that does not fully account for natural language usage.