Location Confusion

[across]

These are all correct sentences on Fluenz Mandarin. You can see that the first two examples are in the same format. Why are the later examples different? For example, why is there a need for qù in the second two examples, but not the first two? After all, all four examples are referring to going somewhere in one tense or another. And it's also confusing because in the second two sentences, there's a verb before the location AND after the location. Additionally, why is it "qù nàli" and not "qù zài nàli?" Does the presence of "qù" render the "zài" redundant or something?

I went shopping there yesterday.

Zuótiān wǒ zài nàli mǎi dōngxi.

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

I'm going to eat there tomorrow.

Míngtiān wǒ zài nàli chīfàn.

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

I want to go eat there today.

Jīntiān wǒ yào qù nàli chīfàn.

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

I want to go eat there tomorrow.

Míngtiān wǒ yào qù nàli chīfàn.

[马盖云]

My take is that in the last two sentences, the focus is on the "going". Or "wanting to go", as opposed to the "eating" or "Shopping", which are the focus of the first two. The "went" and "Going" of the first two sentences are really just a part of the tense construct. The zai in the first two serves to give the location of the primary verbs...

[jbradfor]

And it's also confusing because in the second two sentences, there's a verb before the location AND after the location

Think of 在 being a verb meaning "to be located at" in these examples and I think it will be more clear.

[across]

My take is that in the last two sentences, the focus is on the "going". Or "wanting to go", as opposed to the "eating" or "Shopping", which are the focus of the first two. The "went" and "Going" of the first two sentences are really just a part of the tense construct.

Hmmm, that actually makes sense to me. Good thinking. Perhaps the "yao4" is a good clue that the emphasis is being put on the "going"/"wanting to go."

Think of 在 being a verb meaning "to be located at" in these examples and I think it will be more clear.

To be certain, I appreciate the help. But I was referring to "qu4" as being the verb that goes before the location.

[across]

Okay, I can understand the lesson now. Much thanks to 马盖云. I had to take what was said in the suggestion and analyze sentences in the lesson, letting it take some time to soak in.

Small question (would hate to make a thread over it). Fluenz (at least thus far) mutually accepts chī and chīfàn. Are there instances where one is more appropriate than the other?

[马盖云]

Technically, chi 吃 is the type of verb that REQUIRES an object. Unlike in English, you can just "Eat", in Chinese, you have to eat something. Fan 饭 is the default object for chi if you are not being more specific. (ie 吃鸡肉). So chi alone may be a shorthand way of speaking that is not technically correct, but like some stuff we say in English... we can bend the rules once we understand them :-)

Edit: I wanted to comment on this: "Perhaps the "yao4" is a good clue that the emphasis is being put on the "going"/"wanting to go."

Perhaps, but yao4 要 is tricky... also meaning will (future)... if the translation wasn't there, I would be hardpressed to know for sure the intended meaning was "Want to go eat there..." and not Tomorrow I will go eat there!! If I was writing that, I would use a word for want that gives a "desire" vibe as opposed to a "inevitability" vibe. (like xiang3 想)

[jbradfor]

I was referring to "qu4" as being the verb that goes before the location.

And I was referring to 在 as the verb that goes before the location in the first two examples, to make it parallel to the 去.

[across]

Well, I appreciate the help, jbradfor. It's good having someone more knowledgeable than myself around.

[across]

Technically, chi 吃 is the type of verb that REQUIRES an object.

I looked that up on the net just now. "Functive verbs are action verbs, and are used to describe activities. Functive verbs include 吃 (chī - to eat), and 喝 (hē - to drink)."

So, they're referred to as "functive verbs." How funktifying.

[马盖云]

Funky, indeed! I had heard them called "activity verbs" or Action verbs". And the term I alluded to, but did not name is: "Transitive", meaning taking a direct object. And for words like chi, the objects are called Obligatory Objects. Other examples (from Schaums' Outlines by Claudia Ross) include kan(shu)看书, xie(zi)写字, shuo(huo)说话, shui(jiao) 睡觉。

[across]

Yeah, I was thinking that I'll think of them as being "action" verbs, because it seems more straightforward (as does "activity" verbs). Still gotta keep it funky for the new year, though.