Dealing with definite articles

[drencrom]

I'm still at the stage where I'm using a lot of translation tools. I'll understand about 50% of the characters and the rest are less-common words. One thing I find is that "a" or "an" or "the" get translated as 一个. For example, "I want an apple" gets translated as "我要一个苹果". How does this work, exactly? Just an idiom of the translation program? How do you deal with translating definite articles? Ignore measure words for now.

[renzhe]

You don't translate articles, since articles have no intrinsic meaning. Additionally, Chinese does not have articles. Articles convey certain information about the noun they precede, and it is this additional information you should try to translate.

When you say "I want an apple", you want some apple, any apple, it doesn't matter which one. So the translation "我要一个苹果" conveys the same meaning: you want one (一) apple, the 个 is a measure word which is grammatically required.

The definite / indefinite distinction is usually clear from context in languages that do not use articles, and if it needs to be stated explicitly, you would use "this" or "that" (这个／那个) or some other word that makes it clear that a particular apple is meant. A common way to make the distinction is using a different grammatical construct:

给我一个苹果 = give me an apple

把苹果给我 = give me the apple

The 把 construction typically refers to a specific object.

To make the long story short -- there are no articles in Chinese, so when you want to express the same idea (definite/indefinite distinction), you have to express it using different ways -- phrasing things differently or by using additional adjectives like 这个.

[Renacido]

Languages may not have definite and indefinite articles, but nouns may still have definite and indefinite reference. In the case of Chinese, a subject can only be of definite reference, but an object may be of either definite or indefinite reference.

For sentences like "a cat was pursuing a mouse" you would need to use the existential ('there is...') construction: “有（一）隻貓 （打獵（一）隻老鼠）” 'there was a cat (pursuing a mouse)'.

For objects what renzhe said applies. Using the 把 construction or using a demonstrative like 這個 or 那個 specifies that they're of definite reference. Using 一個 or （一）些 makes them of an indefinite one. But using no modifiers, it's often a question of context.

[anonymoose]

In the case of Chinese, a subject can only be of definite reference

For sentences like "a cat was pursuing a mouse" you would need to use the existential ('there is...') construction: “有（一）隻貓 （打獵（一）隻老鼠）”

I'm not a grammarian, but isn't 貓 the subject of that sentence?

[skylee]

打獵??

[David Wong]

打獵??

Think "Tom and Jerry".

[马盖云]

Quote

In the case of Chinese, a subject can only be of definite reference

Quote

For sentences like "a cat was pursuing a mouse" you would need to use the existential ('there is...') construction: “有（一）隻貓 （打獵（一）隻老鼠）”

I'm not a grammarian, but isn't 貓 the subject of that sentence?

It is, but in the english sentence, "a cat was" is indefinate. In the proposed Chinese version "有一只猫..." The 有一 makes it "there is a cat..." This certainly seems more definate than "a cat". We are now talking about a specific cat.

When I first started learning Chinese, this whole thing bugged me so much. I could not get past the lack of an equivalent for the word "the". :o Especially when you have already established in context which specific object you are talking about. If we were talking about my cat already, I want to say "the cat likes to scratch my arm". Without saying My cat, or this or That cat... And without an article, and with the fact that Chinese nouns have no plural form... it could easily end up sounding like a statement about cats in general. (Cats like to scratch my arm)

[David Wong]

Uhmmm... 有只猫 is definitely indefinite.

[马盖云]

Uhmmm... 有只猫 is definitely indefinite.

:unsure:

I don't know if you are replying to Renalcido who origally proposed this, or me. He was saying that using an existential construction would create a definate reference, which could then be validly used as a subject in a Chinese sentence. I was trying to explain this to Anonymoose who also seemed to not understand what he was saying.

I did not realize implicitly that the subject in a Chinese sentence needed to be a definate reference, but that seems to make sense. Having heard that, and Renalcido's explanation, I would think that 有一只猫 certainly fits the bill of creating an existential definate reference phrase.

I found this paper on definate/indefinate references online. (english grammar, not chinese) It also shows how an existential construction can make a definate reference.

definate/indefinate

So, instead of being dismissive, can you clarify your argument and help those of us who are trying to learn this stuff to better understand? ;)

[Glenn]

He was saying that subjects of sentences can only be definite reference, and in order to get what in English would be a subject of indefinite reference, you'd have to use an existential phrase, which would them make it the object or complement of the phrase and therefore not a subject anymore, meaning it can be of indefinite reference, which is reflected in the translation: "a cat was pursuing a mouse." At least that's what I got out of it.

[anonymoose]

I was trying to explain this to Anonymoose who also seemed to not understand what he was saying.

I understood what he was saying. I'm just curious as to why he doesn't regard 貓 as the subject of his sentence.

[马盖云]

Sorry, did not mean to put words in your mouth! Nor in Renacido's.. but what I was trying to say (and what Glenn said right after me) is that Renacido indeed considers 猫 as the subject of the sentence. It's just that in order to make it a definate reference, the existential construction must be used.

[Glenn]

It's in order to make it an indefinite reference that the existential construction is used.

[马盖云]

It's in order to make it an indefinite reference that the existential construction is used.

I don't understand why you think that. Does not the "there is" create definate-ness? (what ever the noun form of definate is!) "a cat" is indefinate. Which cat? who knows! "There is a cat.." Oh, that cat! So without saying "that cat" we are referring to it's existance, and it can be the subject of the sentence.

The premise was (I don't even know if it's true or not, but I will stipulate to it) that you can't say "a cat was" because it is indefinate and therefore cannot be a subject. OK, so this existential work-around allows us to use it as a subject. I don't know if you can still translate it literally as "a cat was" anymore, but that is still the intent. To say that a cat, who has not yet been mentioned in context - therefore we cannot assume the listener knows which exact cat it is - is doing something.

Again, please see the bottom of page 4 (example 16, where the existential construction is said to create a definate reference). Also, there is a mention of using this method as applied to Mandarin on page 9 (example 36)

I wish Renacido would join back in the conversation to explain himself! I am apparently not doing a very good job of doing so! :rolleyes:

[Glenn]

Renacido is saying that to make a subject indefinite reference you need to use the existential expression 有(一)X. You're saying that the existential expression leads to definite reference. Yip and Rimmington state that "in a sentence with an action verb,... all pre-verbal unmarked nouns... are of definite reference..." and then go on to give the examples 書已經還了 ("the book(s) has (have) alread been returned") and 孩子回來了 ("the child(ren) has (have) come back"). That's section 1.2.1, page 7. Then, on the next page, they say "as a general rule, the shift of indefinite-referenced noun to pre-action verb position will entail the use of the verb 有..." and give then examples 有（一）本書放在桌子上 ("there was a book on the table") and 這時候，有（一）輛車開來了 ("at this moment a car drove up").

It looks like this is just a case of English grammar and Chinese grammar working two different ways. While in English "there be" sentences show definite reference (although I don't totally get that), the 有（一）construction in Chinese does not seem to mirror that, and isn't quite the same thing judging from what Yip and Rimmington have to say.

Anyway, I agree that it would be nice if Renacido came back to help clear this up.