把

[Pravit]

er ... when you want to?

So the 把 structure does not change the meaning or feel of the sentence in any way and can be used arbitrarily? I'll take your word for it.

[xiaocai]

从语法来讲，含有“把”的句子，也就是“把字句”的用法实际上相当复杂，我无法说明。但是，并不是所有的动词都可以适用“把字句”，例如：帮助、抵达；同时，并不是所有的“把字句”都可以去掉“把”，例如当句子中的主要动词有自己的宾语，如“她把带子打了个结”，那么“把”字就很难被去掉。所以，很难用简单的描述来说明“把”字句的用法。但是，在通常情况下，在最简单的“subject + 把 + object + verb”结构中，“把”字句将宾语提前了，应该是起到强调宾语，也就是强调结果的作用。

[Pravit]

So "ba" stresses the object and the result of the action? Thank you!

[Altair]

Maybe I can add to what Xiaocai and others have already said and ask a few additional questions at the end.

The function of the 把 construction is often described as indicating how something is "disposed of." This presupposes that the object is already part of the field of discourse and therefore is either definite or generic. This also presupposes that the predicate will focus on the fate of the object.

A related use of 把 is to deal with the situation where a verb needs to have both a complement and an object, which is ordinarily not allowed in Modern Chinese grammar. One solution in such cases is to use the 把 construction, which shifts the object to a position before the verb.

From what I have read, the question of whether or not 把 can or should be used covers a spectrum, ranging from cases where 把 is not permitted to cases where it is required. In the middle are cases where it is possible, but awkward, and cases where it is preferred, but not absolutely required.

According to Yip Po-Ching's and Don Rimmington's Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar, the 把 construction generally requires three structural features:

1. the object of 把 must be of definite reference, unless there is a modal verb or some sort of general command or prohibition;

2. the main verb of the seentence must be followed by a complement or, less commonly, by a second noun;

3. the main verb must be an action verb.

If 把 is used after a modal verb, (e.g., 应该， 能, 可以, etc.), the object does not have to be definite. (E.g., 你总不能把什么责任都推给我吧。 谁都应该把书放回原处。 怎么可以把垃圾扔在这儿呢?) General commands and prohibition seem to be the same. (E.g., 不准把车辆停放在进出口! 禁止把七岁以下的小孩带入会场.)

As for requirement number 2, there are many complements that are possible. The minimum seems to be 了, such as in 她自己把药吃了. The more elaborate the "complement," the more necessary it is to use a 把 construction whether or not other features of the sentence require it.

In many 把 sentences, a "redundant" 给 may be added to "reinforce" the functional meaning of "disposal" or "adversity." In some situations, using 给 appears to clarify that the results were unintentional or adverse to the interest of the actor. (E.g., 弟弟把花瓶打破了. Little brother broke the flower vase (either by accident or on purpose). vs. 弟弟把花瓶给打破了. Little brother broke the vase (by accident).)

By the way, does anyone know how to translate into Chinese the sentences I have written below? I ask because my grammar books say that one cannot use the 把 construction in these situations, but do not indicate how the sentences should be expressed.

1. He is in trouble because he broke a television set.

2. He came in the room and put three books on top of the table.

3. He has seen a movie three times in his life.

4. He has translated a Chinese novel into English.

[skylee]

1. He is in trouble because he broke a television set.

- 他惹上了麻煩，因為他把(一台)電視機給弄壞/打破了。 OR

- 他惹上了麻煩，因為他弄壞/打破了(一台)電視機。

2. He came in the room and put three books on top of the table.

- 他走進房間，把三本書放在桌子上。 OR

- 他走進房間並放了三本書在桌子上。

3. He has seen a movie three times in his life.

- 他一生之中(只)看過一部電影三次。(?)

4. He has translated a Chinese novel into English.

- 他把一本中文小說翻譯為英文。 OR

- 他翻譯了一本中文小說為英文。

[Altair]

Skylee, thanks for your answers. They are great; however, two of them leave me puzzled. Could it be that there is some discrepancy between local usage on some of these points?

I realize that commenting on formal grammar is not something most native or near native speakers can do, but any additional comments in English or Chinese would be welcome. From a learner's standpoint, some of these questions can feel important.

Since some of the points are rather complex grammatically, I am going to try to give more detail than most people might be interested in. With luck, this can shed light on what the difficulties are.

1. He is in trouble because he broke a television set.

- 他惹上了麻煩，因為他把(一台)電視機給弄壞/打破了。 OR

- 他惹上了麻煩，因為他弄壞/打破了(一台)電視機。

My grammar books are consistent in saying that 把 should not be used with indefinite words; however, two of my better ones do say that this is possible when words are used generically. A typical "bilingual" statement is the following:

"‘把’的賓語多是專指的、即指確定的人後事物。(The object of ‘把’ must be specific.) [i notice here that the Chinese and English seem slightly different, but the intent still seems rather close.]

***

"有時、特別是說理時、‘把’的賓語可以是總指的。(Sometimes when theorising, the object of ‘把’ can be generic.)"

One example of what is described as an ungrammatical structure is *他把一個電視機弄壞了。 (*Ta ba3 yi1 ge dian4 shi4 ji1 nong4 huai4 le. He broke a television set.). Can anyone explain how this is different from 他把(一台)電視機給弄壞/打破了?

Other sentences that are described as ungrammatical are:

*他把一輛車子買了 (He bought a car) and

*他把兩個人殺了 (He killed two people).

Are these sentences somehow different from:

他走進房間，把三本書放在桌子上。

?

I also have a book called Speaking Cinese: 300 Grammatical Points (实用汉语语法三百点) published in 1999 by New World Press (新世界出版社), Beijing. Judging by the text, it seems to be written my native Chinese speakers. This book makes several points regarding the sentence types I picked, which I will reproduce below. One thing the book does is entirely ignore the issue of whether 把 can be used with indefinite objects and so does not explain whether any of its rules change in this case. That is one of the reasons I posted the questions I did.

One of your responses had:

他走進房間並放了三本書在桌子上。

The book I describe above says the following sentence is unacceptable: 我放〔汉英词典〕在桌子上了。 The book says:

"指示: 我们不能将 I put the English-Chinese Dicitionary on the table. 逐词译成汉语。在汉语中、当要表达通过动作对人或事物施加影响、而使它处于某地时、一定要用“把”字句。在这类“把”字句中、动词“在”后边加上处所宾于作句中东西谓语的结果补语、如上句中的“在桌子上”。

"[Teacher's Advice: It is wrong to translate the English sentence "I put the English-Chinese dictionary on the table." into Chinese word for word. When expressing that an action is applied to somebody or something and showing where the person or thing is as the result of the action, we must use a 把-sentence. In this sort of 把-sentence, the verb 在 followed by an object of locality acts as the complement of result of the verbal predicate in the sentence, such as with 在桌子上 in the above sentence.]"

Is 放了三本書在桌子上 somehow different from 放〔汉英词典〕在桌子上了?

[Altair]

Oops! Forget the question. Your earlier answers were a good enough start.

I certainly did not mean my post to be unpleasant. I was only hoping for enlightenment about matters that are beyond my small mind.

One thing I have found in studying Chinese is that for every two steps forward, I take at least one step backward. Half the stuff I learn or think I know ends up needing to be revised upon later analysis or upon later reading. It can be most puzzling when the very thing one grammar book says is impossible appears in the very next grammar book, short story, or newspaper article without any comment. Sometimes I can guess at the reasons, but often I cannot. I can give you a whole list of supposed rules that I have found to be misleading or wrong.

I should also make clear that I am not asking about what native or near native speakers consider prestige forms of speech, but rather what people actually say. Historically, English has a lot of "grammatical" rules that I consider complete rubbish from a linguistic standpoint. In other words, sophisticated people in sophisticated situations violate the supposed rules routinely. I assume Chinese is the same, but I have no feel for what is possible and what is not, what is merely a schoolbook rule that everyone ignores and what is an ironclad rule that everyone respects.

[Quest]

Is 放了三本書在桌子上 somehow different from 放〔汉英词典〕在桌子上了?

放了。。。在桌子上 is okay.

放。。。在桌子上了- wrong placement of 了.

One example of what is described as an ungrammatical structure is *他把一個電視機弄壞了。 (*Ta ba3 yi1 ge dian4 shi4 ji1 nong4 huai4 le. He broke a television set.). Can anyone explain how this is different from 他把(一台)電視機給弄壞/打破了?

Because 个 is not the correct quantifier for a TV.

[Jose]

Oops! Forget the question. Your earlier answers were a good enough start.

Altair, I don't know why you apologise for your question. I also think the answers in this thread leave a few unexplained points.

To me, two basic questions remain: 1. Under what circumstances can we use a ba construction when the object is indefinite? and 2. To what extent is it admissible to split verb compounds like 放在 or 翻譯成?

As to the first point, Chinese posters here, like skylee and Quest, seem to see no problem. I recently asked a friend from Taiwan, and she didn't seem to have a problem with such uses either. However, a Chinese teacher (who is from Shanghai, in case that's important) recently told me that I should only use 把 with definite nominal phrases, and that's what the Chinese grammars I have (Yip Po-ching, and Li and Thompson), and some textbooks say. Li and Thompson give a few examples of indefinite phrases that can be used in a ba construction, but their explanation is far from clear.

This is something I am not clear about yet. As long as nobody comes up with a good explanation, I think I will refrain from using ba with indefinite phrases. Such usage seems controversial at the very least.

As for the second point, I have been told by a few Chinese people that putting an object in the middle of a verbal compound like 放在 or 翻譯成 sounds weird, and that a ba construction is pretty much unavoidable in such cases. The Taiwanese friend I mentioned before told me that 翻譯這本書成中文 sounded strange to her. She said 把這本書翻譯成中文 sounds much more natural.

That's why I am not sure whether the two translations skylee has given us for the sentence "He has translated a Chinese novel into English" are seen as natural by all speakers of Chinese. I don't doubt that they have to be correct, since skylee is a native speaker, but I am wondering whether thay may have a Cantonese or Southern flavour as they seem to contradict what reference books for foreigners say.

If anyone could shed some light on these issues I would really appreciate it.

[Quest]

I am wondering whether thay may have a Cantonese or Southern flavour.

You have to use 將 in Cantonese:

佢将本中文小说翻译成英文。

The sentence skylee wrote:

他翻譯了一本中文小說為英文。

does sound a little strange.

[hussar]

我把那本書放了在桌子上 (not *我放了那本書在桌子上)

I've put that book on the table

他想把那本書翻譯成英文 (not *他想翻譯那本書成英文)

He would like to translate that book into English

...

hmmm In my opinion * sentences "他想翻譯那本書成英文 & 我放了那本書在桌子上" are acceptable and correct (either in meaning or in use).

[HashiriKata]

你们把我搞糊涂了!!!

PS: I think this should also be (linguistically ) ok:

你们把这个问题搞糊涂了

Yes ???

[semantic nuance]

PS: I think this should also be (linguistically ) ok:

你们把这个问题搞糊涂了

Yes ???

Yes!

[HashiriKata]

Yes!

谢！

[semantic nuance]

HK,

After 2nd thought, did I think what you thought? Could you elaborate what you meant in that sentence?

[semantic nuance]

放了。。。在桌子上 is okay.

放。。。在桌子上了- wrong placement of 了.

it is ok in this case. However, 放....在桌子上了 can be ok in other cases. For example:

A: 書放在桌子上了嗎?

B: 放在桌子上了!!

Hope it helps!

[Quest]

it is ok in this case. However, 放....在桌子上了 can be ok in other cases. For example:

A: 書放在桌子上了嗎?

B: 放在桌子上了!!

I think the original sentence was 放了三本书在桌子上? In which case, 放三本书在桌子上了 is wrong.....

[把]書放在桌子上了 is a different construction.

[HashiriKata]

HK' date='

After 2nd thought, did I think what you thought? Could you elaborate what you meant in that sentence? [/quote']Yes, we were on the same wavelength

I asked whether 你们把这个问题搞糊涂了 is ok linguistically, because I made up that sentence only to try out the "把-structure" and wanted to check if it is correct language-wise. The content here is not part of the package, of course!

[HashiriKata]

I've just come across this 把-sentence from a song:

"谁能把我从这深渊里逃离"

As I understand it, a fundanental rule for the 把-sentence is the main verb must be transive (= one requiring an object so that the object can be moved to the front of the verb) but here, 逃离 (= to flee, to run away) is an intransitive verb.

So, does "谁能把我从这深渊里逃离" sound ok to Chinese speakers? And how about changing that to:

谁能把我从这深渊里释放 , or

谁能帮我从这深渊里逃离

??

(Sorry for keep going on about this structure but I'd really like to get to the bottom of it .)

[skylee]

does "谁能把我从这深渊里逃离" sound ok to Chinese speakers?

Not to me. 逃離 does not work with 把我從. If it is replaced by 釋放 or 拯救出來 then the sentence is fine. I suspect that it is from some song lyrics, isn't it? (Like lyrics in English such as "He don't love me no more" Chinese lyrics are often not grammatically perfect.)