Grammar #6 是

[xuechengfeng]

This one is tricky for me.

[ced1zh]

mostly 是=be(is am are...)

or

it can be used for answering a question:

是(的)=yes, 不是=no

other usage:

是非：right and wrong; dispute

是否：whether or not; is it so or not

[gougou]

Translating 是 with to be is dangerous, as in European languages, this verb is used not only to link two nouns/pronouns, but also nouns and adjectives, as in "Chinese is complicated."

In Chinese, it can only be used to express equality between two nouns, e.g. "Chinese is a language". Maybe the sign '=' comes closer as a "translation" than to be.

===

Another use of 是 is for emphasis, especially used together with 不是, e.g. 我不是说汉语，我是说德语.

[skylee]

In Chinese, it can only be used to express equality between two nouns

Only? Somhow I doubt it.

[gougou]

My apologies.

"Only" with respect to connecting nouns and nouns, or nouns and adjectives.

[Run]

who has some information that important about chinese grammar please suggest me at nepalmy@hotmail.com

Because i study about chinese language.

[Altair]

Here are my speculations about 是. My Chinese is quite deficient, so I would appreciate it if people could point out errors, especially in the examples I list below.

First, 是 was probably not originally a verb and did not originally mean "to be." The usual verb for "to be" in Classical Chinese was 为 (wei2), although many other verbs had similar functions. One theory is that 是 originally meant something like "proper." It can still mean "true" or "right," as in 是非 (right and wrong).

According to the traditional explanation, the character 是 expresses things that are "right/correct (正) under the light of the sun (日)" This apparently does not fit the most ancient forms of the character, however. Another possibility I have read about is that 是 was originally a picture of a spoon on three hooks and indicated "the 'proper' place to put a spoon." Based on this, I speculate that 是 originally meant "spoon," but was later borrowed to represent a homophone or near homphone that meant "proper." To distinguish the two meanings, a picture of a ladle may have been added to the character to clarify the rarer meaning of spoon, which has come down to us as 匙.

Perhaps through some intermediate meaning like "very" ("Very" originally meant "true," as in "the very thing"), 是 seems to have acquired the meaning of "this or that" in early Chinese, especially with reference to things already mentioned in the conversation or text. I think this is the primary usage in Classical Chinese, where 是 is often used as a weak demonstrative pronoun or adjective. This usage seems to have disappeared in modern Mandarin, except where literary Chinese incorporates Classical language. I would argue below, however, that this meaning still leaves its mark on many constructions.

From one or both of these meanings, the meaning of "to be" developed in some spoken dialects of Chinese, including the ancestor(s) of Mandarin. It is worth noting, however, that since 是 does not really have a verbal origin, it cannot be followed by particles, such as 了, 过, 着, or 得. When verb-like nuances are needed, some other word is necessary, such as 当 or 做. Examples might be: 她爸爸当过老师 (Her dad was (once) a teacher) or 你想做总统吗 (You want to be president?)

Here are some uses and limitations of 是 that are worth distinguishing. While 是 can sometimes seem to equate with "is," at other times it seems to preserve some of its demonstrative meaning and equate better with "it is." (This usage seems rather like French use of "c'est," which often has a quite vague reference, as opposed to "il est" or "elle est.")

My examples are taken from or inspired by the following three books: Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar by Charles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson, Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar by Yip Po-ching and Don Rimmington, and Dictionary for Readers of Modern Chinese Prose by Stanley L. Mickel.

1. 是 can be used identify, as in 他是个老师 (He is a teacher).

2. 是 cannot be used with aspect markers, as discussed above.

3. 是 cannot be used with auxiliar verbs to imply that its subject is using any sort of intention or exertion of will. 是 can also not express any type of transformation, since it implies a static situation. For example, 是 cannot normally be used to express concepts like: "he can be or wants to be president," but can be used to express concepts like: "he should or must be president," since no exertion of will or transformation is actually described.

4. 是 can be used to classify, as in 那个书是白的 (That book is white).

5. 是 cannot be routinely used for individualized descriptions (i.e., independently of an implied class or category), without introducing some additional meaning. E.g., 今天是冷 means "Today is really cold." "Today is cold" would be 今天很冷. Which adjectives are treated as classifications and which are treated as individualized descriptions is somewhat fluid, since it has more to do with social convention than with arbitrary grammar.

6. 是 cannot be used to locate, but can be used to identify locations (e.g., 后边是诊所 ("The back is a clinic" or "In back is a clinic") or to identify something as so pervasive in a location that it seems to take over its identify (e.g., 这张桌子上都是杂志 "This table is covered with newspapers").

7. 是 is used to link back to a situation previously expressed or implied in the conversation or text. Basically it is used to introduce a confirmation or denial of some assumption that is pending in the conversation. This usage has many subtypes:

7a. 是 can be used to affirm something. Such an affirmation can be used to make a concession that is later contradicted. E.g., 他是吃辣的可是他不喜欢吃四川才 (It's true that he eats hot food, but he doesn't like Szechuan cusine). This meaning can also be seen in the expressions: 是否 (whether or not) or 是否问句 (Yes or no questions.)

7b. 是 can be used to assess an overall situation. E.g., 她是不会来这儿了 ((Things are such that) she is unlikely to come here. This use is often appended to adverbs. E.g., 他简直是风了 (He is just crazy). This is often the origin of the use of 是 in such expressions as 可是, 要是, 还是 and 就是. In more formal or elevated language, the 是 tends to be omitted if this is rhythmically possible.

8. 是 can be used as part of a 是...的 construction. 的 is used to nominalize whatever comes before it, if anything, but these nominalizations can be of different types:

8a. 是...的 can be used to confirm or deny when, where, or under what circumstances something happened in the past. 是 is optional in this pattern. The sentence has a past connotation because here 的 implies that what comes before it is an already established category. A situation can generally not be categorized in the future without really stating a prediction or intention. E.g., 我们是昨天来的 (The time we came was yesterday) or 我们是坐火车来的 (The way we came was by train). According to my speculation, it is important to recognize that what precedes 是 is often not its subject, but rather the topic of the sentence. In even more literal English, my two earlier examples would be: "It is that we came yesterday" and "It is that we came by train." Another example would be the question 是谁告诉你的? (Who is it that told you?), where there is no express adverbial element, but which nonetheless asks for clarification of the nature of a situation.

When the verb has an expressed direct object, this usage can sometimes be confused with 8d. below. Apparently to help avoid such confusion, the 的 can optionally be transposed from the end of the sentence to the position between the verb and the direct object. E.g., 她是在书店买的这枝笔 (It was in the store that he bought this pen). Such a transposition is not possible if the object is a pronoun or a directional complement.

8b. 是...的 can be used to express a kind of passive. E.g., 那座房子是我朋友买的 (That house was bought by my friend). Again, I do not think that such statements can be used to refer to future things.

8c. 是...的 can be used to emphasize the subject by changing a statement or description into a categorization and implying that it is an established and objective fact. E.g., 美国人是喜欢吃肉的 (Americans like to eat meat). Notice that in this case, there is no implication of a past fact.

8d. 是...的 can be used in situation where 是 expresses any of its meanings and 的 simply takes the place of a missing noun. E.g., 就是要新的 (It's just that he wants new ones).

9. 是 is often omitted before an item that indicates time, date, age, or any type of measurement. E.g. 你女儿几岁了? It is normally omitted when price is indicated. E.g., 那些衬衫多少钱一件? (What price are those shirts?) It is worth noting that the grammar of these English expressions is actually stranger than it seems and is not matched in many languages.

[loon]

An interesting and detailed post Altair, but after a quick reading I have to disagree with you here on a couple of points. You wrote

我们是昨天来的 (The time we came was yesterday) or 我们是坐火车来的 (The way we came was by train).

In even more literal English, my two earlier examples would be: "It is that we came yesterday" and "It is that we came by train."

I think that the following translations would be more appropriate:

我们是昨天来的 "We are the ones that came yesterday."

我们是坐火车来的 "We are the ones that came by train."

(In these sentences 我们 = 主语 and we = subject.)

Furthermore, I think the following rendering into Chinese of your translations is appropriate:

The time we came was yesterday. "我们来的时间（就）是昨天。"

The way we came was by train. " 我们（就是）坐火车来的。" (is going to have to do here from me I'm afraid!)

...and sorry, but one more thing is that I think "it is that we came yesterday" and "it is that we came by train" are sentence fragments. Perhaps you mean "it is true/so/fact that we came yesterday/ by train", or something like"it is that we came yesterday/by train that surprised him so much" (for example).

(It is true that we came yesterday. "我们昨天来的是实事" perhaps.)

[wushijiao]

Not to disagree with loon (because it sounds like his/her grammar is much, much better than mine ), but I thought "It is that we came yesterday" was good in the sense that is was a literal translation that wasn't intended to make sense in English, but rather convery the Chinese meaning directly, in the same way that people often describe 电话 as "electric" "speech". Like I said, I am not an expert at grammar and I haven't even studied Chinese formally. But, personally, for me it was a mini-breakthrough when I started to think of the 是.........的 construction as an English "that/which" cause.

[Quest]

I think that the following translations would be more appropriate:

我们是昨天来的 "We are the ones that came yesterday."

我们是坐火车来的 "We are the ones that came by train."

No I think you are wrong.

我们是昨天来的: It was yesterday that we came.

我们是坐火车来的: It was by train that we came.

They are different from:

我们是昨天来的那伙人。

我们是坐火车来的那群人。

These you can translate with "we are the ones who..."

[Altair]

I think that the following translations would be more appropriate:

我们是昨天来的 "We are the ones that came yesterday."

我们是坐火车来的 "We are the ones that came by train."

(In these sentences 我们 = 主语 and we = subject.)

Loon,

Thanks for your comments.

My hypothesis is that 我们 is actually not the subject of 是, but rather the topic of the sentence. The actual subject of 是 is unexpressed, but can be thought of as something like "the situation." 我们是昨天来的 means something like: "As for us, (the situation) is one of coming yesterday." In stilted English, it would be: "For us, it is one of coming yesterday." In normal English, we would simply say: "We came yesterday," with voice stress on "yesterday."

昨天来的 can indeed mean: "the one(s) that came yesterday"; however, I think that the frequency of the 是...的 construction precludes this interpretation in a sentence like this and requires a solution such as the one Quest has proposed. Note that 是 can be omitted in my sentences, but cannot be omitted in Quest's, since "we are the ones that came yesterday" requires the presence of 是. Where confusion is less likely, such as what I put in example 8d, this interpretation again becomes possible. Note also that I have kept part of your idea and changed the form in the paragraph above to "one of coming yesterday." This retains the use of "one," but in a way more appropriate to a situation.

By the way, I think that Japanese has a very similar construction with "no." "No" functions very much like 的 and also frequently links statements to situtations, rather than to specific nouns.

Furthermore, I think the following rendering into Chinese of your translations is appropriate:

The time we came was yesterday. "我们来的时间（就）是昨天。"

The way we came was by train. " 我们（就是）坐火车来的。"

Your are correct, but I think I was too cryptic in picking my rendering. Since the subject of 是 is the vague situation, it might correspond to the time, manner, or place of something. I used the words "time" and "way" to give some indication of this and to produce a reasonable English sentence that would still give a flavor for the Chinese and the meaning of 是. As evidence, I can point to your second sentence, which has no Chinese equivalent for "way" and is a perfectly good 是...的 construction. 是 can always be omitted, and the presence of 就 is optional, depending on meaning and emphasis. Again, the meaning of 我们（就是）坐火车来的 is not "We are the very ones who came by train," but rather "Our situation is one of coming yesterday."

I think "it is that we came yesterday" and "it is that we came by train" are sentence fragments. Perhaps you mean "it is true/so/fact that we came yesterday/ by train", or something like"it is that we came yesterday/by train that surprised him so much" (for example).

Wushijiao's explanation was correct. Technically, I would call my sentences awkward, but not ungrammatical or fragments. Certainly, no native speakers would use them. However, "it" is merely a pronoun, and "that we came yesterday" is simply a noun clause. Instead of using "it," I could have said: "The real situation is that we came yesterday." This is a complete sentence and relatively natural English. If we replace "the real situation" with "it," we come to my awkward sentence "it is that we came yesterday."

Consider the sentence 是谁告诉你的?. What is the subject of 是? I would argue that it has no subject, but does suggest a topic.

Some would say that this sentence could be rendered as "Who is the one who told you?"; however, I do not think this is correct. Notice that in Chinese the structure is not A=B? like the English, but appears to be =AB?, which seems to make no sense.

I would argue that "Who is the one who told you?" would correspond better to 告诉你的是谁?. This structure is A=B? and focuses on identification of an individual. I know that someone told you, but I don't know who that person was.

I think that 是谁告诉你的? focuses on something different. I am faced with a surprising situation. You know something I did not expect you to know, and I can't figure out who could have been in a position to tell you. I need an explanation, not just an identification, and am hoping that identifying the individual will solve the puzzle. This meaning corresponds better to "Who is it that told you?" Notice that even in English, "who" is not the subject of "is." "It" is the subject. Likewise, the precise referent of "it" is vague in English. In reality, it is a dummy subject that is simply required by the structure.

The true structure of 是谁告诉你的? is not =AB?, but rather (A)=B?. In English the position of "(A)" must be taken by a dummy "it" (E.g., it is sunny today), except when there is a question word; however, in Chinese, nothing is necessary and A is simply omitted. A question word in English must always come first in the sentence and causes any existing subject to come after the verb (E.g., "It is Tom." becomes "Who is it?"). The word "who" must be extracted from B above and put before A. The remains of B still need a subject, which is supplied by "that."

The procedure in Chinese is much simpler. The base sentence is 谁告诉你? To make this question categorize a situation, we simply add 的 at the end. To refer back to the situation and make clear that 谁 is not the topic, we add 是 at the beginning.

[loon]

I find you each guilty of the heinous crime of producing Eyenese (wish I could think of something a little cleverer) - a language that emanates from a universe parallel to that of Chinglish, and can only be produced by native speakers of English as they with great solemnity attempt to ponderously and tortuously translate Chinese into their mother tongue.

Wujishao,

I fail to see the point of any translation “literal” or otherwise if the translated sentence is not representative of the target language.

Altair,

Ok I recant my previous assertion that “It was that we came yesterday” is a sentence fragment. You will not convince me however, that this sort of a construction has a high frequency of use in English, so why you would feel compelled to translate a common Chinese construction with something as bewildering and obscure as this is beyond me. However I will accept your approach but hope that you can convince others of its utility if you are ever called upon to translate or teach language in this manner.

This is an interesting subject but one can start to go round in circles very quickly. I believe one should not waste to much time if any trying to precisely describe Chinese syntax and semantics in the same terms as you describe English grammar; languages as different as Chinese and English defy description in terms of the other’s traditional grammar. It’s impossible, and is the reason why traditional Chinese methods fail so miserably where the structure of English is concerned: because they try to explain grammatical concepts that simply don’t exist in Chinese in Chinese, which it is fundamentally impossible. The converse is also true.

Quest,

I can appreciate what you’re saying but I think you are wrong when you say that I’m wrong, and again what offer as “right” is a bewildering construction not representative of English as people speak and write it.

May I have a dig at translating your sentences into English for you?

“It was yesterday that we came” translates as “We came yesterday””

“It was by train that we came” translates as “We came by train”

Now the meanings of sentences/ utterances “we came yesterday” or “we came by train”, are totally text and context dependent – in spoken language hearing where the stress lies in the utterance alone would be enough for the listener to determine the meaning - but I’ll let you try and conceive of the many different contexts in which such declarative clauses might be used, and the different meanings and emphases that each would entail.

Are you seriously telling me that a Chinese person would choose to say 你们是昨天来的那群人 ? Neither the English nor the Chinese you offer is representative of the linguistic reality.

Person 1:你们是今天来的吧。

Person 2. 不是。 我们是昨天来的。

It is quite clear to me in Chinese the different meanings this exchange might entail, and I know what I would say in English if I wanted to express and determine similar information in English.

Furthermore, it very quickly gets pointless to argue over sentences that have no context, and you will never get “precise” definitions in translation because the concepts – and these have a basis in the fundamental neurology supporting linguistic capability - are fundamentally different.

You are making the exact same fundamental error in your approach to this as the Chinese public school CET type pedagogy has been making for the past 20 years or however long they have been pointlessly “explaining” English to their befuddled charges.

Text, context and sociolinguistic realities, cobbers!

Thanks for an enjoyable debate - keep it up!

Time for me to get out and enjoy the spring sunshine.

Cheers.

[gougou]

I think you are wrong when you say that I’m wrong

Beautiful! This one must come from deep down inside the rhetorical treasure box!

[SWWLiu]

A few more (uncommon) examples of the usage of 是:

mostly 是=be(is am are...)

or

it can be used for answering a question:

是(的)=yes' date=' 不是=no

other usage:

是非：right and wrong; dispute

是否：whether or not; is it so or not

[/quote']

Translating 是 with to be is dangerous' date=' as in European languages, this verb is used not only to link two nouns/pronouns, but also nouns and adjectives, as in "Chinese is complicated."

[/quote']

To these I add a few more (unlike those already mentioned):

是不是 Yes or No (interrogative); whether

不是 shortcoming; mistake (noun)

是日 on that day (adverbial phrase)

她是不是曾經無情地指出他的不是？

[monto]

With answers with examples excellently given in above posts, I'd like just add a word:

国是：Top things of the country, Big matters of the country

This is the only word I met in my life whree 是 is used such may.