the 了 should be 的 thing - Chinese grammar confusion

[Hofmann]

Somehow, even interpreting the verb as an adjective (or stative verb), I'm missing something here. Are the following legal?

我是上午喝咖啡的 --> 我是上午喝的咖啡

孔子不是編輯論語的 --> 孔子不是編輯的論語

Would introducing some punctuation help me understand it?

我是上午喝的，咖啡。(i.e. the topic is 咖啡, which was established beforehand, but it got flipped around and repeated again, perhaps for clarification)

孔子不是編輯的，論語。

[creamyhorror]

Are the following legal?

我是上午喝咖啡的 --> 我是上午喝的咖啡

孔子不是編輯論語的 --> 孔子不是編輯的論語

Yes. I suspect this rearrangement is a Northern feature because Taiwanese Mandarin and Southern dialects don't seem to use it. I already accept it as a variation of 是...的 rather than attempting to understand it as another structure I've seen before. There doesn't seem to be a pause after 的, which makes it seem to me less like placing the topic at end, and more like interference from 了, but I don't have evidence for this.

It does make for some potentially funny sentences

[xiaocai]

孔子不是編輯論語的

Without any context, it sounds really strange to me. I would say 论语不是孔子编辑的 instead. If you really want to place 孔子 somewhere before 论语 I would suggest 孔子没有编辑过论语.

[skylee]

I agree with xiaocai (given there is no context of the quoted sentence).

[hbuchtel]

I was thinking that part of the reason these "shifted 的" sentences look so strange might be that they are an oral construction that rarely appears in written Chinese . . . does that seem right?

[hbuchtel]

Without any context, it sound really strange to me

How about this exchange?

A: 孔子是不是写的论语？

B: 孔子不是写的论语，孔子是写的千秋。

[skylee]

Ok, I think I know the difference now.

我在悉尼也是申請的這一學科 - the emphasis is on 這一學科 - this subject is the same one I applied for in Sydney.

我在悉尼也是申請這一學科的 - the emphasis is not on 這一學科 - I applied for the same subject in Sydney.

我在悉尼申請的也是這一學科 - the emphasis is not on 這一學科 - The subject I applied for in Sydney is the same as this.

Views?

Personally I will use the 2nd and 3rd ones. I have seen the first pattern but I don't write like that.

[tooironic]

Wow, amazed (and grateful) for the huge amount of response given to my post!

I think skylee's analysis above is spot on.

To those who believe the original sentence sounds sloppy, let me tell you there are plenty of other parts in the text that are written horribly. For example, at one point the author uses "更者", which my native speaker friends and I can only assume is supposed to mean "再者", or "更有甚者". It's quite often the case that documents that people want translated are filled with non-standard Chinese, and as a translator you have to do your best to 1) comprehend and 2) translate it naturally into English.

[Michaelyus]

I think the example from Yip & Rimmington's Comprehensive Grammar p.313 sheds a little light on it, or at least throws it into sharp relief. It is treated under the sentence functions of Chapter 20.

他昨天到了北京

He arrived in Beijing yesterday.

他是昨天到的北京

He arrived in Beijing yesterday. (With "yesterday" underlined)

The first sentence narrates the fact that he arrived, but the emphatic 是...的 construction makes the sentence an explanation of the time of his arrival and is therefore expository.

My own gut instinct is to treat this as a colloquialism of the north. I have heard the construction before, but only with severely adjusted rhythm and intonation would it be clear that this is indeed a 是...的 construction with emphasis on a portion of the pre-verbal modifier. For me (a southerner with respect to Mandarin) the change of focus does not cause the 的-fronting to the position in front of object: keeping the 的 at the end of the sentence is fine by me. (This is borne out by the literature: Paul & Whitman (2008) Shi ... de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese, p.11)

To be honest, I'd also do the same with those "noun objects that are not persons nor locations", though it's somewhat proscribed:

我是在悉尼申请的这一学科。

我是在悉尼申请这一学科的。

What comes after 是 is generally going to be foregrounded anyway, right?

However, I think it's clear that pre-verbal adverbs of location are the classic examples of focus. What happens though, if we want to focus in on the verb itself? This is how I interpret the intention of the sentence in the opening post, like #7 and #8.

我也在悉尼申请了这一学科。

There is a lack of force when using the verbal particle / perfective 了. Perhaps it is a lack of explanatory connection that comes with narration, as per Yip & Rimmington's sentence classification as above.

我在悉尼也是申请这一学科的。

Focus is ambiguous without prior context. Could be on 申请, but it could be on 这一学科. The truth is that this kind is a "default" that emphasises the whole situation without emphasising a particular portion within, called a "肯定语气" or "propositional assertion" or the use of the "situational 的", and often given the literal translation "It is the case that...".

我在悉尼也是申请的这一学科。

Focus is now on the 申请, but inadmissible in southern Mandarin.

我在悉尼也是申请了这一学科的。

The narrative force of verbal particle / perfective 了 is couched in the explanatory 是...的; is this admissible? Perfective 了 is usually proscribed in (northern?) Mandarin within 是...的 constructions (as well as verbal aspect particles in general): it is meant to dissipate the focus.

我在悉也[有]申请过这一学科。

Hmmmmmm... experiential 过 is often associated with expository sentences. But is the focus still there? Has it dissipated across the whole predicate?

我在悉尼也是申请过这一学科的。

Any better? Despite the proscription? Or is it worse than the one without 是...的 and with 过 alone?

这一学科，我在悉尼也是申请的。

Topic as an anaphoric reference, with the focus of the comment portion on 申请. Clunky? Exaggerated?

For all the grammatical elegance that 的-fronting affords, the use of extra lexical items like 甚至 or even 去 would in my opinion be much easier.

[creamyhorror]

Thanks for finally quoting a grammar book, Michaelyus. It's interesting you say it's inadmissible in Southern Mandarin, I too think it's a Northernism, as I've been saying.

[tooironic]

I like your theory Michaelyus. The author was born in Shijiazhuang.

[hbuchtel]

For what its worth, my wife (who said "it really doesn't matter if they write '也是申请的' or '申请的也是'".) is from the south of China. Just another data point...

[msittig]

I think it goes too far to say it's inadmissable, just that it's not said.

[skylee]

I was re-reading the jokes thread and came across this sentence -

哪個餐廳要是蓋飯30塊錢你都得懷疑他是不是賣的死孩子肉啊！

Post #463 - http://www.chinese-f...460#comment-298278

[ChrisChang]

#10 hbuchtel

I really felt that the part in parentheses was simply written poorly, but my wife (a native Chinese speaker) says that I'm wrong, and that it is perfectly ok, and that it means "我在悉尼申请的也是这个学科", and that it really doesn't matter if they write "也是申请的" or "申请的也是".

I still feel that that the latter is correct, and the former incorrect, but I cannot really disagree with a native speaker...

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

Yes we can! Why? Because Cheney can't spell potato!

I'm a native mandarin speaker. I think you are right,your wife is wrong.

"我在悉尼申请的也是这个学科" = "我在悉尼申请的（学科）也是这个学科" is proper Chinese.

"我在悉尼也是申请的这个学科" is bad Chinses.

[hbuchtel]

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I will clarify to say that she meant that it was easy to understand their meaning, not that it was good Chinese.

In another thread there was a discussion of 'native mistakes,' as opposed to 'foreigner mistakes.' I think this is a good example of the former.

Re: 'potatoe' you are thinking of 'big' Bush's vice president, Quail, not Cheney. That is another example of the kind of error a native speaker would tend to make.

[ChrisChang]

My bad,It's not Cheney,It's Quayle.Why did you spell it "Quail"?Is it a nickname or something?

我在悉尼申请的也是这个学科 emphasizes the same subject.

我也是在悉尼申请的这个学科 emphasizes the same city.

我在悉尼也是申请的这个学科 technically empasizes the same act,practically it doesn't make sense,nor easier to understand(at least for me).

[raydpratt]

Post 29 above by Michaelyus gave examples of sentences saying, 'He arrived in Beijing yesterday.'

Pimsleur audio lessons gives that as 'Ta1 zuo2 tian1 shi4 dao4 bei3 jing1 de.'

I chose these characters for that pinyin: 他作天是道北京的。

Is that correct ? (I'm not sure about the fourth from last character 道 .)

Are the examples given by Michaelyus alternate, correct ways of saying the same thing, which would be perfectly normal? or is the way given by Pimsleur more or less standard?

[skylee]

Re #38, it should be 到.

PS - Also, the position of 是 is not right.

[li3wei1]

Also 作 should be 昨. What's wrong with 是, Skylee?