syntax

[Pedroski]

I have: '饮料瓶要仍在专用的分类袋子里，这是我所知道的;'

 

这....是..我....所.........知道的 = I know that (much)

that is    I    thatwhich    know

 

可以这样变成: ‘这是我把所知道的。'？？？ Is it at all possible to say ‘我知道所’ in Chinese?

[Yang Chuanzhang]

Hi Pedroski,

I don't think that second sentence is correct.

[MPhillips]

No, it isn't.

[Pedroski]

Just asking, because in English we would never say 'I that know', but that is just what '我所知道‘ says. In Chinese, when two nouns precede a verb, and one is its object, the object noun takes a prefix '把‘。例如
‘张堪把什么托付给了朱晖’，at least that's what I thought.

[MPhillips]

Hi Pedroski! I need to read a formal grammar of Chinese myself one of these days--I don't believe formal grammars for the non-specialist existed back when I went to university. I didn't mean to reply in a curt fashion above--I can tell that a Chinese sentence is ungrammatical more easily than I can explain why & I don't want to make any sweeping statements without thinking them through.

[Demonic_Duck]

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of English grammar here. We wouldn't say "I that which know", but pretty much everything sounds stupid/incomprehensible in English if you translate word-for-word.

 

“所……” = that which [is]... “所知道的” = that which is known/what is known. “我所知道的” = that which I know/what I know. “这是我所知道的” = that's what I know/that's all I know.

 

“我知道所” is also incorrect. As for why it's “我所知道的” rather than “所我知道的”, I'm not entirely clear, but the latter is very rarely/never used.

[Pedroski]

@MPhillips: no curtness assumed. Short answers are the best!

 

The thing that annoys me most about so-called 'grammar' is its total lack of any attempt at a reason why. The reason why things are said as they are is not a function of any grammar. I always think there must be a reason, but 4000 years of grammar have not uncovered it!

 

Rant over!

 

My text was: '饮料瓶要仍在专用的分类袋子里，这是我所知道的; 但我不知道的是，在扔之前，先要剥掉它外面那层彩色塑料，拿下它的瓶盖，然后才能把透明的瓶身投在专用袋里。'

 

Maybe '这是我所知道的‘ is actually 'This is my that knowledge.'

[Divato]

用在动词或者“介词+动词”之前，组成名词性词组，相当于“......的事、物”、“......的地方”、“......的人”等。

 

这是我所知道的 = 这是我知道的事

 

所 can mean place.

 

I think 所知道的 could be the place which holds knowledge.

the capacity of this action could be attained.

 

So 我所知道的 = All I know is

所 + verb = All I v. is

 

你所能做的只是 All you can do is

你所相信的都是 All you believe is

你所说的都有道理 All you say is

你所思所想 All you think

 

This may not be accurate but this is all I know

[Altair]

In Chinese, when two nouns precede a verb, and one is its object, the object noun takes a prefix '把‘。例如 ‘张堪把什么托付给了朱晖’，at least that's what I thought.

 

Although grammar books imply this explanation, I think it may be a little misleading.  For instance, you can say 张堪中文说得很好 without using 把.

 

Chinese grammar is much more result focused than English.  The basic use of 把 is to emphasize the end state of the object, which is the result of applying the action to it.

 

The thing that annoys me most about so-called 'grammar' is its total lack of any attempt at a reason why. The reason why things are said as they are is not a function of any grammar. I always think there must be a reason, but 4000 years of grammar have not uncovered it!

 

I often share the sentiment behind this rant and have put forth a lot of effort finding explanations that satisfy me.  Usually this involves dealing with linguistic complexities that most learners would rather avoid.  In this case, I think there is an explanation for the use of 所.

 

A "relative clause/phrase" like 知道的人is theoretically ambiguous.  It can mean either "people who know" or "people who are known."  Context almost always resolves this ambiguity in modern Chinese.  In classical Chinese these meanings were normally distinguished by using a special word to mark when the object/patient of the verb is meant and this usage has been inherited by formal modern Chinese.  That word is 所.  Thus 所知道的人 indicates that 人 is the intended object of the verb and unambiguously means "people who are known."

 

In a sentence like 我所知道的人 ("The people that I know/knew"), the particle 所 still serves the same purpose of indicating that 人 is the object, even though the presence of an overt subject like 我 makes the phrase easy to interpret without it.  The presence of 所 in such a sentence is completely optional and adds only a sense of elevated style, but no concrete meaning.

 

It may be surprising to speakers of English that there is a special particle like 所, since English has nothing comparable.  English is oriented around subjects and predicates, and so subjects have a special status ahead of objects.  Chinese is oriented around topics and comments, and subjects have no special status.  Chinese verbs, however, are often expanded into verb phrases with the inclusion of an object, and so objects do have a prominent place in the grammar.  That is why Chinese has particles to mark objects, but no particles or syntax exclusively used to mark subjects.  Note that Chinese does have particles and syntax to mark topics and to mark agents, but this is different from marking subjects.

[Pedroski]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I think Divato is right, in "我所知道的 = All I know is" 所 is probably "所有“ That fits neatly in my text, however still leaves the word order problem ('I all know', compared to English 'All I know').

 

As for 所  as a substitute for 把 I have not come across that. Which is, of course, saying nothing!

 

Thanks a lot everyone.

 

Found this: www.zdic.net/z/1a/js/6240.htm

[Altair]

I think Divato is right, in "我所知道的 = All I know is" 所 is probably "所有“

 

所有 is now thought of as an idiomatic way of saying "all," but in origin it is simply another case of 所 indicating the object of a relative phrase.  For example, the literal meaning of 所有的人 is actually "what(ever) people there are/were" and is imply a way of turning 有人 into a relative phrase/clause.

 

As for 所  as a substitute for 把 I have not come across that. Which is, of course, saying nothing!

 

I think I explained this badly.  The words 所 and 把 are not substitutes.  They simply share a function of emphasizing the objects of verbs, but do so in different constructions and for different purposes.  In fact, 所 is never used directly in front of an overt object, while 把 is always used in front of an overt object.

 

When 所 is used in a relative phrase/clause it indicates that the head of the phrase (i.e., the noun at the end) is the "object of the verb."  There is no literal English translation possible, since English has no construction like this and no need for one.  In contrast, when 把 is used with an object in front of a verb and a complement of result, it emphasizes that the purpose of the sentence is to convey the state in which the objected ended up and not simply to identify what action was applied to the object.  If no such emphasis is possible, 把 cannot be used.

 

In contrast, English has various constructions to reinforce or identify subjects that Chinese does not need or use.  For instance, English freely uses a single passive construction to make any object the subject of a sentence.  The equivalent Chinese constructions have special constraints and often other connotations.  Often, there is no special Chinese construction at all.  English requires that some verb forms match the number of their subjects.  Chinese has nothing like this.  A final example is that in declarative sentences that do not have a clear agent/subject or a delayed agent/subject, English often requires a dummy subject, such as "there" in "there are people who..." or "it" in "it's nice to meet you."  Again, Chinese has no equivalent rules and no equivalent words.

 

In short, the problem with this special use of 所 is not only that English has nothing like it, but also that it addresses a grammatical need that English does not have.  Explaining it in terms of English grammar is therefore quite difficult. 

[imron]

I think Divato is right, in "我所知道的 = All I know

I disagree.  I don't think it means 'all I know', and don't think it should have 'all' in there at all.   I was going to write something with more explanation, but then saw Altair has already done a much better job of it than I could hope to.

 

That being said, in my experience language learning becomes a lot simpler when you stop asking 'why' and start asking 'how'.

[Pedroski]

How would you interpret these phrases from Divato then??  Do you think 所 is a particle, or a word with meaning? If it is a word, how will you interpret it in English?

 

So 我所知道的 = All I know is

所 + verb = All I v. is

 

你所能做的只是 All you can do is

你所相信的都是 All you believe is

你所说的都有道理 All you say has reason.

你所思所想 All you think

[imron]

If it is a word, how will you interpret it in English?

I would not interpret it word by word.  Word-by-word translations often turn out stilted and unnatural in their target language.  Each of those examples are not complete sentences and generally I would want at least a complete sentence to work with.  For example, in your longer example above:

 

 

 

饮料瓶要仍在专用的分类袋子里，这是我所知道的; 但我不知道的是，在扔之前，先要剥掉它外面那层彩色塑料，拿下它的瓶盖，然后才能把透明的瓶身投在专用袋里。'

I would translate it something like:

 

I knew that plastic bottles should be separated out from other rubbish for recycling, but what what I didn't know was that I should also remove the lid and any coloured wrapping from the bottle before throwing the transparent body in the appropriate bin*.

 

*assuming that the 袋子 mentioned are these sort of 袋子, which are really just bins but without a body.

 

If you really wanted to force the same sentence structure for the '这是我所知道的' part, then maybe something like 

 

'Plastic drink bottles should be separated out from other rubbish for recycling - this I already knew.  What I didn't know was...'

 

would work.  Instead of going word-by-word, think instead 'how would a normal person express this concept in <target language>'.

[Michaelyus]

 

How would you interpret these phrases from Divato then??  Do you think 所 is a particle, or a word with meaning? If it is a word, how will you interpret it in English?

 

So 我所知道的 = All I know is

所 + verb = All I v. is

 

你所能做的只是 All you can do is

你所相信的都是 All you believe is

你所说的都有道理 All you say has reason.

你所思所想 All you think

 

If you want an easy-to-convert "structural" approach, then you need to readjust your "base" equations.

 

我所知道的 = that which I know / what I know

SUBJ + 所 + VERB = that which / what SUBJ VERB

 

Occasionally you'd want to put a generic noun into the English, e.g. "something that I knew".

 

 

The "all" that you've put in comes from the 都 (and possibly from 只) and not the 所. 

[Divato]

Sorry that I made a mistake.

'What' is more accurate for 所 + verb sentence in an easy-to-convert "structural" approach

I was just thinking the original meaning of 所 is place so I thought it abstractly that 所 in 所知道的 is the brain which holds knowledge and it has a limit.

But now I realize that 所 is like a pronoun that represents object which accepts the action

所知道的 = 知道的事

It's from 百度百科

[Pedroski]

Well thanks again everybody, an interesting discussion.