不用‘去’了马？

[Pedroski]

Dunno how to link that from here. When I click the link button, it tries to connect to google, which the Chinese Govt. hates, so blocks. Here is the answer.

 

这里的 “去描述” 是一种连动的语法结构。

 

“去” 的用法和 “来” 基本差不多一样，既可以用在动词后也可以用在动词前，与其他动词构成的连动结构多数情况可以前后变动位置，都表示行为动作的趋向。

 

例如：

 

• 我们一会儿游泳去 /  我们一会儿去游泳

• 明天记得找他去（找我来） /  明天记得去找他（来找我）

• 我去考虑考虑 / 我考虑考虑去

• 明年去（来）乡下/  明年回乡去（来）

• 把东西去（来）送给他 / 把东西给他送去（来）

 

 

 

[MPhillips]

Many thanks!

[anonymoose]

I don't think the uses of 去 in Pedroski's previous post are the same as in the original question. Here, I think they just mean "go". Compare that with what Imron posted.

 

On the other hand, I find the last example sentence in Pedroski's link strange.

 

把东西去（来）送给他 / 把东西给他送去（来）

 

Specifically the position of 去 seems odd in 把东西去送给他. I'm not a native speaker so I may be entirely wrong here, but I'd say 去把东西送给他. Also, in 把东西给他送去, I think 去 here could have two meanings. One would be the same as 去把东西送给他, and the other would be seeing 送去 as a unit.

 

Also, it's not uncommon to see 去 used twice in the same phrase, for example 我们一会儿去游泳去. I'm not sure how to explain that observation, though it tends to happen in informal situations like internet chatting.

 

Anyway, back to the original question, I think ZhangJiang and Imron have the correct answers.

[Pedroski]

刻意地去描述浪漫的场面

 

"用在动词性短语(或介词短语)与动词之间, 表示前者是方法或态度, 后者是目的 " 随我看法就是说‘去’ = ‘地’

 

地：结构助词，用在词或词组之后表示修饰后面的谓语：慢慢～走。

 

刻意地去描述 = 刻意地地描述  已经有着‘地’不需要别的。

 

不认为是这样的

[anonymoose]

去 doesn't have the same function as 地 here.

 

However, it may be possible to omit the 地 without changing the meaning, though 去 is still requires.

[Pedroski]

Of  course you are right, '刻意地去描述浪漫的场面' already has '地‘ There is no need for 2 '地s' which is why I said I don't agree with "用在动词性短语(或介词短语)与动词之间, 表示前者是方法或态度, 后者是目的 "

 

刻意到去 = deliberate-ly（地） / painstaking -ly （地）go 【here 刻意 indicates intention, or intentionally】

 

Pleco seem to have overdefined '去‘， or their definition of this kind of use cannot apply to my sentence. Nor have I found this kind of use where 去 corresponds with 地。

 

I cannot find a Chinese dictionary which states 'this use of 去 indicates intention' , although some people have said here, 去 indicates intention.

 

The only answer I have from 百度 at the moment says, it doesn't matter whether you use the 去 before or after, its function is directional. I am not sure I agree with this, but it's all I have at the moment.

 

zdic says: 去：用在动词后，表示趋向：上去。get onto 进去 go into

 

If you read Chinese, you will find many examples  of 去 being used as in my examples. As someone above rightly pointed out, why would people use a meaningless particle so often?

 

This use corresponds neatly, but perhaps only superficially， with the English 'to infinitive', which is also an inexplicable useage. We do know that 去 has a use corresponding to 'to' or German 'hin'.

 

So I am still no wiser. If anyone has an idea, I will be very glad to hear it.

[imron]

So I am still no wiser. If anyone has an idea, I will be very glad to hear it.

ZhangJiang gave you his (correct) idea and you didn't hear it because you couldn't find it in an online Chinese dictionary.  I gave you a (correct) idea from a Chinese dictionary that explained your problem and you didn't hear it because you don't seem to be able to understand the Chinese and are incorrectly interpreting it to fit your own (incorrect) model of how Chinese works. 

 

It seems no matter how many people suggest the correct answer you are still no wiser.  Some self reflection of why that is the case might be in order, because you are making Chinese far more difficult for yourself than it needs to be.

 

I would also suggest stop trying to find an exact mapping between source text and target text.  That's a poor way to go about understanding a language (see your previous post about Jinlong Garment Co for a concrete example).

[Pedroski]

I know many people don't like it if you tell them you don't agree with their assessment. We want to be right. So we get angry.  Personally, I like it. It makes me think. Somewhere, sometime, even you must think 'Maybe I am wrong.'

 

To suggest 去 relates 方法 = manner or 态度 = attitude of doing something to a verb is to say, it functions as 地。My sentence already had a 地。

 

Try and apply that to the example sentences you quote from Pleco.

 

拿着锄头去锄地  the former is '锄头‘  the latter is '处地’ How will you render that? hoeingly hoe?

 

用先进思想去教育学生。the former is '先进思想‘ the latter is '教育’ How will you render that? advanced-thinkingly educate?

 

Personally, I'd go for 'Take the hoe to hoe the garden' or 'Use advanced ideas to educate the students.' Here you have 去 = to or go, which is very similar to English syntax.

 

I find that dictionaries very often do not offer suitable renderings of Chinese words. They make suggestions, but sometimes the suggestions do not fit the context.

 

I do not agree that 'the correct' answer has been given. But thanks for the suggestions.

 

[imron]

First of all, the example is not 'from Pleco', it's from the Guifan dictionary available through Pleco (Pleco has many dictionaries that it licences from various publishers).  I've used this dictionary for years and have found it to be an excellent resource for learners and very helpful at explaining nuances and differences for different words and usages.  I say this just to let you know that I've found it to be reliable enough that I'm happy to use it as a primary reference and haven't previously found any problems that would cause me to doubt its definitions (even less so when the definitions fit exactly the usage described here).

 

Secondly, as anonymoose pointed out earlier, you are misunderstanding the definition by thinking it makes it the same as '地’.  This is obviously wrong and any examples you derive based on this are going to be incorrect also (garbage in, garbage out).

 

The definition states that '去' is used between two parts of a sentence, where the first part is the way/method/state and the second part is goal/action/purpose.  So with the sentence 刻意地去描述  everything before the 去 (including the 地) is the 方法 or 态度 and everything after is the 目的.

 

You also need to realise that this definition is explaining a nuance in usage.  A nuance that your native speaker girlfriend didn't pick up on when she said the sentences were the same, and a nuance that zdic doesn't explain either, but one that ZhangJiang has explained well (back in post #2 so I'll not repeat his example) and one which I think the Guifan dictionary explains the reasoning behind also.

 

You can refuse to accept that explanation for as long as you like.  It's not going to change anything.

 

There is one point in your post that I think may help you accept the answer.

 

Somewhere, sometime, even you must think 'Maybe I am wrong.'

Indeed.

[Pedroski]

'去' is used between two parts of a sentence, where the first part is the way/method/state and the second part is goal/action/purpose.

 

This is a statement of the syntactical facts. It is not a definition. It is in no form or fashion an explanation of the role of 去 here. You say its role is not the same as 地。 Good, progress!

 

My question was, is 'What is 去 doing there?' 地 already fulfils the function of 'relator' between 刻意 and 去， corresponding to English -ly. （慢慢地走。）Now you say, 去 plays what part in this construction? It is just in the middle, and has no function? You and others said, you think it can't be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence, so it must have some role.

 

If its role is not 地，what is its role? What does it add to this and many many other similar sentences? Intention?

 

My thanks to Zhang Jiang. He was however not exactly 'this is how it is' "My attempt to explain (which is not very persuasive even to myself, but hope is helps)"

 

I cannot find 去 = try to

[anonymoose]

I think 去 here could be understood as "go", but not so much in the physical sense of moving away, as in the sense of initiating an action.

For example, consider the sentence, "I'm hungry, let's go and eat" (or "let's go eat" in American English). Here "go" essentially signifies the intention to eat.

Likewise 拿着锄头去锄地 could be rendered as "take the hoe and go and hoe the ground".

I guess the difference between 有权利去恋爱 and 有权利恋爱 is the difference between "have the right to go and love" and "have the right to love". In my mind, the former sounds like having the right to go and pursue a relationship, whereas the latter just sounds like having the right to have a relationship. As you can see, the former has an element of intention to it.

[Pedroski]

Thanks. Yeah, I think this useage corresponds very neatly with the English usage you mention. Strange! But others said, if you remove the 去 this will alter the meaning. My girlfriend said she will accept the sentences without 去 and the meaning stays the same. She said 'Ask them to translate the sentence with 去 and without 去.'

So sometimes we get this 'go and do' usage, and sometimes 'to infinitive' usage.

Here are a couple more sentences from my collection of these.

 

我们花了更多的钱去作各方面景观的设计。

 

 

 

那不需要马上去做。= You don't need to go and do this right away.  =  You don't need to do this right away (I can't see any difference of meaning here)

 

 

人们为了摆脱贫困而去拼命挣钱，可是，没想到，如果把握不好，金钱反而会给我们带来新的贫困。

 

 

他们不会把爱理解为去爱别人。

 

If you take out the 去， do you see a shift in meaning, or a loss of good style?

 

ps '有权利去恋爱' '有权利恋爱' Personally I would render both as 'have the right to love' I quite like zdic.net, and they have no explanation of 去 as intention.

 

lang-8.com/983754/journals/216133695601207049029722828834883309306

[anonymoose]

I think there is a difference in meaning, but whether it is significant or not is really context dependent, and specifically, how to translate it into English is also context dependent. ZhangJiang gave fairly good examples in his first post.

[Pedroski]

Can you say at all what difference you see? Can you find a Chinese dictionary which has an entry '去： can be used to indicate intention'

 

I posted some examples on the lang8 site which Imron recommended, and ask the people, ‘If I leave out the 去， will that a) alter the meaning at all and b) will the Chinese still be acceptable?

 

I got a) no and b) yes answers up to now.

 

This is like trying to find an difference between:

 

I'm gonna go and eat something.

I'm gonna go eat something.

I'm gonna eat something.

 

To my mind, these all mean exactly the same. '我去吃东西。‘

[Demonic_Duck]

For someone who pays such close attention to tiny grammatical nuances, that seems like a pretty sloppy translation...

 

I'd go with “我要去吃些什么。”

[Pedroski]

Never said my Chinese was good! Sorry!

 

This is not a nuance, or something you meet once in a blue moon. This use of 去 is very common in Chinese, as you can easily  confirm by looking through any text. It corresponds rather neatly with English 'go and do sth' or 'to infinitive'. That is my interest in it.

[anonymoose]

This is like trying to find an difference between:

 

I'm gonna go and eat something.

I'm gonna go eat something.

I'm gonna eat something.

 

Like I said, whether there's a significant difference depends on the context. Out of context, it is indeed difficult to put one's finger on it.

 

But imagine this situation. You are already sitting at the dinner table, which already has food arranged on it. You are just waiting for the last person to arrive so you can all start eating, but you are so hungry that you can't wait any longer, so you say, "I'm gonna eat something", and proceed to grab a bite. In this context, would it make sense to say, "I'm gonna go and eat something"?

[陳德聰]

I don't know why you are obsessed with finding 1:1 mappings for everything between Chinese and English. They're different languages. Not every language even has all the same possible functions to be expressed in the first place, so why is it so difficult to entertain the possibility that this 去's simply can't be expressed in terms of English without contextual support? To me, the meaning is similar to that of "gone and" as in "Look what you've gone and done", but the English version is almost non-existant whereas the Chinese 去 is commonplace, and can almost always be subtituted by 来 without becoming ungrammatical (despite changing the meaning).

 

I have always been under the impression 去 here expresses a type of abstract directionality that is not far from the basic meaning of 去 and 来 you already expanded on. Verbs have a dimension of directionality in Chinese that we aren't usually cognisant of when speaking English. E.g. 跑过来 vs 跑过去 run over (towards speaker) vs run over (away from speaker). But the lack of a 1:1 mapping to an English word that performs the same function doesn't seem to confound you here as it does in your example, so you naturally feel they must be totally different things right? The difference between 刻意地去做某件事情 and 刻意地做某件事情 is not translatable into English, but it's clear that the second lacks this directionality I'm proposing. Some people might think 做 entails 去做, but to me 刻意地做某件事情 is similar to an uninflected plain statement of action. I was pleased when I saw ZhangJiang's answer because it confirmed this notion that has been floating in my head.

That being said, the 去 is not necessary in order to maintain grammatical "correct"ness (bane of anyone's existence when trying to discuss with Chinese native speakers), but it's unlikely that we can all agree on whether without it, your first example, and subsequent examples sound okay or not.

Since sentence meanings are not always fully compositional anyway (basic rule of language), let's just do acceptability tests:

我们花了更多的钱去作各方面景观的设计。acceptable
我们花了更多的钱作各方面景观的设计。acceptable but has a weird element to it

那不需要马上去做。acceptable

那不需要马上做。acceptable

人们为了摆脱贫困而去拼命挣钱，可是，没想到，如果把握不好，金钱反而会给我们带来新的贫困。acceptable

人们为了摆脱贫困而拼命挣钱，可是，没想到，如果把握不好，金钱反而会给我们带来新的贫困。acceptable but has a weird element to it

 

他们不会把爱理解为去爱别人。acceptable

他们不会把爱理解为爱别人。acceptable

Those are my intuitions, and on the very first day of the very first linguistics class I ever took, I recall we did a survey of the 300 or so students on three English sentences and asked them to rank them as "acceptable, acceptable but not preferrable, and unacceptable". There was clearly one unacceptable sentence, but the other two sentences were apparently designed to be contentious, and indeed they were. The 1st sentence was mostly deemed "acceptable" with a few "acceptable but not preferrable" and no "unacceptable", but the 2nd sentence was almost half and half with a few "unacceptable" votes. Take that for what you will, though I would say it suggests that there is not a lot of merit in determining the difference in acceptability of the two forms rather than just accepting the more frequent of the two.

[Pedroski]

Thank you both for the comments. Both were very informative and are well noted! Maybe I am 1:1 obsessive compulsive!

 

Redundance is a part of language. The only explanation I have heard for this is, spoken language is so fleeting, redundance  became a strategy to ensure 'the message gets over'. This 去 is I believe redundant, but stylistic and prosidic constraints may lead one speaker to use 去 more often than another. The message remains the same.

 

Thank you for reminding me that Chinese is not English. I had suspected they were all talking Geordie,  which I am at a loss to understand!

 

Next time I have a question, I will post the whole paragraph to give more context!

 

Leave 'em laughing when you go: What do you call a Mexican with a rubber toe?

 

Roberto!