有针对性地

[Pedroski]

I got this reply. I know in France and Gemany people complain about the 'anglicization' of the language. I didn't know this might be a problem in China.

 

"The usage of XX性 and XX地 is deeply influenced by English. '针对' itself is a verb. It is weird to convert it to adj by adding -性 or to adv by adding -地. Yet I understand such usage is popular nowadays.

And therefore I do think '有针对性' is awkward also in Chinese. '针对' should be used as follows:

企业可以针对员工的需要給予培训 Company
can provide training to employee targeted/according to their needs."

 

I can find many many examples of this format of sentence. （Just search '地给‘）

[phrase]地给[noun]verb(noun). I don't find

给[noun][phrase]地verb(noun)

but this seems ok:

[phrase]地verb(noun)给[noun]

 

I found this pdf for anyone interested in more detail. It seems a lot of people have looked at this phenomenon. http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/133290/3/FullText.pdf

 

I am convinced that Chinese will, sooner or later, explode my head!

 

 

Why do tigers have stripes? Because they don't want to be spotted!

[abcdefg]

#24 -- @Imron --
 

 

Question is why do you translate it this way...

Exactly.  That is an excellent question that deserves consideration.  I did it to point out there is no point translating things this way and reasoning about Chinese through the English language, and yet that is what Pedroski does in almost every post, and it is almost always the source of his confusion.

 

Could it be that Pedroski learned English as a second language and as a result sometimes uses it oddly? Could that be a factor which contributes to the recurring confusion? (I don't know. Haven't closely followed all these grammar threads.)

[Tiana]

'针对' itself is a verb. It is weird to convert it to adj by adding -性

 

You're completely off here, Pedrosky. I haven't seen any verb that becomes adjective when 性 is added. 针对性 is a noun, and your mistaken analyses keep taking you round the circle, I'm afraid.

[skylee]

I am not sure about #43. I don't think that is off. 針對性言語 or 採取針對性行動 are not unseen.

Actually I think #41 has a good point.

[imron]

Could that be a factor which contributes to the confusion?

I think it's more that he attempts a literal translation of the Chinese to English, and then suggests that because the English doesn't make sense that the Chinese can't make sense either.  It's not just this post either, but almost every single post.

 

I am convinced that Chinese will, sooner or later, explode my head!

I am convinced that if you stopped trying to do 1:1 mapping of Chinese -> English you would find Chinese much easier to learn.

[abcdefg]

I think it's more that he attempts a literal translation of the Chinese to English, and then suggests that because the English doesn't make sense that the Chinese can't make sense either.  It's not just this post either, but almost every single post.

 

Understood. I hope he gets the message.

[Tiana]

skylee, 针对性 is a noun, and it's not unusual for a noun to be modifying another noun (such as 学生 in 学生宿舍, 学生运动, etc. ). Pedrosky's mistake in #41 is to analyze non-existent units such as 针对性 and 针对性地 (instead of 有针对性 and 有针对性地). They are very different and would inevitably lead to different results. 

[skylee]

Great.

[Pedroski]

Hello, the quote in 41 was written by a native Chinese speaker, in response to my inquiry.

[Kamille]

Happy for you that you could find your grammato-sceptic counterpart in China.

May you two be happy ever after (though I have a feeling that's it's like the worst thing that could ever happen to you).

[陳德聰]

~性 and ~化 seem to have a similarity here in their flexibility as descriptors, but I don't know that I would classify something as an adjective solely based on its ability to function as a descriptor. Just like in #47, we see noun+noun pairs with the same relationship but we don't call those nouns adjectives for it. I think that in #41, we have someone willfully eschewing practical knowledge in favour of ideological "anti-anglicization". It's perfectly normal for a verb+性 to occur, regardless of its supposed influence from English. 溶解性，擴散性，歧視性，爆發性，刺激性... I have trouble thinking of them but just because they're not everyday words doesn't make them not words.

[Pedroski]

Thanks, I'll tell him!

 

This text has the title '汽车扩大了生活半径‘ ‘它’ = ‘WTO‘

 

In this, isn't 给 just a passivisor, with a function like 把? Otherwise we would have to read '我们带来（什么东西）‘  or '中国人的生活带来（什么东西）‘

 

。。其中中国人感触最深的当属汽车进入家庭给我们带来的种种便利，以及它给中国人的生活带来的改变。

 

I think I could rewrite something like:

 

其中应该提到它带来我们种种(的)便利，以及它带来中国人的生活的改变。

[陳德聰]

Two things:

 

1. 把 is not a passivizor. 給 can actually express the passive, though not in this example. 把 and 給's functions are not similar.

 

2. Your rewrite doesn't make sense because the direct object of 帶來 (種種便利) needs to be closer to it than the oblique object (我們). Whoever or whatever receives the 帶來的 precious gifts (in this case, 種種便利 and 改變) is the oblique object of the verb 帶來. I would call this a ditransitive verb, but I imagine there is a more accurate way to describe verbs that take 給 prepositions to denote the recipient of the action.

 

If you break down the sentence into all its arguments, you should be able to piece together the way all the players in this game are connected.

 

汽車進入家庭, 我們, 種種便利

 

If there are three players and only one verb, I think we can reasonably assume at least one of the arguments is an active party, the thing/person doing the 帶來-ing, and at least one of the arguments is what is being 帶來-ed. There are only so many possible relations, and I actually feel like this is a good example when you can use German cases as a crutch to understand the patterning. 給 signals the Dative, so 我們 must be whoever/whatever receives the direct object of 帶來. After that I suppose you can just rely on simple word order to discern which of the two remaining arguments is Nominative and which is Accusative.

[Pedroski]

Thanks.

 

So the normal Chinese word order is something like 'He for me brought a book'?

 

Can I write this somehow in this order 'bringer 带来 thing receiver? Is that possible in Chinese?

 

他带来 一本书给我。(sounds ok to me)

他给我一本书带来。 （sounds odd, or wrong)

他给我带来一本书。(sounds ok to me)

 

Just a point on the syntax: at the end of the text it says: '这都是WTO所带来的‘ with the word order ‘bringer(WTO) thing(thatwhich) 带来, which fits neatly with your explanation, if I understand you correctly.

 

The verb at the end reminds me of German subordinate clauses which place the verb last, whereas the normal position is 'verb in second place'.

 

Das ist das Buch, das(relative pronoun, Accusative) er(Nominative) mir(Dativ) brachte.

This is the book, that he me brought.

[Pedroski]

I asked if I could change 给 for 替 or 为 in

1. 他十分坦率地给我讲了他的故事.
2. 他很不情愿地给了我帮助.

I got this answer.

 

No. The words have different meanings.

Let's look at your first sentence: 他十分坦率地[给]我讲了他的故事 : He openly told me his story.

If we were to replace 给 with 替: 他十分坦率地[替]我讲了他的故事: He openly told his story for me (implying that I was supposed to be the one telling the story).

If we were to replace 给 with 为: 他十分坦率地[为]我讲了他的故事: He openly told his story to me for my sake.

In general I'm not too sure how you got the idea that they are interchangeable.

[陳德聰]

Looks like you're on the right track.

 

1. 他帶來一本書給我

2. 他給我一本書帶來

3. 他給我帶來一本書

 

(3) is correct, standard usage. (2) verges on nonsensical. (1) is not correct, but the meaning is discernible probably in part because the more important semantic relations are preserved in the syntax of 給我 as a chunk and 帶來一本書 as another.

 

As for 替 or 為 being used in place of 給, I was a bit confused when that came up in this thread the first time. I don't think they are interchangeable, and I don't think that Kamille's intention was to say that they are interchangeable. I think the point was to say that the character 給 can have many different senses, and that in some situations, it can express 替 or 為 (I also don't think the original example that was referred to expresses either of those senses). But those possible cases are much more narrow than the total possible cases where 給 can be used, so it is not helpful to think of it in terms of "interchangeable" or "not interchangeable".

[Vildhjerp]

Based on the first structure given here, would 他带给我一本书 also be acceptable? Before finding this page, I didn't know you could insert a preposition between a verb and its object.

 

That is, unless 带给 becomes a single verb in itself...

 

Note that the verbs that fit into this pattern are normally single-syllable verbs.

I took the 来 out in order to satisfy this.

[Kamille]

陳德聰, I would actually say "為员工补充能量” (maybe not really "替员工补充能量” since, as Tiana said, that construction might be confusing) but maybe I'm mistaken?

 

But yeah, that's only one use of 給 among many others. As I quoted from the http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/ :

動

交付。如：「我給他一本書。」
用某種動作對待別人。如：「給他一個教訓。」、「再給他一次機會吧！」

 

介

與。如：「送給」、「借給」、「留給」。
替、為。如：「你給我拿些吃的！」
向。如：「快給他道謝。」
被。如：「大家都給他騙了。」

 

助

加強語氣。如：「你給我閉嘴！」

In "他给我讲了他的故事" it has the meaning of 向.
In "他给了我帮助" it's a verb of the second definition.

 

I mean, it's useful to know that when 給 isn't a verb it can be used in some different fashions. Now, of course it's no use trying to brute force one definition in every case. 

[陳德聰]

I think I much prefer "给员工补充能量" to "为员工补充能量" but that's just me.

 

As for 他带给了我一本书... I am now curious about the focus implications of that vs. 他给我带了一本书 since they are both acceptable.

[Tiana]

As for 他带给了我一本书... I am now curious about the focus implications of that vs. 他给我带了一本书

 

Unless the context dictates otherwise, I'd take 给 as the main verb in the first sentence and 带 in the second.