wierd 的s

[Pedroski]

I have 2 的s in my text which are confusing. What are they doing?

1. "可以明确的是实习生与企业间不是劳动关系，。。。“
2. "我九月份进的这家公司，老板说前面几个月是作为实习期的。“

In 1. I think '的‘ nominalizes, but I'm not sure what it nominalizes. Maybe there is a ‘所’ understood and unspoken, '(所）可以明确的‘ = （that which） （we) can be sure of'。I don't really think '明确的‘ or '可以明确的‘ are nouns, neither in English nor in Chinese.

 

In 2. I can't see what 的 does. Nothing? Or is there a missing 是 ‘我是九月份进的这家公司’？Or is it just for the rhythm of speech? Or can I rewrite as '这家我九月份进的公司，‘? That doesn't seem right! Maybe '这家我九月份进的公司的老板说，。。。。‘

 

[stapler]

1. I would read it as a noun -  "that which can be made clear". That there is a 是 makes that even more explicit. If it wasn't a noun the 是 would be weird because it generally matches nouns to nouns.

 

2. I would read it as: "The company that I entered in September". Without the 的 it would be read as "I will enter/ I entered the company in September". Or in other words, everything before the 的 is describing "这家公司". Without the 的 you are describing you did to the company.

[Pedroski]

I would read it as a noun -  "that which can be made clear".

 

 

errm, 'it' is what? 的？？ "that which can be made clear" is probably not a noun. 'that' and 'which' are pronouns. Where did you dig up a 'that'?

 

Someone told me, I should think of this as '可以明确的东西是‘ the Chinese having conveniently left out the (abstract) noun. Someone else said 的 = what，but I can't go along with that.

 

I thought 2. was more like 'When I entered/joined this company in September, the boss said .....

 

In 1., it seems to me, the adjective 明确的 has been nominalized, which is impossible to render in English, we have to resort to a 'that'.

[Demonic_Duck]

I agree with stapler on both sentences.

 

"That which can be made clear" is a noun phrase. It functions as a noun. A pronoun is a type of noun.

 

“可以明确的” is also a noun phrase. I guess you could add “所”, but it'd be redundant as the meaning is already clear without it.

 

I should think of this as '可以明确的东西是‘

 

Correct.

 

The second sentence is a topic-comment sentence; “我九月份进的这家公司” is the topic, and as such is simply a noun phrase. I guess the whole sentence could be confusing for us non-natives as the subject (老板) is not the same as the topic (公司).

 

In the link above, you can see another example of the same thing: “这台电视，价格不太贵。” The topic is the 电视, but the subject is the 价格.

[Pedroski]

Some people tell me, 是 has been omitted in 2.

 

If I write: 我是九月份进的这家公司，老板说。。。 is that acceptable Chinese?

[stapler]

Yes you are right actually. The second sentence is a 是。。的 sentence. And yes, written in full it is 我是九月份进的这家公司. Though the 是 is often omitted (as in this case). And you could also write the sentence 我是九月份进这家公司的. The 是。。的 is used to emphasis the time you entered the company.

[edelweis]

"我九月份进的这家公司，老板说前面几个月是作为实习期的。“

I think this can't be a 是…的 structure, that would imply emphasis on 九月份 but it doesn't work here.

我九月份进的 is a simple qualifier of the noun 公司. You can remove 我九月份进的 and the sentence still works.

"我九月份进的这家公司 “，老板说。

here emphasis is on circumstance 九月份, it can be a 是...的 structure.

[Lu]

As I read it, 我九月份进的这家公司 could work both ways: either the 是 is implied and it's 我是九月份进的这家公司, or it's 'the company which I joined in September'. I'm inclined to think it's 是...的 (I already entered as early as September, but the boss says the first months count as internship), but that also depends on the rest of the context.

[edelweis]

@Lu: ah I see.... thanks.

[Pedroski]

"我九月份进的这家公司，老板说前面几个月是作为实习期的。“

 

If he joined a different company every month, I could understand that '我九月份进的' might be an adjective descriptor for '这家公司', even though it is parked outside of the ‘这家公司‘。 He probably does not swap jobs quite so often, so the adjective created by 的 probably points back at '我‘，and with this in mind he didn't bother with using '是‘。Apparently, this non-use of 是 is very common. It is sometimes hard to know what the adjective is pointing at!

[Lu]

While I half agree, 'the company I joined in September' doesn't necessarily imply that 'I' joined a different company in July and August. It can also mean that the listener knows that I joined some company in September, and you know that company I joined in September, well, [and here comes the comment].

[gaogaozhan]

 

1 我九月份进的 这家公司

2 这家我九月份进的 公司

 

Both are acceptable in Chinese.

Sentence 1 emphasizes the time; Sentence 2 on the company.

[Demonic_Duck]

I'm not at all convinced that there is an implied “是”, and as far as I can tell the sentence works perfectly well without it (as a topic-comment sentence).

[stapler]

For what it's worth I asked two native speakers and they both felt it was a 是的 sentence. I then suggested it might not be. They replied "well it's not important as you can understand the meaning either way". This blasé attitude towards precision reminders me of Classical Chinese!

[Guest realmayo]

if:

 

- this is a 是...的 structure being used to 'emphasise' something

- 是...的 structures ‘emphasise things' by placing the 是 before that thing

 

but:

 

there is no 是

 

... then I don't see how it can be a 是...的 structure being used to 'emphasise' something!!

 

And if it was, I'd expect a 但是 or something between the two clauses to highlight that 'even though x, but y'. However that's not needed if as DD says it's topic, comment.

 

So I think it's either not a 是...的-structure-being-used-to-'emphasise'-something, or it's sloppy. If it's from casual speech or messaging, it probably does't merit a massive amount of scrutiny.

[Demonic_Duck]

If it's from spoken communication, you should be able to tell whether or not it's a “是……的” sentence easily enough from the intonation.

[Pedroski]

Text is from my text book, published by '外语教学与研究出版社‘。

[stapler]

@realmayo

 

the 是 is often dropped.

 

http://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/%22Shi..._de%22_construction#.E6.98.AF_is_often_optional

[陳德聰]

I am with Lu.

I am inclined to see this as a so-called "是...的" structure but not "with the 是 dropped", as I see the 是 as optional in many cases... So it's just not there but there is not really a feeling that it needs to be there in the first place in order to be "dropped", if that makes any sense.

Either way, it is focusing the time this person entered the company, and I would not interpret it the way stapler did in #2 and edelweis did in #7 as if it is a relative clause, unless we are talking about 這家公司 and 那家公司 contrastively.

As an aside, the first question re: 的 = "what", Pedroski this is not a one-to-one equivalence of the character 的, but it is completely acceptable to translate 可以明確的是 as "what can be made clear is..." since the missing 東西 spot is filled with words like "what" and "that which" in English very very routinely.

[Pedroski]

Another aside in the long saga of the scope of 的.

 

Can you see a way to keep 今天 as the 'subject noun' of this little statement?

 

 

在经济高速发展的今天，

in economy rapidly develop 的 today，

in today's rapidly changing economy,

 

Edit: I wouldn't normally think of '今天‘ as 'these times', but 1. Chinese has no plural and 2. it fits!

 

in these economically rapidly changing times